Download PDF
Hebamme 2016; 29(04): 226-232
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-111415
SCHWERPUNKT
Forum Geburtshilfe – Geburten nach Kaiserschnitt
Hippokrates Verlag in Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

Die OptiBIRTH-Studie: Geburten nach Sectio

Susanne Grylka-Bäschlin
1   Hebamme MSc
,
Mechthild M. Groß
2   Hebamme, Hannover
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
09 September 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Die Kaiserschnittraten in Europa und in Deutschland liegen größtenteils deutlich über den empfohlenen Raten von 10–15 % [[1], [2]]. Ein wichtiger Faktor zur Senkung der Kaiserschnittraten sind höhere Raten an vaginalen Geburten nach Kaiserschnitt [[3]]. Wie kann dies gelingen?

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health 2015; 12 (57): 1-10
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. 2015 [online] Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/ 10665/161442/1/WHO_RHR_15.02_eng.pdf?ua=1
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Sabol B, Denman MA, Guise JM. Vaginal birth after cesarean: an effective method to reduce cesarean. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2015; 58 (2): 309-319
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Europeristat. European Perinatal Health Report, Health and Care of Pregnant Women and Babies in Europe in 2010. 2013 [onlinet] Available from: http://www.europeristat.com/reports/european-perinatal-health-report-2010.html
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Gross MM, Matterne A, Berlage S et al. Interinstitutional variations in mode of birth after a previous caesarean section: a cross-sectional study in six German hospitals. J Perinat Med 2015; 43 (2): 177-184
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L et al. Cesarean versus Vaginal Delivery: Whose Risks? Whose Benefits?. Am J Perinatol 2012; 29: 7-18
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R et al. Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a world-wide population-based ecological study with longitudinal data. BJOG 2016; 123 (5): 745-753
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). „Safe Prevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery “. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2014; 123 (3): 693-711
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Guise JM, Denman MA, Emeis C et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115 (6): 1267-1278
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2010b Mar 191: 1-397
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Curtin SC, Gregory KD, Korst LM et al. Maternal Morbidity for Vaginal and Cesarean Deliveries, According to Previous Cesarean History: New Data From the Birth Certificate, 2013. National Vital Statistics Reports 2015 64 (4) 1-14
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Regan J, Thompson A, DeFranco E. The influence of mode of delivery on breastfeeding initiation in women with a prior cesarean delivery: a population-based study. Breastfeed Med 2013; 8: 181-186
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shorten A, Shorten B. The importance of mode of birth after previous cesarean: success, satisfaction, and postnatal health. J Midwifery Womens Health 2012; 57 (2): 126-132
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kealy MA, Small RE, Liamputtong P. Recovery after caesarean birth: a qualitative study of women’s accounts in Victoria, Australia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2010; 10: 47, 2393-2410-47
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Tollanes MC, Moster D, Daltveit AK et al. Cesarean section and risk of severe childhood asthma: a population-based cohort study. The Journal of pediatrics 2008; 153 (1): 112-116
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mesquita DN, Barbieri MA, Goldani HA et al. Cesarean Section Is Associated with Increased Peripheral and Central Adiposity in Young Adulthood: Cohort Study. PLoS One 2013; 8 (6) e66827
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Stokholm J, Thorsen J, Chawes BL et al. Cesarean section changes neonatal gut colonization. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2016; pii: S0091-6749(16)00296-7 DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.01.028.
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Al-Zirqi I, Stray-Pedersen B, Forsen L et al. Uterine rupture: trends over 40 years. BJOG 2016; 123 (6): 1033
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Ashwal E, Hiersch L, Melamed N et al. Pregnancy outcome after induction of labor in women with previous cesarean section. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015; 28 (4): 386-391
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kok N, Ruiter L, Hof M et al. Risk of maternal and neonatal complications in subsequent pregnancy after planned caesarean section in a first birth, compared with emergency caesarean section: a nationwide comparative cohort study. BJOG 2014; 121 (2): 216-223
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Marshall NE, Fu R, Guise JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 09/2011; 205 (3) 262.e1,262.e8
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Smith GC, Pell JP, Cameron AD et al. Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies. JAMA 2002 May 22–29 287 (20): 2684-2690
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Bickford CD, Janssen PA. Maternal and newborn outcomes after a prior cesarean birth by planned mode of delivery and history of prior vaginal birth in British Columbia: a retrospective cohort study. CMAJ Open 2015; 3 (2) E158-165
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Scott JR. Intrapartum management of trial of labour after caesarean delivery: evidence and experience. BJOG 2014; 121 (2): 157-162
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Dekker GA, Chan A, Luke CG et al. Risk of uterine rupture in Australian women attempting vaginal birth after one prior caesarean section: a retrospective population-based cohort study. BJOG 2010; 117 (11): 1358-1365
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Fawsitt CG, Bourke J, Greene RA et al. At what price? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing trial of labour after previous caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery. PLoS One 2013; 8 (3) e58577
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Nilsson C, van Limbeek E, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K et al. Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: Views of Women From Countries With High VBAC Rates. Qual Health Res 2015; pii: 1049732315612041 DOI: 10.1177/1049732315612041.
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Lundgren I, van Limbeek E, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K et al. Clinicians’ views of factors of importance for improving the rate of VBAC (vaginal birth after caesarean section): a qualitative study from countries with high VBAC rates. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015; 15: 196
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Lundgren I, Smith V, Nilsson C et al. Clinician-centred interventions to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015; 15: 16
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Nilsson C, Lundgren I, Smith V et al. Women-centred interventions to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): A systematic review. Midwifery 2015; 31 (7): 657-663
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Folsom S, Esplin MS, Edmunds S et al. Patient Counseling and Preferences for Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery. AJP Rep 2016; 6 (2): e226-231
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mikolajczyk RT, Schmedt N, Zhang J et al. Regional variation in caesarean deliveries in Germany and its causes. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013; 13 (99)1: : 8
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ et al. Division of Vital Statistics. Births: Final Data for 2011 Natl Vital Stat Rep 2013; 62 (2): 1-90
    PubMedGoogle Scholar