Multimedialna platforma wiedzy medycznej Internetowa Księgarnia Medyczna Kalendarium Konferencji
Ginekologia Polska
MENU
Shortcuts Submit an article Author Guidelines Ahead Of Print Reviewers 2023

open access

Vol 89, No 11 (2018)
Guidelines / Expert consensus
Published online: 2018-11-30
View PDF Download PDF file
Get Citation

Recommendations of the Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians regarding caesarean sections

Miroslaw Wielgos1, Dorota Bomba-Opoń1, Grzegorz H. Breborowicz2, Krzysztof Czajkowski3, Romuald Debski4, Bozena Leszczynska-Gorzelak5, Przemyslaw Oszukowski6, Stanislaw Radowicki7, Mariusz Zimmer8
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2018.0110
·
Pubmed: 30508218
·
Ginekol Pol 2018;89(11):644-657.
Affiliations
  1. 1st Chair and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland
  2. Chair of Perinatology and Gynecology, Department of Perinatology and Gynecology, Karol Marcinkowski University of Medical Sciences, Poland
  3. 2nd Chair and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland
  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Poland
  5. Department of Obstetrics and Perinatology, Medical University of Lublin, Poland
  6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Lodz, Poland
  7. Medical University of Warsaw, Poland
  8. 2nd Chair and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Wroclaw, Poland

open access

Vol 89, No 11 (2018)
RECOMMENDATIONS
Published online: 2018-11-30

Abstract

Not available

Abstract

Not available

Full Text:

View PDF Download PDF file
Get Citation
About this article
Title

Recommendations of the Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians regarding caesarean sections

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 89, No 11 (2018)

Article type

Guidelines / Expert consensus

Pages

644-657

Published online

2018-11-30

Page views

5423

Article views/downloads

6743

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2018.0110

Pubmed

30508218

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2018;89(11):644-657.

Authors

Miroslaw Wielgos
Dorota Bomba-Opoń
Grzegorz H. Breborowicz
Krzysztof Czajkowski
Romuald Debski
Bozena Leszczynska-Gorzelak
Przemyslaw Oszukowski
Stanislaw Radowicki
Mariusz Zimmer

References (70)
  1. World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme, 10 April 2015. WHO Statement on caesarean section rates. Reprod Health Matters. 2015; 23(45): 149–150.
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. Xie RH, Gaudet L, Krewski D, et al. Higher cesarean delivery rates are associated with higher infant mortality rates in industrialized countries. Birth. 2015; 42(1): 62–69.
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. https://prog.nfz.gov.pl/app-jgp/Start.aspx.
  4. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, et al. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2000; 356(9239): 1375–1383.
    PubMed
  5. Crowther CA, Dodd JM, Hiller JE, et al. Birth After Caesarean Study Group. Planned vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean: patient preference restricted cohort with nested randomised trial. PLoS Med. 2012; 9(3): e1001192.
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, et al. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120(5): 1181–1193.
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. Groen RS, Trelles M, Caluwaerts S, et al. A cross-sectional study of indications for cesarean deliveries in Médecins Sans Frontières facilities across 17 countries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015; 129(3): 231–235.
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. Pallasmaa N, Ekblad U, Aitokallio-Tallberg A, et al. Cesarean delivery in Finland: maternal complications and obstetric risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010; 89(7): 896–902.
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. Cantwell R, Clutton-Brock T, Cooper G, et al. Saving Mothers' Lives: Reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer: 2006-2008. The Eighth Report of the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom. BJOG. 2011; 118 Suppl 1: 1–203.
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. Creanga AA, Bateman BT, Butwick AJ, et al. Morbidity associated with cesarean delivery in the United States: is placenta accreta an increasingly important contributor? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213(3): 384.e1–384.11.
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. Berthelot-Ricou A, Lacroze V, Courbiere B, et al. Respiratory distress syndrome after elective caesarean section in near term infants: a 5-year cohort study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013; 26(2): 176–182.
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. Jakobsson HE, Abrahamsson TR, Jenmalm MC, et al. Decreased gut microbiota diversity, delayed Bacteroidetes colonisation and reduced Th1 responses in infants delivered by caesarean section. Gut. 2014; 63(4): 559–566.
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. Sevelsted A, Stokholm J, Bønnelykke K, et al. Cesarean section and chronic immune disorders. Pediatrics. 2015; 135(1): e92–e98.
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. Cardwell CR, Stene LC, Joner G, et al. Caesarean section is associated with an increased risk of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Diabetologia. 2008; 51(5): 726–735.
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. Zhang J, Troendle J, Mikolajczyk R, et al. The natural history of the normal first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115(4): 705–710.
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. Laughon SK, Branch DW, Beaver J, et al. Changes in labor patterns over 50 years. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206(5): 419.e1–419.e9.
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. Graseck A, Tuuli M, Roehl K, et al. Fetal descent in labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123(3): 521–526.
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. Tuuli MG, Frey HA, Odibo AO, et al. Immediate compared with delayed pushing in the second stage of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120(3): 660–668.
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. Anim-Somuah M, Smyth R, Howell C. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005(4): CD000331.
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. Wassen MM, Zuijlen J, Roumen FJ, et al. Early versus late epidural analgesia and risk of instrumental delivery in nulliparous women: a systematic review. BJOG. 2011; 118(6): 655–661.
    CrossRefPubMed
  21. Harper LM, Caughey AB, Odibo AO, et al. Normal progress of induced labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 119(6): 1113–1118.
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. Rouse DJ, Weiner SJ, Bloom SL, et al. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU). Failed labor induction: toward an objective diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117(2 Pt 1): 267–272.
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. Simon CE, Grobman WA. When has an induction failed? Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105(4): 705–709.
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. Bomba-Opoń D, Drews K, Huras H, et al. Polish Gynecological Society Recommendations for Labor Induction. Ginekol Pol. 2017; 88(4): 224–234.
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. Stanowisko Ekspertów Polskiego Towarzystwa Ginekologicznego w zakresie zastosowania kardiotokografii w położnictwie. Ginekol Pol. 2014; 85: 713–716.
  26. Neilson JP, Neilson JP, Neilson JP, et al. Fetal electrocardiogram plus heart rate recording for fetal monitoring during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2): CD000116.
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. Rietberg CC, Elferink-Stinkens PM, Brand R, et al. Term breech presentation in The Netherlands from 1995 to 1999: mortality and morbidity in relation to the mode of delivery of 33824 infants. BJOG. 2003; 110(6): 604–609.
    PubMed
  28. Golfier F, Vaudoyer F, Ecochard R, et al. Planned vaginal delivery versus elective caesarean section in singleton term breech presentation: a study of 1116 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001; 98(2): 186–192.
    PubMed
  29. Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah M, Lawrie TA. Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015(7): CD000166.
    CrossRefPubMed
  30. Barrett JFR, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, et al. Twin Birth Study Collaborative Group. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(14): 1295–1305.
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. Vogel JP, Holloway E, Cuesta C, et al. Outcomes of non-vertex second twins, following vertex vaginal delivery of first twin: a secondary analysis of the WHO Global Survey on maternal and perinatal health. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14: 55.
    CrossRefPubMed
  32. Thomas PE, Petersen SG, Gibbons K. The influence of mode of birth on neonatal survival and maternal outcomes at extreme prematurity: A retrospective cohort study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016; 56(1): 60–68.
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. Lannon SMR, Guthrie KA, Reed SD, et al. Mode of delivery at periviable gestational ages: impact on subsequent reproductive outcomes. J Perinat Med. 2013; 41(6): 691–697.
    CrossRefPubMed
  34. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(2): CD000083.
    CrossRefPubMed
  35. Hoffmann E, Oldenburg A, Rode L, et al. Twin births: cesarean section or vaginal delivery? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012; 91(4): 463–469.
    CrossRefPubMed
  36. Barrett JFR. Twin delivery: method, timing and conduct. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 28(2): 327–338.
    CrossRefPubMed
  37. Lees C, Marlow N, Arabin B, et al. TRUFFLE Group. Perinatal morbidity and mortality in early-onset fetal growth restriction: cohort outcomes of the trial of randomized umbilical and fetal flow in Europe (TRUFFLE). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 42(4): 400–408.
    CrossRefPubMed
  38. Figueras F, Gratacós E. Update on the diagnosis and classification of fetal growth restriction and proposal of a stage-based management protocol. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2014; 36(2): 86–98.
    CrossRefPubMed
  39. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 173: Fetal Macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128(5): e195–e209.
    CrossRefPubMed
  40. Burkhardt T, Schmidt M, Kurmanavicius J, et al. Evaluation of fetal anthropometric measures to predict the risk for shoulder dystocia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 43(1): 77–82.
    CrossRefPubMed
  41. Conway DL, Langer O. Elective delivery of infants with macrosomia in diabetic women: reduced shoulder dystocia versus increased cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 178(5): 922–925.
    PubMed
  42. Anteby EY, Yagel S. Route of delivery of fetuses with structural anomalies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003; 106(1): 5–9.
    PubMed
  43. Segel SY, Marder SJ, Parry S, et al. Fetal abdominal wall defects and mode of delivery: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 98(5 Pt 1): 867–873.
    PubMed
  44. Wataganara T, Ngerncham S, Kitsommart R, et al. Fetal neck myofibroma. J Med Assoc Thai. 2007; 90(2): 376–380.
    PubMed
  45. Alfirevic Z, Milan SJ, Livio S. Caesarean section versus vaginal delivery for preterm birth in singletons. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(6): CD000078.
    CrossRefPubMed
  46. Lee HC, Gould JB. Survival rates and mode of delivery for vertex preterm neonates according to small- or appropriate-for-gestational-age status. Pediatrics. 2006; 118(6): e1836–e1844.
    CrossRefPubMed
  47. Warke HS, Saraogi RM, Sanjanwalla SM. Should a preterm breech go for vaginal delivery or caesarean section. J Postgrad Med. 1999; 45(1): 1–4.
    PubMed
  48. Jauniaux E, Ayres-de-Campos D. FIGO Placenta Accreta Diagnosis and Management Expert Consensus Panel. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: Introduction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 140(3): 261–264.
    CrossRefPubMed
  49. Jauniaux E, Chantraine F, Silver RM, et al. FIGO Placenta Accreta Diagnosis and Management Expert Consensus Panel. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: Epidemiology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 140(3): 265–273.
    CrossRefPubMed
  50. Jauniaux E, Bhide A, Kennedy A, et al. FIGO Placenta Accreta Diagnosis and Management Expert Consensus Panel. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: Prenatal diagnosis and screening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 140(3): 274–280.
    CrossRefPubMed
  51. Silver RM, Barbour KD. Placenta accreta spectrum: accreta, increta, and percreta. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2015; 42(2): 381–402.
    CrossRefPubMed
  52. Allen L, Jauniaux E, Hobson S, et al. FIGO Placenta Accreta Diagnosis and Management Expert Consensus Panel. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: Nonconservative surgical management. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 140(3): 281–290.
    CrossRefPubMed
  53. Sentilhes L, Kayem G, Chandraharan E, et al. FIGO Placenta Accreta Diagnosis and Management Expert Consensus Panel. FIGO consensus guidelines on placenta accreta spectrum disorders: Conservative management. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 140(3): 291–298.
    CrossRefPubMed
  54. Bręborowicz GH, Markwitz W, Gaca M, et al. Conservative management of placenta previa complicated by abnormal placentation. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013; 26(10): 1012–1015.
    CrossRefPubMed
  55. Jeejeebhoy FM, Zelop CM, Lipman S, et al. American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee, Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation, Council on Cardiovascular Diseases in the Young, and Council on Clinical Cardiology. Cardiac Arrest in Pregnancy: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2015; 132(18): 1747–1773.
    CrossRefPubMed
  56. James DK, Steer PJ, Weiner CP, et al. High Risk Pregnancy. Management Options. Saunders. 2011.
  57. Jędrzejczak J, Bomba-Opoń D, Jakiel G, et al. Managing epilepsy in women of childbearing age - Polish Society of Epileptology and Polish Gynecological Society Guidelines. Ginekol Pol. 2017; 88(5): 278–284.
    CrossRefPubMed
  58. Konsensus okulistyczno-położniczy w sprawie wskazań do rozwiązania porodu drogą cięcia cesarskiego z powodu zmian w narządzie wzroku. https://www.ptgin.pl/index.php/lekarze/rekomendacje2/rekomendacje.
  59. Holka-Pokorska J, Jarema M, Stefanowicz A, et al. Elective cesarean section on psychiatric indications – the phenomenon analysis, report of two cases and psychiatric clinical recommendations. Psychiatria Polska. 2016; 50(2): 357–373.
    CrossRef
  60. Wielgoś M, Krzakowski M, Czajkowski K, et al. Standardy postępowania w przypadkach choroby nowotworowej u kobiety w ciąży Część I. Wiadomości ogólne: epidemiologia, diagnostyka, leczenie, poradnictwo genetyczne . Ginekologia i Perinatologia Praktyczna . 2016; 1(4): 172–188.
  61. Wielgoś M, Krzakowski M, Czajkowski K, et al. Standardy postępowania w przypadkach choroby nowotworowej u kobiety w ciąży Część III. Rak piersi, rak tarczycy. Ginekologia i Perinatologia Praktyczna. 2017; 2(1): 28–39.
  62. Wielgoś M, Krzakowski M, Czajkowski K, et al. Standardy postępowania w przypadkach choroby nowotworowej u kobiety w ciąży Część II. Rak szyjki macicy, guzy jajnika. Ginekologia i Perinatologia Praktyczna. 2017; 2(1): 28–39.
  63. Wielgoś M, Krzakowski M, Czajkowski K, et al. Standardy postępowania w przypadkach choroby nowotworowej u kobiety w ciąży Część IV. Nowotwory układu pokarmowego, rzadkie nowotwory . Ginekologia i Perinatologia Praktyczna . 2017; 2(2): 72–84.
  64. Management of Genital Herpes in Pregnancy. RCOG BASHH. 2014.
  65. British HIV Association guideline for the management of HIV infection in pregnant women 2012. HIV Medicine. 2014; 15: 1–77.
  66. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Can a prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean also predict the probability of morbidity related to a trial of labor? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 200(1): 56.e1–56.e6.
    CrossRefPubMed
  67. Horenstein JM, Phelan JP. Previous cesarean section: the risks and benefits of oxytocin usage in a trial of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 151(5): 564–569.
    PubMed
  68. Flamm BL, Goings JR, Fuelberth NJ, et al. Oxytocin during labor after previous cesarean section: results of a multicenter study. Obstet Gynecol. 1987; 70(5): 709–712.
    PubMed
  69. Bujold E, Blackwell SC, Gauthier RJ. Cervical ripening with transcervical foley catheter and the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103(1): 18–23.
    CrossRefPubMed
  70. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, et al. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345(1): 3–8.
    CrossRefPubMed

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl