Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2009; 26(8): 545-551
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1214240
© Thieme Medical Publishers

The Risk of Acute Neonatal Morbidities in the Delivery Room after Primary Cesarean at Term: Influence of Labor and Stage

Kim C. Winovitch1 , Deborah A. Wing1 , David C. Lagrew1 , 2 , Judith H. Chung1
  • 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California
  • 2Saddleback Memorial Medical Center, Laguna Hills, California
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
18 May 2009 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

We evaluated acute neonatal morbidities in the delivery room associated with primary cesarean performed prior to labor and in the first or second stages of labor. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on subjects undergoing term, primary cesareans at the Women's Pavilion, Miller Children's Hospital in Long Beach, California from 2000 to 2007. Acute neonatal morbidities were tabulated as a function of time during labor when cesarean was performed. Composite neonatal morbidity was defined as the presence of at least one of the following: low 5-minute Apgar score, need for intubation, and/or admission to neonatal intensive care unit. One thousand forty-five subjects delivered by cesarean without labor, 3098 in first stage, and 951 in second stage. Five-minute Apgar score < 7 was more common in cesareans performed during second stage than during first stage or without labor [3/1045 (0.3%) versus 28/3098 (0.9%) versus 12/951 (1.3%), p = 0.039]. Composite neonatal morbidity was not significantly different among the stages. Acute neonatal morbidities were not affected by the presence or absence of labor. Potential long-term sequelae require further study.

KEYWORDS

Cesarean delivery - labor - neonatal morbidity

REFERENCES

  • 1 Martin J A, Hamilton B E, Sutton P D et al.. Births: final data for 2005.  Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2007;  56 1-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gharaibeh A M, Al-Bdour A E, Akasheh H F. The mounting rate of cesarean sections: is it accompanied by a drop in instrumental births?.  Saudi Med J. 2008;  29 267-270
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lavin Jr J P, Eaton J, Hopkins M. Teaching vaginal breech delivery and external cephalic version. A survey of faculty attitudes.  J Reprod Med. 2000;  45 808-812
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hannah M E, Hannah W J, Hewson S A, Hodnett E D, Saigal S, Willan A R. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomized multicenter trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group.  Lancet. 2000;  356 1375-1383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Vimercati A, Greco P, Kardashi A et al.. Choice of cesarean and perception of legal pressure.  J Perinat Med. 2000;  28 111-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt V L, Easterling T R, Martin D P. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery.  N Engl J Med. 2001;  345 3-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Greene M F. Vaginal birth after cesarean revisited.  N Engl J Med. 2004;  351 2647-2649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bettes B A, Coleman V H, Zinberg S et al.. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: obstetrician-gynecologists' knowledge, perception, and practice patterns.  Obstet Gynecol. 2007;  109 57-66
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology . Cesarean delivery on maternal request.  Obstet Gynecol. 2007;  110 1209-1212
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman M. Rise in “no indicated risk” primary cesareans in the United States 1991–2001: cross sectional analysis.  BMJ. 2005;  330 71-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 National Institutes of Health . State-of-the–science-conference statement. Cesarean delivery on maternal request.  Obstet Gynecol. 2006;  107 1386-1397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt V L, Easterling T R, Martin D P. First birth cesarean and placental abruption or previa at second birth.  Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  97 765-769
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Minkoff H, Powderly K R, Chervenak F, McCullough L B. Ethical dimensions of elective primary cesarean delivery.  Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  103 387-392
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hale R W, Harer W B. Elective prophylactic cesarean delivery [editorial].  ACOG Clinical Review. 2005;  10 1,-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Murphy D J. Failure to progress in the second stage of labor.  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  13 557-561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Murphy D J, Liebling R, Verity L, Swingler R, Patel R. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study.  Lancet. 2001;  358 1203-1207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Murphy D J, Liebling R, Patel R, Verity L, Swingler R. Cohort study of operative delivery in the second stage of labour and standard of obstetric care.  BJOG. 2003;  110 610-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Alexander J M, Leveno K J, Rouse D J et al.. Comparison of maternal and infant outcomes from primary cesarean delivery during the second compared with first stage of labor.  Obstet Gynecol. 2007;  109 917-921
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 MacLennan A. A template for defining a causal relation between acute intrapartum events and cerebral palsy: international consensus statement.  BMJ. 1999;  319 1054-1059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nathan L, Leveno K J, Carmody III T J, Kelly A M, Sherman M L. Meconium: a 1990's perspective on an old obstetric hazard.  Obstet Gynecol. 1994;  83 329-332
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Katz V L, Bowes Jr W A. Meconium aspiration syndrome: reflections on a murky subject.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;  166 171-183
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wiswell T E, Bent R C. Meconium staining and then meconium aspiration syndrome.  Pediatr Clin North Am. 1993;  40 955-981
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Greenwood C, Lalchandani S, MacQuillan K, Sheil O. Meconium passed in labor: how reassuring is clear amniotic fluid?.  Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  102 89-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists .Induction of labor. ACOG Practice Bulletin, No. 10. Washington, DC; ACOG November 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 25 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists .Dystocia and augmentation of labor. ACOG Practice Bulletin, No. 49. Washington, DC; ACOG December 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Myles T D, Santolaya J. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients with a prolonged second stage of labor.  Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  102 52-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cheng Y W, Hopkins L M, Caughey A B. How long is too long: does a prolonged second stage in nulliparous women affect maternal and neonatal outcomes?.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  191 933-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Cheng Y W, Hopkins L M, Laros R K, Caughey A B. Duration of the second stage of labor in multiparous women: maternal and neonatal outcomes.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;  196 585
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Heritage C K, Cunningham M D. Association of elective repeat cesarean delivery and persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;  152 627-629
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Levine Em, Ghai V, Barton J J, Strom C M. Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns.  Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  97 439-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Kim WinovitchM.D. 

101 The City Drive South, Building 56

Suite 800, Orange, CA 92868

Email: mfm@uci.edu

      >