Interesting rupture article
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: Support
Forum Name: C-Section Support
Forum Description: Had a caesarian section? Planning an elective caesar? Or a VBAC? Or want to know about recovering from a c-section? Talk to other mums who have had c-section deliveries here.
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35277
Printed Date: 22 November 2024 at 11:10pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Interesting rupture article
Posted By: Nutella
Subject: Interesting rupture article
Date Posted: 16 August 2010 at 11:00am
|
I was intrigued by the idea that an uterine rupture could happen during pregnancy not just labour so figured I would google and found this article which has various risk factors for ruptures...man the risk is so small really, even with me belonging to higher risk groups, ie age, no previous TOL (assuming this means have to actually give birth vaginally) and possibly having close pregnancies. I was kinda surprised! Even adding in the induction risk it seems like it is not that bad! And really interesting how one vaginal birth means the risk decreases.
Still don't think I would be brave enough to try for vbac-but that is coz of circumstances of DS birth not really coz of rupture risks. Though it does make me think that if they could guarantee that the same thing would not happen then maybe would try for vbac. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/275854-overview - Article ------------- 
 Oct 11
|
Replies:
Posted By: newme
Date Posted: 16 August 2010 at 11:56am
|
That is so funny - I had just read that article and was thinking I should post the link up
I think the no previous TOL just means that you have been in labour before, even if it ended up with a c-section. . Here is another good one: http://www.birthrites.org/uterinerupt.html |
Posted By: luvmylittlies
Date Posted: 17 August 2010 at 9:44am
|
TOL = Trial of Labour. So yep as hila1 said - it refers to just going into labour, not the end result.
Good articles guys. Thanks. ------------- Adoring Mum to Talisin 8/9/11 and Kiara 18/01/10 |
Posted By: Nutella
Date Posted: 18 August 2010 at 10:17am
|
Oh interesting, so my risks would be reduced coz I was about 7cm dilated before having c sect. That is good to know. tho the risks are pretty slim really aren't they.
-------------
Oct 11
|
Posted By: EmilysMum
Date Posted: 31 August 2010 at 7:43pm
|
Man the risk of it occuring might be pretty low but look at the consequences!! Infant mortality within 10-37mins, and maternal mortality highly likely as well! I knew it was bad, I just didn't realise it was THAT bad. Scary stuff.
|
Posted By: Shezamumof3
Date Posted: 05 September 2010 at 9:11pm
|
I dont wanna read that lol, I refuse to freak myself out when the risk is SO low.
Ive had 2 C Sections, first one an emergecny and second an elective, and my babies are 14 months apart, so I got pregnant when DS was 5 months old. My pregnancy went perfectly fine and I had no pain in my scar, apart from the normal itching and slight pulling feeling every now and then as I got bigger. we are planning a 3rd baby soon as well, and will be another CS. ------------- |
Posted By: kazzam34
Date Posted: 06 September 2010 at 11:54am
|
but what I have discovered through reading stuff about VBAC's is that C-sections themselves are risky. The doctors never seem to mention that. In the paper the other day it said that babies born by C section are more likely to have breathing problems and are twice as likely to die than a vaginally born baby!
I also read something else which basically said that in the very unlikely event of a rupture it doesn't necessarily mean death for mother or baby, so the risk of the worst possible consequences gets less and less. Kazzam |
Posted By: neivaD
Date Posted: 28 September 2010 at 6:01pm
|
Maternal and infant mortality are pretty high for c-sections too, as are the mortality and complication rates for subsequent pregnancies, babies and subsequent c-sections. It is major surgery afterall. ------------- Natalie Mama to Miss Pie (04/04) Dude (03/07) Button (06/08) and Thumper (Due Autumn2010) |
Posted By: newme
Date Posted: 29 September 2010 at 8:32pm
|
In the article I referenced above, towards the bottom of the article are some interesting statistics.
Here are a few: Your risk of dying from a rupture of the uterus is: 0.0095% = 9.5 in 100 000 VBAC deliveries Your risk of dying during any ceasarean section is: 0.0409% = 40.0 in 100 000 ceasarean sections Your risk of dying during an elective repeat ceasarean section: 0.0184% = 18.4 in 100 000 elective csecs The risk of your baby dying from a rupture of the uterus is: 0.095% = 9.5 in 10 000 VBAC deliveries The risk of your baby dying during any VBAC delivery is : 0.2% = 2 in 1000 VBAC births The risk of your baby dying during any type of delivery is: 0.12% = 1.2 in 1000 births So c-sections def far more risky. |
Posted By: toniellis
Date Posted: 05 October 2010 at 11:08pm
|
There really does need to be a NZ study done because despite overseas studies proving that vbac & vba2cs are quite low risk, there is still a very high reluctance to allow it here in NZ...
What guts me the most is for me personally, my 2 c-sections were really unnecessary 
Surgeons are far too quick to reach for the knife & any woman would agree to it if they are told it is necessary to save their baby & themselves. ------------- Mum to Alex (11), Blaire (10) & Erika (8) and Damien (6) Successful HWB VBA2Cs! Soon to be surrogate |
Posted By: newme
Date Posted: 06 October 2010 at 7:32am
I think this depends on the area you live in. In Christchurch VBAC's are very much promoted as the best option...however in saying that they do try to put unnecessary restrictions on the labouring mother (continuous fetal monitering, want you to dilate at 1cm per hour etc) and you really do need a strong midwife to stand up for you. But I def agree that surgeons push for the 'unnecesarean'. My midwife said that it was often because they drs want the babies out before their shift finishes so that they can go home. |
toniellis wrote: