Vaginal versus C-Section

[juddson]

I am wondering if there have been any studies comparing the incidence of mother and fetal morbidity and mortality rates of vaginal delivery and elective C-section (ie., C-sections performed when not medically indicated). Does anybody know the statistics?

Judd

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PCSOM]

I am wondering if there have been any studies comparing the incidence of mother and fetal morbidity and mortality rates of vaginal delivery and elective C-section (ie., C-sections performed when not medically indicated). Does anybody know the statistics?

Judd

I am not aware of any studies like that. However, C-section is most likely would end up in LESS complication - given the fact that during the course of pregnancy everything was okay. Most vaginal complications are shoulder dystocia, in which the infant may have brachial plexus injury which can be permanent. However, majority of brachial plexus injuries will not result into a permanent incidence. Erbs plasy will be the result of brachial plexus injury. Diabetic moms have more chances of this type of injuries. Mother moribidity is less likely to happen unless in cases of infections, massive internal bleedings, and may be some other rare complications. Fetal moribidity probably outweighs mother.

My OB/GYN professor says there hasn't been a c-section he hasn't loved....

 

[kinetic]

Given that juddson is a lawyer, this thread causes me to raise an eyebrow.

 

[PCSOM]

Given that juddson is a lawyer, this thread causes me to raise an eyebrow.

that's a very nice observation. before replying to him, i didn't know. hope, i have not caused any trouble to someone. but if he is a lawyer practicing from a while, he may be not a smart lawyer. or else, he would know which has more chances for morbidity/mortality.

 

[juddson]

that's a very nice observation. before replying to him, i didn't know. hope, i have not caused any trouble to someone. but if he is a lawyer practicing from a while, he may be not a smart lawyer. or else, he would know which has more chances for morbidity/mortality.

Why do you fall for this crap from Kinetic? I used to be a mergers and acquisitions attorney and am now a first year medical student interested in OB/GYN. Kinetic knows this all too well and is just trying to throw $hit into the wind.

Anyway, back on the original topic, I am suprised that there have not been any studies comparing elective section to vaginal birth. I just spent the last couple of days at the hospital and witnessed several births (of both kinds), and it seemed to me that the mother and baby experienced greater risks of morbidity and mortality during the vaginal deliveries than the C-section ones.

But I'd like to see data.

Judd

 

[kinetic]

I actually didn't know what type of lawyer you were. All I know is that you defend medical malpractice and trial lawyers to the hilt, which is quite evident to everyone who wants to do a search through your posts. With that background in mind, as I said, my eyebrow raised slightly when I read the thread topic.

 

[juddson]

I actually didn't know what type of lawyer you were. All I know is that you defend medical malpractice and trial lawyers to the hilt, which is quite evident to everyone who wants to do a search through your posts. With that background in mind, as I said, my eyebrow raised slightly when I read the thread topic.

O' BULL$HIT, Kinetic. You knew damned well (1) what kind of attorney I was, (2) that I no longer am an attorney, and (3) that I am medical student now.

You know all of this. As to malpractice attorneys, I will defend them against stupid charges - of many you are well known around here - and not defend them against legitimate ones. I am on record defending some tort reform measures - just not the ones being passed now.

Judd

 

[kinetic]

Thanks for telling me what I know.

 

[DrBuzzLightYear]

beckman's "obstetrics and gynecology" writes, "Deciding on cesarean delivery has important ramifications, because the maternal mortality rate associated with cesarean delivery is two to four times that of a vaginal birth (i.e., 1 per 2500 to 1 per 5000 operations)."

 

[juddson]

beckman's "obstetrics and gynecology" writes, "Deciding on cesarean delivery has important ramifications, because the maternal mortality rate associated with cesarean delivery is two to four times that of a vaginal birth (i.e., 1 per 2500 to 1 per 5000 operations)."

I read this as well in Beckman. But I don't think it makes it explicit that the figures related to elective C-sections as opposed to indicated C-sections. It stands to reason that M&M rates for indicated sections are higher than for vaginal given that some risk factor would have prompted one to indicate a C-section in the first place.

The relevant question is what risk does an elective C-section carry compared to vaginal birth?

Judd

 

[doc05]

what you fail to realize is that any surgery, elective or not, carries risks. vaginal delivery has been successful for thousands of years. assuming it's done in a controlled environment (hospital) in case there are complications, and assuming that the mother isn't a big fat diabetic delivering a 10-lb baby, c-section probably is riskier overall.