We have located links that may give you full text access.
Caesarean section rates in subgroups of women and perinatal outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To identify factors that are associated with a relatively low caesarean section (CS) rate by examining the CS rate in various subgroups in the Netherlands.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis.
SETTINGS: the Netherlands.
POPULATION: A total of 685 452 births in the Netherlands Perinatal Registry from 2007 to 2010.
METHODS: A modified classification system for CS was used to categorise all women into ten groups. Labour management, mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality were assessed according to these ten groups.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Caesarean section, labour induction, instrumental delivery, postpartum haemorrhage, perineal laceration, duration of second stage of labour, Apgar score, fetal and neonatal mortality.
RESULTS: Total CS rate was 15.6%. Term, nulliparous and parous women with a singleton pregnancy of a fetus in cephalic position and spontaneous onset of labour had CS rates of 9.6 and 1.9% and instrumental birth rates of 19.4 and 2.4%, respectively; 17.3% of births were induced. Among women with a previous CS and term, singleton pregnancies with a fetus in cephalic presentation, 71% had trial of labour, of which 75% had a successful vaginal birth. Of women with multiple gestation, 43% had CS. Women with CS due to 'failure to progress' in the second stage of labour had a median duration of second-stage pushing of almost 2 hours in nulliparas and >90 minutes in parous women.
CONCLUSIONS: Several obstetric practice patterns may have contributed to the relatively low overall CS rate in the Netherlands: a relatively low CS rate in term, singleton pregnancies of a fetus in cephalic position and spontaneous onset of labour, relatively low rate of labour induction, a high rate of a trial of labour after a previous CS, the use of vacuum and forceps, and a high proportion of women being taken care of by midwives.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: The Netherlands has several practice patterns that may have contributed to its relatively low CS rate.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis.
SETTINGS: the Netherlands.
POPULATION: A total of 685 452 births in the Netherlands Perinatal Registry from 2007 to 2010.
METHODS: A modified classification system for CS was used to categorise all women into ten groups. Labour management, mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality were assessed according to these ten groups.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Caesarean section, labour induction, instrumental delivery, postpartum haemorrhage, perineal laceration, duration of second stage of labour, Apgar score, fetal and neonatal mortality.
RESULTS: Total CS rate was 15.6%. Term, nulliparous and parous women with a singleton pregnancy of a fetus in cephalic position and spontaneous onset of labour had CS rates of 9.6 and 1.9% and instrumental birth rates of 19.4 and 2.4%, respectively; 17.3% of births were induced. Among women with a previous CS and term, singleton pregnancies with a fetus in cephalic presentation, 71% had trial of labour, of which 75% had a successful vaginal birth. Of women with multiple gestation, 43% had CS. Women with CS due to 'failure to progress' in the second stage of labour had a median duration of second-stage pushing of almost 2 hours in nulliparas and >90 minutes in parous women.
CONCLUSIONS: Several obstetric practice patterns may have contributed to the relatively low overall CS rate in the Netherlands: a relatively low CS rate in term, singleton pregnancies of a fetus in cephalic position and spontaneous onset of labour, relatively low rate of labour induction, a high rate of a trial of labour after a previous CS, the use of vacuum and forceps, and a high proportion of women being taken care of by midwives.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: The Netherlands has several practice patterns that may have contributed to its relatively low CS rate.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app