These are the complication rates that Silver 2006 found in 30,000 women during multiple cesareans.The rates quoted were what he found during the third CS but, I think the accreta and previa rates illustrate the risks that are present during a third pregnancy after two prior CS.
I just received this email tonight and need ideas quick. This term mom seeking VBA2C is in the the Columbia area of South Carolina. Her OB was supportive until 37 weeks. Her cesarean is scheduled in two days on March 5, 2012. She was told that if she shows up in labor, she will be “forced” to have a cesarean. Does anyone know of a care provider in her area that would be willing to accept a new client this late in pregnancy? What other options does she have? Additionally, I’m looking for information on the legality of a hospital/OB “forcing” a c/s? What happens if she shows up at the current hospital and refuses to sign the c/s consent form? What exactly CAN they do??
“When patients perceived that their doctor preferred a repeat cesarean, very few chose to undergo trial of labor, whereas the majority chose trial of labor if that was their doctor’s preference.” Additionally, 73% of the women admitted for a ERCS did not know the chances of a successful VBAC and 64% did not know the risk of uterine rupture. 54% of women choosing a TOLAC did not know the chances of a successful VBAC and 45% did not know the risk of rupture!
A mom seeking a VBAC runs into major roadblocks at her local hospital which has a VBAC ban. VBAC Facts compiled a list of options based on real live decisions of women who VBACed despite bans. Did you deliver at a VBAC ban hospital? What was your strategy? Are you a health care provider at a VBAC ban hospital and have some insight?
I came across a couple different bits of (mis)information over the past day that have really concerned me. In both situations, people, one of whom is a certified professional midwife (CPM), give false information regarding how a cesarean affects one’s risk of uterine rupture in future pregnancies.
With regard to intrauterine pressure catheters, RCOG notes that their routine use in the early detection of uterine scar rupture is not recommended. ACOG similarly states that no data suggest that intrauterine pressure catheters are superior to external forms of monitoring, and there is evidence that their use does not assist in the diagnosis of uterine rupture.