Journal de gynecologie, obstetrique et biologie de la reproduction · 2011
[Management of delivery after previous caesarean section in France].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sans-Mischel A-C, Trastour C, Sakarovitch C, Delotte J, Fontas E, Bongain A
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: Since many years, caesarean section rate has increased in France. The purpose of the study was to compare the different French obstetrical attitudes after a prior caesarean section.
METHODS: This retrospective study was performed between March 2008 and February 2010. We collected the answers of a majority of maternity centres contacted with an anonymous questionnaire sent by postal, electronic, fax mails.
RESULTS: Of the 194 maternity centres which have responded, there were 37 university hospitals and 312 obstetricians: 75.6% of them worked in public sector and 19.2% in private one. The use of a protocol is registered for 29.6% of questioned obstetricians (only 14% in private sector, P=0.002). Pelvimetry is consistently proposed by 44.4% of them. A trial of labour in case of breech presentation is proposed by 20% of questioned obstetricians, with twin pregnancies by 23.7%, with two prior low-transverse caesarean delivery by 12%, most in university hospitals, level III, with more than 1500 births per year. Induction of labour is allowed by 73.9% of questioned obstetricians, by ocytocics as a majority. Induction by Prostine(®) is underwent by 14.5% of them (24.6% in academic centres, P=0.01), by Propess(®) by 19.2% of them (30% in university hospitals, P=0.008).
CONCLUSION: These findings showed that the management of delivery after caesarean section is associated with statistically significant differences in France. These informations are relevant for counselling French obstetrical practices.
METHODS: This retrospective study was performed between March 2008 and February 2010. We collected the answers of a majority of maternity centres contacted with an anonymous questionnaire sent by postal, electronic, fax mails.
RESULTS: Of the 194 maternity centres which have responded, there were 37 university hospitals and 312 obstetricians: 75.6% of them worked in public sector and 19.2% in private one. The use of a protocol is registered for 29.6% of questioned obstetricians (only 14% in private sector, P=0.002). Pelvimetry is consistently proposed by 44.4% of them. A trial of labour in case of breech presentation is proposed by 20% of questioned obstetricians, with twin pregnancies by 23.7%, with two prior low-transverse caesarean delivery by 12%, most in university hospitals, level III, with more than 1500 births per year. Induction of labour is allowed by 73.9% of questioned obstetricians, by ocytocics as a majority. Induction by Prostine(®) is underwent by 14.5% of them (24.6% in academic centres, P=0.01), by Propess(®) by 19.2% of them (30% in university hospitals, P=0.008).
CONCLUSION: These findings showed that the management of delivery after caesarean section is associated with statistically significant differences in France. These informations are relevant for counselling French obstetrical practices.