Talk:Birth - Caesarean Delivery

From Embryology
About Discussion Pages  
Mark Hill.jpg
On this website the Discussion Tab or "talk pages" for a topic has been used for several purposes:
  1. References - recent and historic that relates to the topic
  2. Additional topic information - currently prepared in draft format
  3. Links - to related webpages
  4. Topic page - an edit history as used on other Wiki sites
  5. Lecture/Practical - student feedback
  6. Student Projects - online project discussions.
Links: Pubmed Most Recent | Reference Tutorial | Journal Searches

Glossary Links

Glossary: A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | Numbers | Symbols | Term Link

Cite this page: Hill, M.A. (2021, April 12) Embryology Birth - Caesarean Delivery. Retrieved from

original page Birth Notes - caesarian

10 Most Recent Papers

Note - This sub-heading shows an automated computer PubMed search using the listed sub-heading term. References appear in this list based upon the date of the actual page viewing. Therefore the list of references do not reflect any editorial selection of material based on content or relevance. In comparison, references listed on the content page and discussion page (under the publication year sub-headings) do include editorial selection based upon relevance and availability. (More? Pubmed Most Recent)

Caesarean Birth

<pubmed limit=5>Caesarean Birth</pubmed>

Caesarean Delivery

<pubmed limit=5>Caesarean Delivery</pubmed>


Could Revision of the Embryology Influence Our Cesarean Delivery Technique: Towards an Optimized Cesarean Delivery for Universal Use

AJP Rep. 2016 Jul;6(3):e352-e354. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1593444.

Stark M1, Mynbaev O2, Vassilevski Y3, Rozenberg P4.


Until today, there is no standardized Cesarean Section method and many variations exist. The main variations concern the type of abdominal incision, usage of abdominal packs, suturing the uterus in one or two layers, and suturing the peritoneal layers or leaving them open. One of the questions is the optimal location of opening the uterus. Recently, omission of the bladder flap was recommended. The anatomy and histology as results from the embryological knowledge might help to solve this question. The working thesis is that the higher the incision is done, the more damage to muscle tissue can take place contrary to incision in the lower segment, where fibrous tissue prevails. In this perspective, a call for participation in a two-armed prospective study is included, which could result in an optimal, evidence-based Cesarean Section for universal use.

KEYWORDS: bladder flap; bladder plica; cesarean delivery; hysterotomy PMID 28078171 DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1593444


A Systematic Review of the Robson Classification for Caesarean Section: What Works, Doesn't Work and How to Improve It

PLoS One. 2014 Jun 3;9(6):e97769. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097769. eCollection 2014.

Betrán AP1, Vindevoghel N2, Souza JP3, Gülmezoglu AM1, Torloni MR4.


BACKGROUND: Caesarean sections (CS) rates continue to increase worldwide without a clear understanding of the main drivers and consequences. The lack of a standardized internationally-accepted classification system to monitor and compare CS rates is one of the barriers to a better understanding of this trend. The Robson's 10-group classification is based on simple obstetrical parameters (parity, previous CS, gestational age, onset of labour, fetal presentation and number of fetuses) and does not involve the indication for CS. This classification has become very popular over the last years in many countries. We conducted a systematic review to synthesize the experience of users on the implementation of this classification and proposed adaptations. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched. A three-step thematic synthesis approach and a qualitative metasummary method were used. RESULTS: 232 unique reports were identified, 97 were selected for full-text evaluation and 73 were included. These publications reported on the use of Robson's classification in over 33 million women from 31 countries. According to users, the main strengths of the classification are its simplicity, robustness, reliability and flexibility. However, missing data, misclassification of women and lack of definition or consensus on core variables of the classification are challenges. To improve the classification for local use and to decrease heterogeneity within groups, several subdivisions in each of the 10 groups have been proposed. Group 5 (women with previous CS) received the largest number of suggestions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Robson classification is increasing rapidly and spontaneously worldwide. Despite some limitations, this classification is easy to implement and interpret. Several suggested modifications could be useful to help facilities and countries as they work towards its implementation.

PMID 24892928


Caesarean delivery and subsequent stillbirth or miscarriage: systematic review and meta-analysis

PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54588. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054588. Epub 2013 Jan 23.

O'Neill SM1, Kearney PM, Kenny LC, Khashan AS, Henriksen TB, Lutomski JE, Greene RA.


OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of stillbirth and miscarriage in a subsequent pregnancy in women with a previous caesarean or vaginal delivery. DESIGN: Systematic review of the published literature including seven databases: CINAHL; the Cochrane library; Embase; Medline; PubMed; SCOPUS and Web of Knowledge from 1945 until November 11(th) 2011, using a detailed search-strategy and cross-checking of reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies examining the association between previous caesarean section and subsequent stillbirth or miscarriage risk. Two assessors screened titles to identify eligible studies, using a standardised data abstraction form and assessed study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: 11 articles were included for stillbirth, totalling 1,961,829 pregnancies and 7,308 events. Eight eligible articles were included for miscarriage, totalling 147,017 pregnancies and 12,682 events. Pooled estimates across the stillbirth studies were obtained using random-effect models. Among women with a previous caesarean an increase in odds of 1.23 [95% CI 1.08, 1.40] for stillbirth was yielded. Subgroup analyses including unexplained stillbirths yielded an OR of 1.47 [95% CI 1.20, 1.80], an OR of 2.11 [95% CI 1.16, 3.84] for explained stillbirths and an OR of 1.27 [95% CI 0.95, 1.70] for antepartum stillbirths. Only one study reported adjusted estimates in the miscarriage review, therefore results are presented individually. CONCLUSIONS: Given the recent revision of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines (NICE), providing women the right to request a caesarean, it is essential to establish whether mode of delivery has an association with subsequent risk of stillbirth or miscarriage. Overall, compared to vaginal delivery, the pooled estimates suggest that caesarean delivery may increase the risk of stillbirth by 23%. Results for the miscarriage review were inconsistent and lack of adjustment for confounding was a major limitation. Higher methodological quality research is required to reliably assess the risk of miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies. PMID 23372739

Hospital differences in cesarean deliveries in Massachusetts (US) 2004-2006: the case against case-mix artifact

PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57817. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057817. Epub 2013 Mar 18.

Cáceres IA, Arcaya M, Declercq E, Belanoff CM, Janakiraman V, Cohen B, Ecker J, Smith LA, Subramanian SV. Source Bureau of Health Information, Statistics, Research, and Evaluation, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.


OBJECTIVE: We examined the extent to which differences in hospital-level cesarean delivery rates in Massachusetts were attributable to hospital-level, rather than maternal, characteristics. METHODS: Birth certificate and maternal in-patient hospital discharge records for 2004-06 in Massachusetts were linked. The study population was nulliparous, term, singleton, and vertex births (NTSV) (n = 80,371) in 49 hospitals. Covariates included mother's age, race/ethnicity, education, infant birth weight, gestational age, labor induction (yes/no), hospital shift at time of birth, and preexisting health conditions. We estimated multilevel logistic regression models to assess the likelihood of a cesarean delivery. RESULTS: Overall, among women with NTSV births, 26.5% births were cesarean, with a range of 14% to 38.3% across hospitals. In unadjusted models, the between-hospital variance was 0.103 (SE 0.022); adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic and preexisting medical conditions did not reduce any hospital-level variation 0.108 (SE 0.023). CONCLUSION: Even after adjusting for both socio-demographic and clinical factors, the chance of a cesarean delivery for NTSV pregnancies varied according to hospital, suggesting the importance of hospital practices and culture in determining a hospital's cesarean rate.

PMID 23526952

Does the presence of a Caesarean section scar affect implantation site and early pregnancy outcome in women attending an early pregnancy assessment unit?

Hum Reprod. 2013 Apr 12. [Epub ahead of print]

Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Saso S, Stalder C, Van Huffel S, Ghaem-Maghami S, Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Source Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit, Queen Charlottes and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK. Abstract STUDY QUESTION: Are there any differences in the location and distance to the internal cervical ostium of the implantation site of the intrauterine gestation sacs, early pregnancy symptoms and pregnancy outcome at 12 weeks gestation between women with and without a previous Caesarean section (CS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The presence of a CS scar affects the site of implantation, and the distance between implantation site and the scar is related to the risk of spontaneous abortion. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: Little is known about the impact of a CS scar on implantation other than the risk of Caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP). Furthermore, there is a paucity of information on how the proximity of implantation to the scar impacts on pregnancy outcome in the first trimester. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION: A prospective cohort study conducted over 15 months in the early pregnancy unit of a London Teaching Hospital. Three hundred and eighty women underwent a transvaginal scan at 6-11 weeks of gestation. A total of 170 women had undergone ≥1 CS, and 210 women had no history of CS. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The 380 women were recruited as consecutive non-selected cases. The relationship between the implanted sac and the CS scar was assessed by quantifiable measures and by subjective impression. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the influence of the presence of a CS scar on pregnancy outcome. The final outcome of the study was the viability of the pregnancy at 12 weeks. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Implantation was most frequently posterior (53%) in the CS group and fundal in the non-CS group (42%). Gestation sac implantation was 8.7 mm lower in the CS group (95% confidence interval (CI) 6.7-10.7, P < 0.0001). Presenting complaints differed in women with and without a previous CS (P = 0.0009). More frequent vaginal bleeding [73 versus 55%, difference -18, 95% CI (-27 to -8%] yet no clearly increased spontaneous abortion rates were noted in the CS group compared with the non-CS group (adjusted odds ratio = 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-1.9, P = 0.74). Subjective impression showed that in eight cases the implantation site crossed the scar, seven of which resulted in spontaneous abortion, while the remaining case survived to term complicated by placenta praevia and post-partum haemorrhage. The subjective impression of the examiner was supported by the measurements of distance between implantation site and CS scar. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A weakness of the study is the lack of a reference technique to verify the location of implantation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study adds further support to the hypothesis that the presence of a CS on the uterus impacts on the implantation site of a future pregnancy. The possibility that the CS scar has an impact on the risk of spontaneous abortion should be further studied. Caution must be exercised when implantation occurs near to, and crosses, a CS scar as this is not always associated with the diagnosis of CSP. A potential limitation of the study is that we did not examine scar dimensions and morphology. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The authors have no competing interests to declare. The study was not supported by an external grant.

PMID 23585560


Uterine closure in cesarean delivery: a new technique

N Am J Med Sci. 2012 Aug;4(8):358-61. doi: 10.4103/1947-2714.99519.

Babu K, Magon N. Source Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Air Force Hospital, Gorakhpur, India. Abstract Fear of scar rupture is one of risks involved in a post caesarean pregnancy. This had led to an increased rate of repeat cesarean delivery in today's times. Closure of the uterine incision is a key step in cesarean section, and it is imperative that an optimal surgical technique be employed for closing a uterine scar. This technique should be able to withstand the stress of subsequent labor. In the existing techniques of uterine closure, single or double layer, correct approximation of the cut margins, that is, decidua-to-decidua, myometrium to myometrium, serosa to serosa is not guaranteed. Also, there are high chances of inter surgeon variability. It was felt that if a suturing technique which ensures correct approximation of all the layers mentioned above with nil or minimal possibility of inter operator variability existed, there will not be any thinning of lower segment caesarean section (LSCS). Further, a scarred uterus repaired in this manner will be able to withstand the stress of labor in future. We hereby report a new technique for uterine closure devised by us, which incorporates a continuous modified mattress suture technique as a modification of the existing surgical technique of uterine closure.

PMID 22912945


Classifications for cesarean section: a systematic review

PLoS One. 2011 Jan 20;6(1):e14566. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014566.

Torloni MR1, Betran AP, Souza JP, Widmer M, Allen T, Gulmezoglu M, Merialdi M.


BACKGROUND: Rising cesarean section (CS) rates are a major public health concern and cause worldwide debates. To propose and implement effective measures to reduce or increase CS rates where necessary requires an appropriate classification. Despite several existing CS classifications, there has not yet been a systematic review of these. This study aimed to 1) identify the main CS classifications used worldwide, 2) analyze advantages and deficiencies of each system. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Three electronic databases were searched for classifications published 1968-2008. Two reviewers independently assessed classifications using a form created based on items rated as important by international experts. Seven domains (ease, clarity, mutually exclusive categories, totally inclusive classification, prospective identification of categories, reproducibility, implementability) were assessed and graded. Classifications were tested in 12 hypothetical clinical case-scenarios. From a total of 2948 citations, 60 were selected for full-text evaluation and 27 classifications identified. Indications classifications present important limitations and their overall score ranged from 2-9 (maximum grade =14). Degree of urgency classifications also had several drawbacks (overall scores 6-9). Woman-based classifications performed best (scores 5-14). Other types of classifications require data not routinely collected and may not be relevant in all settings (scores 3-8). CONCLUSIONS: This review and critical appraisal of CS classifications is a methodologically sound contribution to establish the basis for the appropriate monitoring and rational use of CS. Results suggest that women-based classifications in general, and Robson's classification, in particular, would be in the best position to fulfill current international and local needs and that efforts to develop an internationally applicable CS classification would be most appropriately placed in building upon this classification. The use of a single CS classification will facilitate auditing, analyzing and comparing CS rates across different settings and help to create and implement effective strategies specifically targeted to optimize CS rates where necessary.

PMID 21283801

Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Dec;205(6 Suppl):S2-10. Epub 2011 Oct 6.

Clark EA, Silver RM. Source

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA.


Concern regarding the association between cesarean delivery and long-term maternal morbidity is growing as the rate of cesarean delivery continues to increase. Observational evidence suggests that the risk of morbidity increases with increasing number of cesarean deliveries. The dominant maternal risk in subsequent pregnancies is placenta accreta spectrum disorder and its associated complications. A history of multiple cesarean deliveries is the major risk factor for this condition. Pregnancies following cesarean delivery also have increased risk for other types of abnormal placentation, reduced fetal growth, preterm birth, and possibly stillbirth. Chronic maternal morbidities associated with cesarean delivery include pelvic pain and adhesions. Adverse reproductive effects may include decreased fertility and increased risk of spontaneous abortion and ectopic pregnancy. Clinicians and patients need to be aware of the long-term risks associated with cesarean delivery so that they can be considered when determining the method of delivery for first and subsequent births. Copyright © 2011 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID 22114995


NIH Consensus Development Conference on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights

Trends and determinants of caesarean sections births in Queensland, 1997-2006. Howell S, Johnston T, Macleod SL. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009 Dec;49(6):606-11. PMID: 20070708

"In Queensland, in 2006, CS rates were 26.9 and 48.0% among public and private sector patients, respectively. ....The CS rate in Queensland in 2006 was higher than in any other Australian state. The increase in Queensland's CS rates can be attributed to both the rising number of primary caesarean births and the rising number of repeat caesareans."

Risk adjustment for inter-hospital comparison of primary cesarean section rates: need, validity and parsimony.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Aug 15;6:100.

PMID: 16911770

Cesarean section rates is often used as an indicator of quality of care in maternity hospitals. The assumption is that lower rates reflect in developed countries more appropriate clinical practice and general better performances. Hospitals are thus often ranked on the basis of caesarean section rates. The aim of this study is to assess whether the adjustment for clinical and sociodemographic variables of the mother and the fetus is necessary for inter-hospital comparisons of cesarean section (c-section) rates and to assess whether a risk adjustment model based on a limited number of variables could be identified and used. METHODS: Discharge abstracts of labouring women without prior cesarean were linked with abstracts of newborns discharged from 29 hospitals of the Emilia-Romagna Region (Italy) from 2003 to 2004. Adjusted ORs of cesarean by hospital were estimated by using two logistic regression models: 1) a full model including the potential confounders selected by a backward procedure; 2) a parsimonious model including only actual confounders identified by the "change-in-estimate" procedure. Hospital rankings, based on ORs were examined. RESULTS: 24 risk factors for c-section were included in the full model and 7 (marital status, maternal age, infant weight, fetopelvic disproportion, eclampsia or pre-eclampsia, placenta previa/abruptio placentae, malposition/malpresentation) in the parsimonious model. Hospital ranking using the adjusted ORs from both models was different from that obtained using the crude ORs. The correlation between the rankings of the two models was 0.92. The crude ORs were smaller than ORs adjusted by both models, with the parsimonious ones producing more precise estimates. CONCLUSION: Risk adjustment is necessary to compare hospital c-section rates, it shows differences in rankings and highlights inappropriateness of some hospitals. By adjusting for only actual confounders valid and more precise estimates could be obtained.