medigraphic.com
ISSN 0187-5337 (Impreso)
Instituto Nacional de Perinatología

2014, Número 1

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Perinatol Reprod Hum 2014; 28 (1)


Cesárea: Tendencias y resultados

Ruiz-Sánchez J, Espino SS, Vallejos-Parés A, Durán-Arenas L

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 79
Paginas: 33-40
Archivo PDF: 223.28 Kb.


RESUMEN

La cesárea es el procedimiento quirúrgico más realizado en mujeres de todo el mundo. El aumento en la realización de la misma se ha convertido en objeto de análisis de diversos países. La decisión sobre la vía de nacimiento supone una interrelación entre los factores maternos biológicos, la práctica obstétrica, los factores sociales y los institucionales. En este artículo se pretende realizar una revisión de la bibliografía actual sobre el proceso de la toma de decisión con respecto a la vía de nacimiento. El conocimiento del proceso de la toma de decisiones nos permitirá establecer estrategias para disminuir el índice de cesáreas en una población y disminuir, así, la morbilidad y mortalidad materna.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985; 2: 436-7.

  2. MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declercq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes. Clin Perinatol. 2008; 35: 293-307.

  3. Belizan JM, Althabe F, Barros FC. Rates and implicatios of cesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ. 1999; 319: 1297-402.

  4. Wylie B, Fadi G. Cesarean delivery in the developing world. Clin Perinatol. 2008; 35: 571-82.

  5. Ronsman C, Holtz S, Stanton C. Socieconomic diferentials in caesarean rates in developing countries: a retrospective analysis. Lancet. 2006; 368: 1516-23.

  6. Dirección General de Información en Salud. Boletín de Información Estadística. Servicios otorgados y programas sustantivos. Secretaría de Salud [Internet] 2009. 3. Disponible en: http//sinais.salud.gob.mx/publicaciones/index.html

  7. Gunnervik C. Attitudes towards cesarean section in a Nationwide sample of obstetricans an gynecologists. Acta Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 87: 438-44.

  8. Joseph KS. Changes in maternal characteristics and obstetric practice and recent increases in primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 102: 791-800.

  9. Azad K. Unnecessary cesarean delivery in Louisiana: An analysis of birth certificate data. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190: 10-9.

  10. Benjamin S, Kobelin C, Castro MA, Frigoletto F. The risks of lowering the cesarean-delivery rate. N Engl J Med. 999; 340: 54-7.

  11. Heffner LJ. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. American college of obstetricians and gynecologists. 2003; 102: 287-93.

  12. Kassak KM. Opting for a cesarean: what determines the decision? Public Administration & Management. 2008; 13: 100-22.

  13. Dominique P. Consumer demand for cesarean sections in Brazil: informed decision making, patient choice, or social inequality? A population based birth cohort study linking ethnografic and epidemiological methods. BMJ. 2002; 324: 1-6.

  14. Wylie B, Fadi G. Cesarean delivery in the developing world. Clin Perinatol. 2008; 35: 571-82.

  15. Pang MW, Leung TN, Lau TK, Hang Chung TK. Impact of first childbirth on changes in women’s preference for mode of delivery: follow-up of a longitudinal observational study. Birth. 2008; 35: 121-7.

  16. Khajehei J. Sexual outcomes of primiparous women. Ind J Comm Med. 2009; 34: 119-23.

  17. Katharina K. Does the mode of delivery influence sexual function after childbirth? J Women’s Health. 2009; 18: 231-7.

  18. Potter JE. Unwanted cesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study. BMJ. 2001; 323: 1155-6.

  19. Grisaru A, Samueloff A. Primary nonmedically indicated cesarean section (“section on request”): evidence based or modern vogue? Clin Perinatol. 2004; 31: 409-30.

  20. Weaver J. Are there ‘‘unnecessary’’ cesarean sections? Perceptions of women and obstetricians about cesarean sections for nonclinical indications. Birth. 2007; 34: 301-9.

  21. Pevzner L. Patients’ attitudes associated with cesarean delivery on maternal request in an urban population. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 195: 421-6.

  22. Declercq ER, Sakala C. Listening to mothers: report of the first national U.S. survey of women’s childbearing experiences. New York: Maternity Center Association; 2007.

  23. Redshaw M, Rowe R, Hockley C. Recorded delivery: a national survey of women’s experience with maternity care, 2006. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit; 2007.

  24. Murray SF. Relation between private health insurance and high rates of caesarean section in Chile: qualitative and quantitative study. BMJ. 2000; 321: 1501-5.

  25. Potter JE, Berquó E, Perpetuo IH. Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study. BMJ. 2001; 323: 1155-8.

  26. McCourt C. Elective cesarean section and decision making: a critical review of the literature. Birth. 2007; 34: 65-79.

  27. Robson S. Elective caesarean delivery at maternal request: a preliminary study of motivations influencing women’s decision-making. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008; 48: 415-20.

  28. Walker R. Increasing cesarean section rates: exploring the role of culture in an australian community. Birth. 2004; 31: 154-9.

  29. Bergeron V. The ethics of cesarean section on maternal request: a feminist critique of the American college of obstetricians and gynecologists’ position on patient-choice surgery. Bioethics. 2007; 21: 478-87.

  30. Tore N. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: can the ethical problem be solved by the principlist approach? BMC Med Ethics. 2008; 9: 11.

  31. Amu O, Rajendran S, Bolaji I. Maternal choice alone should not determine method of delivery. BMJ. 1998; 317: 462-5.

  32. Paterson-Brown S. Controversies in management: should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request?: yes, as long as the woman is fully informed. BMJ. 1998; 317: 462-3.

  33. Hans P. Elective cesarean section-the right choice for whom? Curr Women’s Health Rev. 2005; 1: 85-8.

  34. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Surgery and patient choice. In: Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2004. p. 21.

  35. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Issues in obstetrics and gynecology by the FIGO committee for the ethical aspects of human reproduction and women’s health. FIGO. 2003; 41: 2.

  36. National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: Cesarean delivery on maternal request March 27–29, 2006. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107: 1386-97.

  37. MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F. Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with ‘‘no indicated risk’’, United States, 1998-2001 birth cohorts. Birth. 2006; 33: 175-82.

  38. Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicenter prospective study. BMJ. 2007; 1025-35.

  39. Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007; 21: 98-113.

  40. Wax J. Patient choice cesarean: an evidence-based review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004; 59: 608-12.

  41. Robson SJ. Estimating the rate of cesarean section by maternal request: anonymous survey of obstetricians in Australia. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2010; 65: 11-3.

  42. Leeman LM. Patient-choice vaginal delivery? Ann Fam Med. 2006; 4: 265-8.

  43. Lehmann S. Norwegian midwives and doctors have increased cesarean section rates. Acta Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 86: 1087-9.

  44. Mitler LK. Physician gender and cesarean sections. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000; 53: 1030-5.

  45. Monari F. Obstetricians’ and midwives’ attitudes toward cesarean section. Birth. 2008; 35: 129-35.

  46. Ghetti Ch. Physicians’ responses to patient-requested cesarean delivery. Birth. 2004; 31: 280-4.

  47. Guzmán-Sánchez A. Intento de parto vaginal en 1,000 pacientes con antecedentes de cesárea previa en el Antiguo Hospital Civil de Guadalajara. Ginecol Obstet México. 1998; 66: 329-32.

  48. Glantz JC. Cesarean delivery risk adjustment for regional interhospital comparisons. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 181: 1425-31.

  49. Benjamín S. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a health policy perspective. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 44: 553-60.

  50. Cheerag UD. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in a small rural community with a solo practice. Am J Perinatol. 2003; 20: 63-6.

  51. Richard H. Cesarean birth: how to reduce the rate. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 172: 1903-11.

  52. Wen SW. Comparison of maternal mortality and morbidity between trial of labor and elective cesarean section among women with previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191: 1263-9.

  53. Juárez-Ocaña S. Tendencia de los embarazos terminados por operación cesárea en México durante el periodo 1991-1995. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 1999; 67: 308-18.

  54. Donal BJ. Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201: 308.e1-308.

  55. Allen VM. Economic implications of method of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: 192-7.

  56. Gunnervik C. Attitudes towards cesarean section in a nationwide sample of obstetricians and gynecologists. Acta Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 87: 438-44.

  57. Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J. Patient choice cesarean— the Maine experience. Birth. Birth. 2005; 32: 203-6.

  58. Wu JM, Hundley AF, Visco AG. Elective primary caesarean delivery: attitudes of urogynecology and maternal-fetal medicine specialists. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105: 301-6.

  59. Kenton K, Brincat C, Mutone M, Brubaker L. Repeat caesarean section and primary elective caesarean section: recently trained obstetrician-gynecologist practice patterns and opinion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192: 1872-6.

  60. Cotzias CS, Paterson-Brown S, Fisk NM. Obstetricians say yes to maternal request for elective caesarean section: a survey of current opinion. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001; 97: 15-6.

  61. Groom KM, Paterson-Brown S, Fisk NM. Temporal and geographical variation in UK obstetricians preference regarding mode of delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002; 100: 185-8.

  62. McGurgan P, Coulter-Smith S, O’Donovan PJ. A national confidential survey of obstetrician’s personal preferences regarding mode of delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001; 97: 17-9.

  63. Anderson GM. Making sense of rising caesarean section rates. Br Med J. 2004; 329: 696-7.

  64. Joesch J, Gossman G, Tanfer K. Primary cesarean deliveries prior to labor in the United States, 1979-2004. Maternal Child Health J. 2008; 18: 167-71.

  65. Savage W. The caesarean section epidemic. J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 20: 223-5.

  66. Gregory K, Korst L, Platt L. Variation in elective primary cesarean delivery by patient and hospital factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 184: 1521-34.

  67. Xie Hong. Factors related to the high cesarean section rate and their effects on the “price transparency policy” in Beijing, China. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2007; 212: 283-98.

  68. Walker R. Strategies to address global cesarean section rates: a review of the evidence. Birth. 2002; 27: 79-81.

  69. Cyr RM. Myth of the ideal cesarean section rate: commentary and historic perspective. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194: 932-6.

  70. Fuglenes D. Obstetricians’ choice of cesarean delivery in ambiguous cases: is it influenced by risk attitude or fear of complaints and litigation? Am J Obstet Gynecology. 2009; 196: 48-52.

  71. Betrán AP. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediat Perinatal Epidemiol. 2000; 21: 98-113.

  72. Althabe F. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth. 2008; 33: 237-40.

  73. Belizán J. Rates and implications of caesarean section in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ. 1999; 319: 1397-400.

  74. Gregory KD. Cesarean deliveries for Medicaid patients: a comparison in public and private hospitals in Los Angeles County. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 180: 1177-84.

  75. Murray S, Elston MA. The promotion of private health insurance and its implications for the social organization of healthcare: a case study of private sector obstetric practice in Chile. Sociol Health Illness. 2005; 27: 701-21.

  76. Villar J. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. The Lancet. 2006; 367: 1819-29.

  77. González-Pérez G. Caesarean sections in Mexico: are there too many? Health policy and planning. Inglaterra: Oxford University Press; 2001. pp. 62-7.

  78. Dale Km Kajal L. Socioeconomic factors and the odds of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. JAMA. 1994; 272: 524-9.

  79. Zupanic JA. The economics of elective cesarean section. Clin Perinatol. 2008; 35: 591-9.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com