Choose your font:
 Arimo
 Merriweather
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Rokkitt
 Source Sans Pro
 Login


 English 
 Français 
 Português 
 Español 

[Valid RSS] RSS
bar

Database - (CIANE)

Description of this bibliographical database (CIANE website)
Currently 3109 records
YouTube channel (tutorial)

https://ciane.net/id=1746

Created on : 01 Feb 2006
Modified on : 01 Dec 2007

 Modify this record
Do not follow this link unless you know an editor’s password!


Share: Facebook logo   Tweeter logo   Hard

Bibliographical entry (without author) :

VBAC: a continuing controversy. ClinOG, 44, p.561

Author(s) :

Zinberg

Year of publication :

2001

URL(s) :

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

Review of VBAC and ACOG’s stance. Reasons for ACOG’s more aggressive approach to the availability of personnel and facilities: First the risk of uterine rupture is at least 1% and among these ruptures, some possibly catastrophic, the rate of maternal and/or fetal morbidity is 10-25%. Moreover, there is concern that uterine rupture in VBAC is an underreported event, making this approximate 1% risk to be even higher. Second, based on reports from members of ACOG, uterine rupture almost always results in legal action, no matter what the clinical outcome and no matter how excellent the clinical care. "Medical positions on subjects of long term debate often demonstrate shifting, evolving or even cyclic patterns. The VBAC controversy is no exception to this premise. The concept that VBAC is a safe and effective approach for may patients is a well-established fact. This does not mean that it is appropriate for all women contemplating a pregnancy in the presence of a uterine scar. In the case of VBAC, the pendulum may have swung too far and it may be time to return closer to a middle ground. The medical community should not use VBAC as20its principle tool to respond to society’s economic and social concerns about the increasing CS rate rather individual patient safety and the dictates of best evidence-based medical practice should determine the standard.

Sumário (português)  :

Resumen (español)  :

Comments :

Fiche importée de http://www.worldserver.com/turk/birthing/rrvbac2000-4.html avec l’aide de Ken Turkowski, septembre 2005

Argument (français) :

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Argumento (español):

Keywords :

➡ vaginal birth after caesarean ; c-section/caesarean

Author of this record :

Ken Turkowski — 01 Feb 2006

Discussion (display only in English)
 
➡ Only identified users



 I have read the guidelines of discussions and I accept all terms (read guidelines)

barre

New expert query --- New simple query

Creating new record --- Importing records

User management --- Dump database --- Contact

bar

This database created by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR) is managed
by Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, https://ciane.net).
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in documentation
(2) or financially supporting CIANE (see below)
(3) or joining any society affiliated with CIANE.
Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
Contact bibli(arobase)ciane.net for more information.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!
Donating to CIANE (click “Faire un don”) will help us to maintain and develop sites and public
databases towards the support of parents and caregivers’ informed decisions with respect to childbirth