View More View Less
  • 1 Szegedi Tudományegyetem, Általános Orvostudományi Kar, Szeged, Semmelweis u. 1., 6725
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $25.00

1 year subscription (Individual Only)

USD  $1,070.00

Absztrakt:

Bevezetés: A növekvő császármetszés-frekvencia világszerte egyre inkább az érdeklődés fókuszába került. A császármetszések számának csökkentésére a császármetszést követő sikeres hüvelyi szülés bizonyos esetekben kiváló módszer. Célkitűzés: A hüvelyi szülést befolyásoló tényezők, a szülés/indukció körülményeinek, kritériumainak, rövid, illetve hosszú távú előnyöknek és következményeknek a retrospektív áttekintése. Módszer: A császármetszést követő hüvelyi szüléssel kapcsolatos nemzetközi ajánlások és a hozzá kapcsolódó, „PubMed”, „MEDLINE”, „Cochrane” adatbázisokban 1996–2016. között megjelent közlemények feldolgozása. Eredmények: Az ajánlások, közlemények eredményeit áttanulmányozva kijelenthető, hogy az álláspontok bizonyos pontokban nem egységesek, viszont a császármetszést követő hüvelyi szülés egy kiváló lehetőség a szövődmények elkerülésére, a császármetszések számának csökkentésére. Következtetések: Fontos lenne hazánkban egy egységes ajánlást megfogalmazni a császármetszést követő hüvelyi szüléssel kapcsolatosan, ami a gyakorlatban dolgozó szülész-nőgyógyász mindennapi munkáját, a legjobb döntés meghozatalát segíti. Orv Hetil. 2017; 158(30): 1168–1174.

  • 1

    National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Panel. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Vaginal birth after caesarean: new insights March 8–10, 2010. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115: 1279–1295.

  • 2

    Central Statistical Office. [Központi Statisztikai Hivatal]. Avaliable from: https://www.ksh.hu. [Hungarian]

  • 3

    Nagy S. Changing trends and indications for cesarean section in the last few decades. [A császármetszés javallatainak változása az elmúlt évtizedekben]. Orv Hetil. 2014; 155: 1140–1146. [Hungarian]

  • 4

    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after previous caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 450–463.

  • 5

    Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC clinical practice guidelines. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous caesarean birth. Number 155 (Replaces guideline Number 147), February 2005. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005; 89: 319–331.

  • 6

    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 45: Birth after previous caesarean birth. October 2015. [accessed: 07.01.2016].

  • 7

    Sentilhes L, Vayssière C, Beucher G, et al. Delivery for women with a previous caesarean: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013; 170: 25–32.

  • 8

    Weinstein D, Benshushan A, Tanos V, et al. Predictive score for vaginal birth after caesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 174: 192–198.

  • 9

    McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA, et al. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second caesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1996; 335: 689–695.

  • 10

    Wells EC, Cunningham GF. Choosing the route of delivery after cesarean birth. Wolters Kluver Health, UpToDate. 2013. http://www.uptodate.com

  • 11

    Gyarmati, B. Medical and sociological factors contributing to increasing rates of Cesarean sections. [A császármetszés növekvő arányának orvosi és társadalmi okai.] PhD dissertation. Doctoral School, University of Pécs, Pécs, 2010. [Hungarian]

  • 12

    Bujold E, Mehta SH, Bujold C, et al. Interdelivery interval and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187: 1199–1202.

  • 13

    Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Available from: https://mfmunetwork.bsc.gwu.edu/PublicBSC/MFMU/VGBirthCalc/vagbirth.html [accessed: May 22, 2014].

  • 14

    Kline J, Arias F. Analysis of factors determining the selection of repeated caesarean section or trial of labor in patients with histories of prior caesarean delivery. J Reprod Med. 1993; 38: 289–292.

  • 15

    McMahon MJ. Vaginal birth after caesarean. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 41: 369–381.

  • 16

    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: 657–663.

  • 17

    Reif P, Brezinka C, Fischer T, et al. Labour and childbirth after previous caesarean section: Recommendations of the Austrian Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (OEGGG). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2016; 76: 1279–1286.

  • 18

    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Guidance and guidelines. Induction of labour 2008. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs60 [accessed: July 1, 2016].

  • 19

    Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe HJ, et al. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet 1996; 347: 281–284.

  • 20

    Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Philippe HJ, et al. Thickness of the lower uterine segment: its influence in the management of patients with previous caesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1999; 87: 39–45.

  • 21

    Kok N, Wiersma IC, Opmeer BC, et al. Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 42: 132–139.

  • 22

    Mozurkewich EL, Hutton EK. Elective repeat caesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 183: 1187–1197.

  • 23

    Rageth JC, Juzi C, Grossenbacher H. Delivery after previous caesarean: a risk evaluation. Swiss Working Group of Obstetric and Gynecologic Institutions. Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 93: 332–337.

  • 24

    Shimonovitz S, Botosneano A, Hochner-Celnikier D. Successful first vaginal birth after caesarean section: a predictor of reduced risk for uterine rupture in subsequent deliveries. Isr Med Assoc J. 2000; 2: 526–528.

  • 25

    Sholapurkar SL. Long-term complications of caesarean section - an inevitable consequence? BJOG 2014; 121: 1445–1446.

  • 26

    Tahseen S, Griffiths M. Vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC-2)-a systematic review with meta-analysis of success rate and adverse outcomes of VBAC-2 versus VBAC-1 and repeat (third) caesarean sections. BJOG 2010; 117: 5–19.

  • 27

    Asakura H, Myers SA. More than one previous caesarean delivery: a 5-year experience with 435 patients. Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 85: 924–929.

  • 28

    Smith GCS, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet 2003; 362: 1779–1784.

  • 29

    Adam Zs. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. [Hüvelyi szülés megelőző császármetszés után]. Presentation. 63. Consilium

  • 30

    Chauhan SP, Martin JN, Henrichs CE, et al. Maternal and perinatal complications with uterine rupture in 142,075 patients who attempted vaginal birth after caesarean delivery: a review of the literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 189: 408–417.

  • 31

    Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior caesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 2581–2589.

  • 32

    Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, et al. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior caesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 3–8.

  • 33

    Jozwiak M, Dodd JM. Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; CD009792.

  • 34

    Blanchette HA, Nayak S, Erasmus S. Comparison of the safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) with those of dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2) for cervical ripening and induction of labor in a community hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 180: 1551–1559.

  • 35

    World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for induction of labour. WHO, 2011. Available from: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/9789241501156/en/ [accessed: January 14, 2016]

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Oct 2020 23 1 2
Nov 2020 36 3 0
Dec 2020 27 1 1
Jan 2021 12 0 0
Feb 2021 31 1 1
Mar 2021 32 0 1
Apr 2021 12 2 2