<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Study Finds VBAC &quot;As Safe&quot; As Repeat Cesarean</title>
	<atom:link href="http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/</link>
	<description>Vaginal birth after cesarean?  Don&#039;t freak, know the facts.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:51:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: facts on vbacs &#171; Elan Doula</title>
		<link>http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/comment-page-1/#comment-6153</link>
		<dc:creator>facts on vbacs &#171; Elan Doula</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:18:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/#comment-6153</guid>
		<description>[...] cut” cesarean is 0.2% – 0.4% and the risk of infant death or injury is 0.05%. (Landon 2004, Gonen 2006, Cahill [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] cut” cesarean is 0.2% – 0.4% and the risk of infant death or injury is 0.05%. (Landon 2004, Gonen 2006, Cahill [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jennifer</title>
		<link>http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/comment-page-1/#comment-2258</link>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 05:08:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/#comment-2258</guid>
		<description>So sorry for the broken link.  ACOG did a complete overall of their journal&#039;s website, so all the old links no longer work.  I&#039;m updating them as they are brought to my attention.  Thank you!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So sorry for the broken link.  ACOG did a complete overall of their journal&#8217;s website, so all the old links no longer work.  I&#8217;m updating them as they are brought to my attention.  Thank you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yuliya</title>
		<link>http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/comment-page-1/#comment-2255</link>
		<dc:creator>Yuliya</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:23:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/#comment-2255</guid>
		<description>Thank you for the article. Would that be possible to get a working link to that study? I need to refer to it in my analysis.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for the article. Would that be possible to get a working link to that study? I need to refer to it in my analysis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Бързи факти &#8211; VBAC vs. ресекцио &#171; Zozima&#8217;s Blog</title>
		<link>http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/comment-page-1/#comment-1459</link>
		<dc:creator>Бързи факти &#8211; VBAC vs. ресекцио &#171; Zozima&#8217;s Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:32:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/#comment-1459</guid>
		<description>[...] а рискът от натална смърт или нараняване е 0.05% (Landon 2004, Gonen 2006, Cahill [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] а рискът от натална смърт или нараняване е 0.05% (Landon 2004, Gonen 2006, Cahill [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Naomi Shimamoto</title>
		<link>http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/comment-page-1/#comment-1206</link>
		<dc:creator>Naomi Shimamoto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:51:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/#comment-1206</guid>
		<description>Good article.  I wanted to mention, though, that the link to the study in the post is broken.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good article.  I wanted to mention, though, that the link to the study in the post is broken.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jenn Riedy</title>
		<link>http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/comment-page-1/#comment-1101</link>
		<dc:creator>Jenn Riedy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:12:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://vbacfacts.com/2009/03/08/study-finds-vbac-as-safe-as-repeat-cesarean/#comment-1101</guid>
		<description>Great study!  Now the question is...will it make it into the media???

I will point out that 20 microunits per minute of Pit is a HIGH dose...so it is amazing that the rupture rate was still so low.  The package insert for Pitocin says that 6 microunits per minute mimics spontaneous labor (so 20 microunits is 3.33 times as intense as natural labor!), and levels above 10 microunits per minute are &quot;rarely needed.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great study!  Now the question is&#8230;will it make it into the media???</p>
<p>I will point out that 20 microunits per minute of Pit is a HIGH dose&#8230;so it is amazing that the rupture rate was still so low.  The package insert for Pitocin says that 6 microunits per minute mimics spontaneous labor (so 20 microunits is 3.33 times as intense as natural labor!), and levels above 10 microunits per minute are &#8220;rarely needed.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

