Maternal-choice caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth in low-risk primigravid women

Stephen J. Robson, Caroline de Costa, Cindy Woods, Pauline Ding, Ajay Rane

Research output: Contribution to journalOther Journal Articlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Rising rates of caesarean section (CS) have been attributed, in part, to maternal-choice CS (MCCS). There are few published data regarding maternal and perinatal risks comparing MCCS with planned vaginal birth (VB) in uncomplicated first pregnancies to inform choice. We report the results of a pragmatic patient-preference cohort study of private patients in Australia: 64 women planning MCCS and 113 women planning VB. There were few differences in outcome between the two groups. The study highlighted the well-recognised difficulties in undertaking prospective research into MCCS.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)469-473
Number of pages5
JournalAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Volume58
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Maternal-choice caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth in low-risk primigravid women'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this