Study shows Caesarean-birthed babies more likely to die in first month

IamJen · Sep 7, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Babies born alive by Caesarean section are almost three times more likely to die in the first month than those delivered naturally. 
The finding, from a huge US study examining the risks of Caesarean births, will fuel the debate in the UK, where women are increasingly demanding the right to be given a choiceover the method of delivery. 
However, the study did not include stillbirths, which are higher among vaginal deliveries, and looked only at what happened to babies after they were born. Had stillbirths been included, the risks of the two methods would have been closer.</div>
</div>
 <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1369593.ece" target="_blank">http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle1369593.ece</a> 
The numbers are still very very small, but I wonder if they can discover what accounts for the difference in survival rates.

zoebird · Sep 7, 2006

there is a thing in the newspaper article that kinda 'gets' me. there's an assertion that comparing stillbirths to c-sections would make the results 'more accurate.' yet, the researchers compared elective c-section births (no indicated risks to make the section necessary) to no indicated risks vaginal births--essentially comparing 'equals.' 
here's better coverage: <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060830075513.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0830075513.htm</a> 
Here's the link to the abstract of the published article: <a href="http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1523-536X.2006.00102.x" target="_blank">http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi...X.2006.00102.x</a> 
the journal has a lot of other interesting articles too in this particular publication. 
i have a huge issue with no-risk elective c-sections. one of the issues i have with it is 'health care inequality.' utilizing limited resources unnecessarily creates an access problem.

gaya · Sep 7, 2006

I agree that no risk elective C-sections is problematic on many levels and you make a great point Zoe re: access issues. I don't understand why a woman choose this route. Wouldn't recovery be more difficult? I've been cut open before and it took weeks for me to regain mobility. I don't get it.

zoebird · Sep 7, 2006

supposedly, it's a "painless" birth.

zoebird · Sep 7, 2006

oh, and here's a related study about maternal deaths for elective c-sections: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060831/hl_nm/caesarean_dc" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060831/hl_nm/caesarean_dc</a> 
and it's relevant journal publication: <a href="http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/short/108/3/541" target="_blank">http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/content/short/108/3/541</a> 
this also had a population-controlled study where they compared healthy women who had c-sections with healthy women who birthed vaginally.

gaya · Sep 7, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by zoebird <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a> 
supposedly, it's a "painless" birth.</div>
</div>
 
lol yea, I imagine the birth itself would be painless but the recovery time doesn't seem like it would be worth it. I had one of those laparoscopic surgeries which are supposed to have a much better recovery time because smaller incisions are made but imo, it sucked. I can't imagine recovering from such a large incision. How long is recovery after a vaginal birth? Aren't moms up and about in a day or so? Providing there are no complications of course.

veggieeater · Sep 7, 2006

With Babyveggieeater2, I went to the hospital at 6pm, gave birth at 7:30pm and was walking around to find her by 11pm. I didnt take any medication and went home the following afternoon. I dont see how a c-section could have been any easier than that. 
I volunteered for a few years in the labor and delivery floor of a hospital. The moms that had vaginal births stayed sorter times, got up sooner and seemed to recover much faster. That could be related to reasons for c-sections to a certain degree though.

zoebird · Sep 7, 2006

yeah, it does take longer for a section to heal. i'll look for some information on it. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="

">

Amy SF · Sep 7, 2006

That's an interesting study - if it's true. I'm not advocating that everybody should be allowed to have C-sections if they don't have to, but there are still women who do have to. My sister had both her children by C-section, and they're healthy and thriving at 22 and 18 years. She had her son delivered that way because he was sharing her uterus with a HUGE fibroid - I saw the picture taken of it after it was removed - and she couldn't give my nephew a natural birth. First they did a fibroidectomy, then they did a babyectomy. But apparently the incision they made was horizontal rather than vertical, and she said because of that, it would have made delivering her daughter problematic. I never got the details exactly why. So she delivered my niece by C-section, too. 
I've tended to be suspicious of certain "studies" ever since the time I read about a study done here in the States (I can't remember exactly where it was) that said that children born to vegan mothers are more likely to have birth defects. So, in this study, how many vegan mothers had babies with birth defects? 
Two. 
Just two. 
That's the number (2). 
That wasn't a study, that was probably somebody with a bee up his or her bonnet about veganism noting that two vegan mothers had babies with birth defects, and voila! veganism causes birth defects.

zoebird · Sep 7, 2006

yeah, the study is about elective c-sections. 
no one, not even the researchers are saying that there aren't good reasons to have c-sections. 
and, by in large, death due to birth--in general--is rare for mother's and babies in the developed world where women have access to nutrition, sanitation, and medical assistance when needed.

IamJen · Sep 7, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by veggieeater <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a> 
I volunteered for a few years in the labor and delivery floor of a hospital. The moms that had vaginal births stayed sorter times, got up sooner and seemed to recover much faster. That could be related to reasons for c-sections to a certain degree though.</div>
</div>
 
Yeah. I think maybe it's a pain now vs. (more) pain later. I've not known any C-Section moms that were up and walking the same day. Even if it was a pain now issue, you could do an epidural which is far less invasive and potentially dangerous to you and the baby. 
It's a big debate here, because apparently many mothers to be are upset that the NHS rules don't allow them to schedule C-Sections. They can only "get them" <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="

"> if a doc deems it medically necessary. (which is probably how it should be) 
I thought the study was interesting, because there's generally less stress on the baby with a C-section, so I was surprised to hear of the higher death risk. Granted, we're talking about around 1 percent, but still...interesting.

zoebird · Sep 7, 2006

according to the abstract and some other things i was able to get ahold of, they believe it may be linked to the baby's immaturity. due dates by ultrasound are estimates at best--and are commonly 1-2 weeks 'off' according to women who chart (though most docs don't believe the charts to be valid anyway). 
so, they strive to do elective c-sections after the 38th week, to make sure that there's enough lung development. but, since that due date could be off by a week or two, they could be sectioning at 36 weeks or at 40 weeks without really knowing for certain whether the baby is fully developed or not. 
this, of course, is just a 'guess' as to why that may be. 35 weeks is typically when the lungs finish developing, so technically anytime after then is 'appropriate,' but the closer to 40-42 weeks, the more developed the baby and often the better able to breathe. 
interesting stuff, anyway.

tearhsong2 · Sep 8, 2006

Having gone through birth, I don't understand why a new mother would elect to have a c-section if it weren't medically necessary. Yeah, the pain of vaginal birth is awful, but the recovery is so much quicker. 
Epidurals are one of the best gifts of God and medical science to women in labor, IMO. I went from having excruciatingly painful contractions every 20-30 seconds and screaming at the top of my lungs to feeling nothing from belly down and being able to sleep until I had dilated enough for me to start pushing the kiddo out.

missbelgium · Sep 14, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">supposedly, it's a "painless" birth.</div>
</div>
 
Mmmm... Right. The birth is painless because you are anesthesized, LOL. I had a non elective c-section with my daughter and it's not a painless recovery ! I know women who have recovered from c-sections much better than this, but it took me about 2 months to walk upright without constant pain in the incision. 
About the veganism causing birth defects... was there even a control group ? Stuff about so-called scientific studies is appearing on the internet all the time and it's getting hairier all the time too. I read something close to fantasy science fiction only this morning, 3 pages of claims with no proof whatsoever. You have to be very discriminate these days with what is printed/publicized. Oh well. It makes life more interesting, of course...

Bonoluvr · Sep 14, 2006

I had a c section with both my kids, had to , not elective..........both times i was walking the SAME day. and the next etc etc...........yes there was incisional pain, but nothing a couple of motrin didnt help with. for me at least, but i was up and moving, i was able to stay in the hospital i think it was 4 days, but i didnt, on the first i had my dd on a wednesday night late and went home saturday mid day. with my second he came on a wednesday morning and i went home friday mid day. 
once home the thing that caused me pain was getting out of the bed, but other than that i was out and about walking doing everything pretty much as normal. i have pictures of us about 1 1/2 wks after baby came at a day out with thomas the train........at an amusement park, my dd was 3 at the time and really really wanted to go! 
i think the more you move after a section the better it goes for recovery, just for future reference if anyone needs one. 
but i tried vag didnt work for me, but i dont know why anyone would want to have a section if not medically necessary, i guess convenience of knowing when baby is coming.

Eva-bo-beva · Sep 14, 2006

This makes no sense...most c-sections are performed on high risk babies.

Eva-bo-beva · Sep 14, 2006

This makes no sense...most c-sections are performed on high risk babies.

missbelgium · Sep 15, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">i think the more you move after a section the better it goes for recovery</div>
</div>
 
Could be, and so much the better for you, but when they tried to get me to stand up on the second day I fainted because it hurt so much, and I was on the maximum painkiller dose they were allowed to give me while breastfeeding. They had to call a male nurse to lift me back into the bed. People are totally different where pain and recovery are concerned I suppose. 
So, all things considered, if I had a choice, I'd opt for vaginal any time ! And the mortality risk mentioned by the o.p. is probably true, and I am against elective c-sections. There. I said it all. LOL !

zoebird · Sep 15, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">This makes no sense...most c-sections are performed on high risk babies</div>
</div>
 
that was discussed during the article itself. the focus was ONLY on elective c-sections.

remilard · Sep 16, 2006

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by IamJen <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1369593.ece" target="_blank">http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/hea...cle1369593.ece</a> 
The numbers are still very very small, but I wonder if they can discover what accounts for the difference in survival rates.</div>
</div>
 
In addition to random error* there were obviously some babies who had unknown health problems and were born by elective c-section. My intuition is that comparing elective c-sections to non-stillborn vaginal births is not great experimental design. 
*When researches data mine they will commonly report the statistical error for the comparison which yielded the published result. They ought to report the error for the entire data mining exercise which can be much higher. Egregious examples of this can be seen in the bible code stuff.

Study shows Caesarean-birthed babies more likely to die in first month

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Registered

Banned