Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T10:17:22.659Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 12 - Technique for Cesarean Delivery

from Section 3 - Pathology of Labor and Labor and Delivery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2017

By
S.A. Scherjon ,
J.G. Nijhuis  and
W.J.A. Gyselaers
Edited by
P. Joep Dörr ,
Vincent M. Khouw ,
Frank A. Chervenak ,
Amos Grunebaum ,
Yves Jacquemyn  and
Jan G. Nijhuis
P. Joep Dörr
Affiliation:
HMC Haaglanden Medical Centre, The Hague
Vincent M. Khouw
Affiliation:
VMK Designs, Utrecht
Frank A. Chervenak
Affiliation:
NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital
Amos Grunebaum
Affiliation:
NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital
Yves Jacquemyn
Affiliation:
Antwerp University Hospital
Jan G. Nijhuis
Affiliation:
Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Obstetric Interventions , pp. 181 - 210
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Leith, CR, Walker, JJ. The rise in caesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;105:621–6.Google Scholar
Wax, JR. Maternal request cesarean versus planned spontaneous vaginal delivery: maternal morbidity and short term outcomes. Semin Perinatol. 2006;30:247–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 559: Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:904–7.Google Scholar
Liu, S, Liston, RM, Joseph, KS, et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. CMAJ. 2007;176:455–60.Google Scholar
Ecker, JL, Frigoletto, FD. Cesarean delivery and the risk–benefit calculus. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:885–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Althabe, F, Sosa, C, Belizan, JM, et al. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth. 2006;33:270–7.Google Scholar
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. NICE Clinical Guideline. Caesarean section. Commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. London: RCOG Press, 2004. http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/CG013fullguideline.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hofmeyr, GJ, Smaill, FM. Antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;3:CD000933. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000933, 2002.Google Scholar
Costantine, MM, Rahman, M, Ghulmiyah, L, et al. Timing of perioperative antibiotics for cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:301.e1–6.Google Scholar
Tita, AT, Rouse, DJ, Blackwell, S, et al. Emerging concepts in antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean delivery: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:675–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamont, RF, Sobel, JD, Kusanovic, JP, et al. Current debate on the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section. BJOG. 2011;118:193–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, SB, Lin, SN, Reiss, J, Skupski, D, Grunebaum, A. Peripartum thromboprophylaxis before and after implementation of a uniform heparin protocol. J Perinat Med. 2014;42:219–23.Google Scholar
Quiñones, JN, James, DN, Stamilio, DM, et al. Thromboprophylaxis after cesarean delivery: a decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:733–40.Google Scholar
Su, LL, Chong, YS, Samuel, M. Carbetocin for preventing postpartum haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;4:CD005457.Google Scholar
Borruto, F, Treiser, A, Comparetto, C. Utilization of carbetocin for prevention of postpartum hemorrhage after caesarean section: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280(5):707–12. DOI 10.1007/S00404-009–0973-8.Google Scholar
Peters, NCJ, Duvekot, JJ. Carbetocin for the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage. A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2009;64:129–35.Google Scholar
Cluver, C, Novikova, N, Hofmeyr, GJ, et al. Maternal position during caesarean section for preventing maternal and neonatal complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD007623. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007623.Google Scholar
Senanayake, H. Elective cesarean section without urethral catheterization. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;31:32–7.Google Scholar
Usta, IM, Hobeika, EM, Musa, AA, et al. Placenta previa-accreta: risk factors and complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1045–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, SL, Koonings, PP, Phelan, JP. Placenta previa/accreta and prior cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;66:89–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Mazouni, C, Gorincour, G, Juhan, V, et al. Placenta accreta: a review of current advances in prenatal diagnosis. Placenta. 2007;28:599–603.Google Scholar
Wu, S, Kocherginsky, M, Hibbard, JU. Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1458–61.Google Scholar
Rac, MW, Dashe, JS, Wells, CE, et al. Ultrasound predictors of placental invasion: the Placenta Accreta Index. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:343.e1–7.Google Scholar
Comstock, CH. Antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:89–96.Google Scholar
Su, TM, Lan, CM, Yang, LC, et al. Brain tumor presenting with fatal herniation following delivery under epidural anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:508–9.Google Scholar
Butwick, AJ, Carvalho, B. Neuraxial anesthesia in obstetric patients receiving anticoagulant and antithrombotic drugs. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2010;19:193–201.Google Scholar
Jenkins, JG, Khan, MM. Anaesthesia for caesarean section: a survey in a UK region from 1992 to 2002. Anaesthesia. 2003;58:1114–18.Google Scholar
Hager, RME, Daltveit, AK, Hofoss, D, et al. Complications of cesarean deliveries: rates and risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;109:428–32.Google Scholar
Afolabi, BB, Lesio, FEA. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD004350.Google Scholar
Ong, BY, Cohen, MM, Palahniuk, RJ. Anesthesia for cesarean section – effects on neonates. Anesth Analg. 1989;100:50–4.Google Scholar
Lagrew, DC, Bush, MC, McKeown, AM, et al. Emergent (crash) cesarean delivery indications and outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1638–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abrams, B, Parker, J. Overweight and pregnancy complications. Int J Obes. 1988;12:293–303.Google Scholar
Soens, MA, Birnbach, DJ, Ranasinghe, JS, et al. Obstetric anesthesia for the obese and morbidly obese patient: an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of treatment. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008;52:6–19.Google Scholar
Hood, DD, Dewan, DM. Anesthetic and obstetric outcome in morbidly obese patients. Anesthesiology. 1993;79:1210–18.Google Scholar
Munnur, U, de Boisblanc, B, Suresh, MS. Airway problems in pregnancy. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(suppl 10):S259–68.Google Scholar
Jordan, H, Perlow, MD, Mark, A, et al. Massive maternal obesity and perioperative caesarean morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:560–5.Google Scholar
Rothrock, RA, Kabiru, W, Kelbick, N, et al. Maternal obesity and postcesarean infectious morbidity. Obstet Gynecol. 2006:107:675.Google Scholar
Terris, DJ, Seybt, MW, Elchoufi, M, et al. Cosmetic thyroid surgery: defining the essential principles. Laryngoscope. 2007;117:1169–72.Google Scholar
Hasselgren, PO, Hagberg, E, Malmer, H, et al. One instead of two knives for surgical incision. Does it increase the risk of postoperative wound infection? Arch Surg. 1984;119:917–20.Google Scholar
Lipscomb, GH, Givens, VM. Preventing electrosurgical energy-related injuries. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2010;37:369–77.Google Scholar
Kearns, SR, Connolly, EM, McNally, S, et al. Randomized clinical trial of diathermy versus scalpel incision in elective midline laparotomy Br J Surg. 2001;88:41–4.Google Scholar
Makoha, FW, Fathuddien, MA, Felimban, HM. Choice of abdominal incision and risk of trauma to the uterine bladder and bowel in multiple cesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;125:50–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loos, MJ, Scheltinga, MR, Mulders, LG, Roumen, RM. The Pfannenstiel incision as a source of chronic pain. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:839–46.Google Scholar
Joel-Cohen, S. Abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies. New techniques based on time and motion studies. London: W Heinemann Books, 1972, p.170.Google Scholar
Stark, M. Clinical evidence that suturing the peritoneum after laparotomy is unnecessary. World J Surg. 1993;17:419.Google Scholar
Stark, M, Finkel, AR. Comparison between the Joel-Cohen and Pfannenstiel incisions in caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1994;53:121–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohlagschwandter, M, Ruecklinger, E, Husslein, P, et al. Is the formation of a bladder flap at cesarean necessary? A randomised trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:1089–92.Google Scholar
Mahajan, NN. Justifying formation of bladder flap at cesarean section? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;279:853–5.Google Scholar
Tuuli, MG, Odibo, AO, Fogertey, P, et al. Utility of the bladder flap at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:815–21.Google Scholar
Stark, M, Chavkin, Y, Kupfersztain, C, et al. Evaluation of combinations of procedures in cesarean section. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1993;48:273–6.Google Scholar
Holmgren, G, Sjoholm, L, Stark, M. The Misgav-Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999;78:615–21.Google Scholar
Kadir, RA, Khan, A, Wilcock, F, Chapman, L. Is inferior dissection of the rectus sheath necessary during pfannenstiel incision for lower segment caesarean section? A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;128:262–6.Google Scholar
Giacalone, PL, Daures, JP, Vignal, J, et al. Pfannenstiel verus Maylard incision for cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:745–50.Google Scholar
Tixier, H, Thouvenot, S, Coulange, L, et al. Cesarean section in morbidly obese women: supra or subumbilical transverse incision? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:1049–52.Google Scholar
Hema, KR, Johanson, R. Techniques for performing caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15:17–47.Google Scholar
Magann, EF, Chauhan, SP, Bufkin, L, et al. Intra-operative haemorrhage by blunt versus sharp expansion of the uterine incision at caesarean delivery a randomised clinical study. BJOG. 2002;109:448–52.Google Scholar
Dodd, JM, Anderson, ER, Gates, S. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD004732. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004732.pub2.Google Scholar
Cromi, A, Ghezzi, F, Di Naro, E, et al. Blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision at caesarean delivery a randomised comparison of 2 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:292.e1–6.Google Scholar
Picone, O, Fubini, A, Doumere, S, et al. Cesarean delivery by posterior hysterotomy due to torsion of the pregnant uterus. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:533–5.Google Scholar
Gilson, GJ, Kephart, WH, Izquierdo, LA, et al. Comparison of absorbable uterine staples and traditional hysterotomy during cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:384–8.Google Scholar
Levy, R, Chernomoretz, T, Appelman, Z, et al. Head pushing versus reverse breech extraction in cases of impacted head during Cesarean section Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;121:24–6.Google Scholar
Bastani, P, Pourabolghasem, S, Abbasalizadeh, F, Motvalli, L. Comparison of neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with head-pushing and head-pulling for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;118:1–3. Erratum in Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;119:292.Google Scholar
Owens, M, Bhullar, A, Carlan, SJ, O’Brien, WF, Hirano, K. Effect of fundal pressure on maternal to fetal microtransfusion at the time of cesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2003;29:152–6.Google Scholar
David, M, Halle, H, Lichtenegger, W, et al. Nitroglycerin to facilitate fetal extraction during cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:119–24.Google Scholar
Dodd, JM, Reid, K. Tocolysis for assisting delivery at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2:CD004944. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004944.Google Scholar
Smith, GN, Brien, JF. Use of nitroglycerin for uterine relaxation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1998;53:559–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clift, K, Clift, J. Uterine relaxation during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia: a survey of UK obstetric anaesthetists. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2008;17:374–5.Google Scholar
Anorlu, RI, Maholwana, B, Hofmeyr, GJ. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;3:CD004737. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004737.pub2.Google Scholar
Hidar, S, Jennane, TM, Bouguizane, S, et al. The effect of placental removal method at caesarean section delivery on preoperative hemorrhage: a randomized clinical trial ISRCTN 49779257. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;117:179–82.Google Scholar
Dehbashi, S, Honarvar, M, Fardi, FH. Manual removal or spontaneous placental delivery and postcesarean endometritis and bleeding. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;86:12–15.Google Scholar
Morales, M, Ceysens, G, Jastrow, N, et al. Spontaneous delivery or manual removal of the placenta during caesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. BJOG. 2004;111:908–12.Google Scholar
van Rheenen, P. Delayed cord clamping and improved infant outcomes. BMJ. 2011;343:d7127.Google Scholar
Andersson, O, Hellström-Westas, L, Andersson, D, Clausen, J, Domellöf, M. Effects of delayed compared with early umbilical cord clamping on maternal postpartum hemorrhage and cord blood gas sampling: a randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(5):567–74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600–0412.2012.01530.Google Scholar
Andersson, O, Hellström-Westas, L, Andersson, D, Domellöf, M. Effect of delayed versus early umbilical cord clamping on neonatal outcomes and iron status at 4 months: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d7157.Google Scholar
Timor-Tritsch, IE, Monteagudo, A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:14–29.Google Scholar
RCOG. Guideline no. 27: Placenta praevia, placenta praevia accreta and vasa praevia: diagnosis and management, 2011. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg27Google Scholar
Vrachnis, N, Iavazzo, C, Salakos, N, et al. Uterine tamponade balloon for the management of massive hemorrhage during cesarean section due to placenta previa/increta. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39:255–7.Google Scholar
Ishii, T, Sawada, K, Koyama, S, et al. Balloon tamponade during cesarean section is useful for severe post-partum hemorrhage due to placenta previa. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2012;38:102–7.Google Scholar
Penotti, M, Vercellini, P, Bolis, G, Fedele, L. Compressive suture of the lower uterine segment for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage due to complete placenta previa: a preliminary study. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2012;73:314–20.Google Scholar
Amorim-Costa, C, Mota, R, Rebelo, C, Silva, PT. Uterine compression sutures for postpartum hemorrhage: is routine postoperative cavity evaluation needed? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:701–6.Google Scholar
Jacobs-Jokhan, D, Hofmeyr, GJ. Extra-abdominal versus intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD000085. DOI: 10.1002Z14651858.CD000085.pub2.Google Scholar
Coutinho, IC, Ramos de Amorim, MM, Katz, L, et al. Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:639–47.Google Scholar
Orji, EO, Olaleye, AO, Loto, OM, Ogunniyi, SO. A randomised controlled trial of uterine exteriorisation and non-exteriorisation at caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;48:570–4.Google Scholar
Wahab, MA, Karantis, P, Eccersley, PS, et al. A randomised, controlled study of uterine exteriorisation and repair at caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:913–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siddiqui, M, Goldszmidt, E, Fallah, S, et al. Complications of exteriorized compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:570–5.Google Scholar
Nafisi, S. Influence of uterine exteriorization versus in situ repair on post-cesarean maternal pain: a randomized trial. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2007;16:135–8.Google Scholar
Ozbay, K. Exteriorized versus in-situ repair of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:155–8.Google Scholar
Kearns, SR, Connolly, EM, McNally, S, et al. Infection rates after cesarean delivery with exteriorized versus intraperitoneal uterine closure. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:68–95.Google Scholar
CAESAR Study Collaborative Group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG. 2010;117:1366–76.Google Scholar
Hamar, BD, Saber, SB, Cackovic, M, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial of one- and two-layer closure. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:808–13.Google Scholar
Lal, K, Tomso, K. Comparative study of single and conventional closure of uterine incision in cesarean section. Int J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;27:349–52.Google Scholar
Chapman, SJ, Owen, J, Hauth, JC. One- versus two-layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:16–18.Google Scholar
Bujold, E, Bujold, C, Hamilton, EF, et al. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1326–30.Discussion: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;189:895–6.Google Scholar
Roberge, S, Chaillet, N, Boutin, A, et al. Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;115:5–10.Google Scholar
Berghella, V, Baxter, JK, Chauhun, SP. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1607–17.Google Scholar
Oligbo, N, Revicky, V, Udeh, R. Pomeroy technique or Filshie clips for postpartum sterilisation? Retrospective study on comparison between Pomeroy procedure and Filshie clips for a tubal occlusion at the time of Caesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;28:1073–5.Google Scholar
Ozyer, S, Moraloğlu, O, Gülerman, C, et al. Tubal sterilization during cesarean section or as an elective procedure? Effect on the ovarian reserve. Contraception. 2012;86:488–93.Google Scholar
Nelson, AL, Chen, S, Eden, R. Intraoperative placement of the Copper T-380 intrauterine devices in women undergoing elective cesarean delivery: a pilot study. Contraception. 2009;80:81–3.Google Scholar
Grundsell, HS, Rizk, DEE, Kumar, MR. Randomized study of non-closure of peritoneum in lower segment cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;77:110–15.Google Scholar
Makoha, FW, Felimban, HM, Fathuddien, MA, et al. Multiple cesarean section morbidity. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2004;68:227–32.Google Scholar
Nabhan, AF. Long-term outcomes of two different surgical techniques for cesarean. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;100:69–75.Google Scholar
Kapustian, V, Anteby, EY, Gdalevich, M, et al. Effect of closure versus nonclosure of peritoneum at cesarean section on adhesions: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:56.e1–4.Google Scholar
Shi, Z, Ma, L, Yang, Y, et al. Adhesion formation after previous caesarean section–a meta-analysis and systematic review. BJOG. 2011;118:410–22.Google Scholar
Bamigboje, AA, Hofmeyr, GJ. Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;4:CD000163. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000163.Google Scholar
Rafique, Z, Shibli, KU, Russell, LF, et al. A randomised controlled trial of the closure or non-closure of peritoneum at caesarean section: effect on post-operative pain. BJOG. 2002;109:694–8.Google Scholar
Zareian, Z, Zareian, P. Non-closure versus closure of peritoneum during cesarean section: a randomized study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;128:267–9.Google Scholar
Lyell, DJ, Caughy, AB, Hu, E, et al. Peritoneal closure at primary cesarean delivery and adhesions. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:275–80.Google Scholar
Anderson, ER, Gates, S. Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD004663. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004663.pub2.Google Scholar
Gaertner, I, Burkhardt, T, Beinder, E. Scar appearance of different skin and subcutaneous tissue closure techniques in caesarean section: a randomized study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;138:29–33.Google Scholar
Alderdice, F, McKenna, D, Dorman, J. Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library Issue 2. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2004.Google Scholar
Clay, FSH, Walsh, CA, Walsh, SR. Staples vs subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;202:378–83.Google Scholar
Rousseau, J-A, Girard, K, Turcot-Lemay, L, Thomas, N. A randomized study comparing skin closure in cesarean sections: staples vs subcuticular sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:265.e1–4.Google Scholar
Ferrari, AG, Frigero, LG, Candotti, G, et al. Can Joel-Cohen incision and single layer reconstruction reduce cesarean section morbidity? Int J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;72:135–43.Google Scholar
Mathai, M, Hofmeyr, GJ. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;1:CD004453. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004453.pub2.Google Scholar
Hofmeyr, GJ, Mathai, M, Shah, AN, et al. Techniques for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;1:CD004662. DOI: 10.1002Z14651858.CD004662.pub2.Google Scholar
Joura, EA, Nather, A, Husslein, P. Non-closure of peritoneum and adhesions: the repeat caesarean section (letter). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80;286.Google Scholar
Wechter, ME, Pearlman, MD, Hartmann, KE. Reclosure of the disrupted laparotomy wound: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:376–83.Google Scholar
Hansen, AK, Wisborg, K, Uldbjerg, N, et al. Elective caesarean section and respiratory morbidity in the term and near-term neonate. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86:389–94.Google Scholar
Gerten, KA, Coonrod, DV, Bay, RC, et al. Cesarean delivery and respiratory distress syndrome: does labor make a difference? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1061–4.Google Scholar
LeRay, C, Boithias, C, Castaigne-Meary, V, et al. Caesarean before labour between 34 and 37 weeks: what are the risk factors of severe neonatal repiratory distress? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;127:56–60.Google Scholar
van den Berg, A, van Elburg, RM, van Geijn, HP, et al. Neonatal respiratory morbidity following elective caesarean section in term infants: a 5-year retrospective study and a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;98:9–13.Google Scholar
Jain, L, Dudell, GG. Respiratory transition in infants delivered by cesarean section. Semin Perinatol. 2006;30:296–304.Google Scholar
Morrison, JJ, Rennie, JM, Milton, PJ. Neonatal respiratory failure after elective repeat cesarean delivery: a potential preventable condition leading to extracorporal membrane oxygenation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:101–6.Google Scholar
Hansen, AK, Wisborg, K, Uldbjerg, N, et al. Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective caesarean section: cohort study. BMJ. 2008;236:85–7.Google Scholar
Kolas, T, Saugstad, OD, Daltveit, AK, et al. Planned cesarean versus planned vaginal delivery at term: comparison of newborn infant outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1538–43.Google Scholar
Stutchfield, P, Whitaker, R, Russell, I. Antenatal betamethasone and incidence of neonatal respiratory distress after elective caesarean section: pragmatic randomized trial. BMJ. 2005;331:662.Google Scholar
Smith, J, Plaat, F, Fisk, NM. The natural caesarean: a women-centered technique. BJOG. 2008;115:1037–42.Google Scholar
Faiz, AS, Annath, CV. Etiology and risk factors for placenta previa: an overview and meta-analysis of observational studies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003;13:175–90.Google Scholar
Gilliam, M, Rosenberg, D, Davis, F. The likelihood of placenta previa with greater number of cesarean deliveries and higher parity. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:976–80.Google Scholar
Silver, RM, Landon, MB, Rouse, RJ, et al, for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1126–32.Google Scholar
Mozurkewich, EL, Hutton, EK. Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:1187–97.Google Scholar
Smith, GCS, Peil, JP, Dobbie, R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet. 2003;362:1779–84.Google Scholar
Salihu, MH, Sharma, PP, Kristensen, S, et al. Risk of stillbirth following a cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:383–90.Google Scholar
Smith, GC, Peil, JP, Cameron, AD, et al. Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287:2684–90.Google Scholar
Smith, GCS, Wood, AM, Peil, JP, et al. First cesarean birth and subsequent fertility. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:90–5.Google Scholar
Katz, V, Balderston, K, DeFreest, M. Perimortem cesarean delivery: were our assumptions correct? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1916–21.Google Scholar
Su, LL, Chong, YS, Samuel, M. Oxytocin agonists for preventing postpartum hemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;3:CD005457. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005457.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×