Talk:Delivery after previous caesarean section

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merge

The text is identical to the section in the caesarean section article. This article is redundant. -Juansmith 22:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I restored this article and have begun expanding it. — Reinyday, 21:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinyday (talk • contribs)

I have deleted the section on the incision for caesarian section. It seems to conflate the incision in the abdominal wall with the one made in the uterus. It is also misleading in its reference to to the strength of the scar after a lower-segment C section. This scar is safer than the scar of a classic C section because of its location, but it is still a weakpoint in the uterine wall. I have deleted some sentences which seem to advocate VBAC. The decision to try or not to try a VBAC is a serious one, those offering advice to the lay readers who are likely to read this page should offer factual information rather than opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kigongos (talk • contribs) 14:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh more pov people.Geni 21:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to edit (due to insufficient knowledge), but this all seems very specific (particularly in terminology) to US medical practice, and I suspect that there are significant geographical variations. Purely anecdotally (I witnessed the VBAC delivery of my daughter last week) the UK NHS seems much more relaxed about VBAC than the attitudes implied by the general tone of this article. Blufive (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has multiple issues, including mislabeled lists, disorganization, and an extremely lengthy introductory section before the table of contents. Discussion on its formatting and necessity should be reopen. I tagged it as needing cleanup. 76.21.201.31 (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do some clean up this morning. Basically, there were several things presented as hard fact that don't represent the official recommendations of the NIH, ACOG, CDC, etc., relating to labor induction, uterine scar thickness measurement, VBAC pregnancy post-due date, etc. There were two separate history/trend-related sections, so I tried to consolidate them and back it up with statistics and to highlight that there is one scientific paper accepted to have served as the entire turning point in VBAC access in 1996. I also tried to clarify and reference eligibility criteria and management strategies and mention that they are not identical across all providers and facilities. Basically, people should be able to read this article and get a good overview of VBAC facts with references and not be misled into thinking certain criteria are set in stone.ScienceGalKK (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

The article states that VBAC is incredibly risky and declining, while simultaneously hinting it might be safe. NPOV is one thing, but this is just weaseling out of the controversy.128.97.244.205 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, the edits have clarified that VBAC is not actually risky, that it has one risk (uterine rupture) and is actually a recommended and acceptable way of birth for most women with previous cesareans despite some roadblocks put in place by hospitals. In reality, there IS a disconnect between how safe VBAC is considered by medical experts (pretty safe) and how it is seen by many hospitals and some in the public (unsafe). ScienceGalKK (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virus in external link

One of the first 3 links gave me a virus so I deleted all three:

  • www.(vbac.com) A user friendly website that guides women through what a VBAC is and holds a large amount of information and resources for women in all stages of learning about VBAC.
  • www.(doulamatch.net) A website that can help women find a doula in their area, as well as read reviews about them.
  • www.(dona.org)/mothers/find_a_doula.php A website that can also help women find a doula, as well as offering a large amount of helpful information on what a doula is and what they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.194.10 (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginal birth after caesarean → Delivery after previous Caesarean section – The article is practically about whether to aim for a vaginal birth after previous Caesarean, or to perform an elective repeat Caesarean section. Hence, the current naming is not as wp:NPOV as it can be. There is currently no clear place to add information about elective repeat Caesarean section, and it would be redundant to have another article comparing the two choices, since we already have that in both Vaginal birth after caesarean and Caesarean section#Subsequent pregnancies. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support If this article were renamed, then it could be the right place to put all kinds of information about birth after Caesarean sections. I think that many readers would want to see all of the options here, and right now, Wikipedia only talks about one option here with no obvious place to find information about the circumstances under which c-section after a c-section is necessary. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments after rewriting what was already given here

I removed the following sentence because it doesn't say what situation it is compared to:

  • The risk of post-operative infection doubles if vaginal delivery is attempted but results in another Caesarean.<ref name="americanpregnancy"/>

I also removed the following sentence, because it is essential to compare ERCS with intention to perform VBAC, because if you leave out those who end up with a Caesarean anyway, including ones done in emergency, you'll inevitably make VBAC look more favorable:

  • The benefits of VBAC are associated with avoiding the risks of major abdominal surgery. Compared to women who have elective repeat cesarean deliveries, women who undergo VBAC, have smaller risks of hemorrhage and infection and have faster recovery times.<ref name="American College of Obstetricians and 450–63"/>

The following sentence does not really belong in this article, but in the general Caesarean section article:

  • In the past, Caesarean sections used a vertical incision which cut the uterine muscle fibres in an up and down direction (a classical Caesarean). Modern Caesareans typically involve a horizontal incision along the muscle fibres in the lower portion of the uterus (hence the term lower uterine segment Caesarean section). The uterus then better maintains its integrity and can tolerate the strong contractions of future childbirth. Cosmetically, the scar for modern Caesareans is below the "bikini line".

Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Delivery after previous Caesarean section. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Delivery after previous Caesarean section. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Delivery after previous Caesarean section. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Delivery_after_previous_caesarean_section"