As rate of C-sections rises, so do known risks

In the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine researchers reveal that…

by Cathy Gulli on Thursday, January 8, 2009 12:11pm - 7 Comments

In the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine researchers reveal that women who have multiple C-sections at term but before reaching 39 weeks gestation have double the chance of having a baby with serious complications. 

In Canada, more than a quarter of women had C-sections in 2006 compared to just 17.6 per cent in 1993. The rise is partly attributed to higher obesity rates and women giving birth later in life. There are also suggestions that some women prefer C-sections as a way of setting predictable delivery dates. C-sections can also be combined with a tummy tuck

Last summer the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada issued a statement warning against caesarians where possible. It said that unnecessary C-sections put future pregnancies in jeopardy, require longer recovery times for mothers and generally strain the health care system.

A 2007 report by the federal Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System showed that women who had C-sections had three times the rate of “severe illness” compared to those who had planned vaginal deliveries, and they were hospitalized for longer.

SOGC summarized the findings, which were also published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, this way: “…elective C-sections have higher risks of anesthetic complications, major infections, obstetrical wound, and cardiac arrest” and noted that these women “were more likely to require an immediate hysterectomy due to bleeding.”

Bookmark and Share
  • http://www.obesitypanacea.blogspot.com Travis

    Another reminder that the obesity epidemic is influencing every area of Canadian life – from chronic disease risk to how we have our babies to the size of air ambulances.

  • Austin So

    My wife had a C-section for our first (after 72 hours of labour…not nice), and she had an infection and internal bleeding well-after the 2 week window. We had to go to the hospital 3 times to convince them there was something wrong (after drawing a pen line around a growing hematoma). They had to reopen the incision and let it heal slowly over the next week.

    When we had our second, we found out that the incision had not healed properly and if she had gone to term (2-week early scheduling), her uterus would have ruptured.

    It takes at least 2 months to fully recover from a C-section IMHO. If a C-section is not necessary, believe you me the risks far outweigh any perceived convenience…

    FWIW

    Austin

    • lyn

      i had a cesection and an infection when i got home, doctor put me on antibiotics, i dont think we really know the post csection infection rates as women dont usually get admitted for such infections and the infection just compounds your recovery rate; the csection rates are much too high, they were suppose to go down and they continued to rise!

    • dee

      i Agree i had to have a crash section where i suffered internall bleeding incorrect stitched scar, my babys heartbeat stopped i had no choice i still have medicl problems and depression two years later a c section isnt an easy way out as your wife would agree .ending up in intensive care unable to care for a baby isnt what any mum wants i found my previous vaginal births easier and less painfull.

  • madeyoulook

    Evolution (and/or Mother Nature and/or God, take your pick) did not intend for the surgical removal of the next generation. But at the same time, evolution was indifferent to the levels of infant and maternal mortality when labour & vaginal delivery go horribly wrong. No, that’s not quite right: evolution requires the non-survival of the least fit.

    So a life-saving procedure “evolves” into an elective option for those too posh to push, and go figure, there are unpleasant consequences.

    • Cami

      Woo boy – that is more than a bit harsh!

      How many of us would not be here today if it were not for antibiotics? Do we say that people should be left to die from infeciton (or polio, or smallpox or any other number of natural “population thinners”) so that the “fittest” may survive? Um, no.

      So why would you suggest that women be left to die in childbirth?? Is this perhaps just a wee bit Misogynist on your part??

  • http://klimadeodorant.com klima deodorant

    I don't think we really know the post section infection rates as women don't usually get admitted for such infections and the infection just compounds your recovery rate.

From Macleans