Home Medicine Increased rates of cesarean sections and large families: a potentially dangerous combination
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Increased rates of cesarean sections and large families: a potentially dangerous combination

  • Ahmed M. Saleh , Joachim W. Dudenhausen and Badreldeen Ahmed EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: November 8, 2016

Abstract

Rates of cesarean sections have been on the rise over the past three decades all over the world, despite the ideal rate of 10–15% that had been set by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1985, in Fortaleza, Brazil. This epidemic increase in the rate of cesarean delivery is due to many factors which include, cesarean delivery on request, advanced maternal age at first pregnancy, decrease in number of patients who are willing to try vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, virtual disappearance of vaginal breech delivery, perceived increase in the weight of the fetus and increase in the number of women with chronic medical conditions such as Diabetes Mellitus and congenital heart disease in the reproductive age. There is no doubt that cesarean delivery is a safe procedure and it is getting safer and safer for many reasons. However, like all other surgical procedures it is not without risks both to the mother and the new born. There is a substantial increase in the incidence of morbidly adherent placenta and the risk of scar pregnancy. In the Middle East and many African and Asian countries women tend to have large families. The number of previous cesarean section deliveries is directly proportional to the risk of developing morbidly adherent placenta. Morbidly adherent placenta is the most common cause of emergency postpartum hysterectomy, which is often associated with multiple surgical complications, severe maternal morbidity and mortality. The increased rates of cesarean sections lead to increased rates of scar pregnancies, which can have lethal consequences. Cesarean delivery has a negative impact on the infant immune system. This effect on the infant led to the introduction of a new concept called “Vaginal seeding”. This refers to the practice of transferring some maternal vaginal fluid to the infant born via cesarean section in an effort to enhance its immune system.


Corresponding author: Prof. Badreldeen Ahmed, MD, FRCOG, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar, Education City, Qatar Foundation, Al-Luqta Street, PO Box: 24144, Doha, Qatar

References

[1] World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2:436–7.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Declercq E, Young R, Cabral H, Ecker J. Is a rising cesarean delivery rate inevitable? trends in industrialized countries, 1987 to 2007. Birth. 2011;38:99–104.10.1111/j.1523-536X.2010.00459.xSearch in Google Scholar

[3] Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2000;356:1375–83.10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02840-3Search in Google Scholar

[4] Gregory KD, Jackson S, Korst L, Fridman M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol. 2012;29:7–18.10.1055/s-0031-1285829Search in Google Scholar

[5] Jurdi R, Khawaja M. Caesarean section rates in the Arab region: a cross-national study. Health Policy Plan. 2004;19:101–10.10.1093/heapol/czh012Search in Google Scholar

[6] Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman M. Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991–2002. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:867–72.10.2105/AJPH.2004.052381Search in Google Scholar

[7] Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman M. Rise in “no indicated risk” primary caesareans in the United States, 1991–2001: cross sectional analysis. Br Med J. 2005;330:71–2.10.1136/bmj.38279.705336.0BSearch in Google Scholar

[8] Rhodes JC, Schoendorf KC, Parker JD. Contribution of excess weight gain during pregnancy and macroso- mia to the cesarean delivery rate, 1990–2000. Pediatrics. 2003;111:1181–5.10.1542/peds.111.S1.1181Search in Google Scholar

[9] Al-Kadri HM, Al-Anazi SA, Tamim HM. Increased cesarean section rate in Central Saudi Arabia: a change in practice or different maternal characteristics. Int J Womens Health. 2015;7:685.10.2147/IJWH.S85215Search in Google Scholar

[10] Simonsen SM, Lyon JL, Alder SC, Varner MW. Effect of grand multiparity on intrapartum and newborn complications in young women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:454–60.10.1097/01.AOG.0000175839.46609.8eSearch in Google Scholar

[11] Jacquemyn Y, Ahankour F, Martens G. Flemish obstetricians’ personal preference regarding mode of delivery and attitude towards caesarean section on demand. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;111:164–6.10.1016/S0301-2115(03)00214-8Search in Google Scholar

[12] Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman MA, Marshall N, Fu RR, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess. 2010;191:1–397.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Yamani Zamzami TY. Vaginal birth after cesarean section in grand multiparous women. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2004;270:21–4.10.1007/s00404-002-0472-7Search in Google Scholar

[14] Hindley C, Thomson AM. Intrapartum fetal monitoring and the spectra of litigation. A qualitative study of midwives’ views. Clin Gov Int J. 2007;12:233–43.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Chattopadhyay SK, Sengupta PB, Edrees YB, Lambourne A. Caesarean section: changing patterns in Saudi Arabia. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1987;25:387–94.10.1016/0020-7292(87)90345-6Search in Google Scholar

[16] Cook R. Current knowledge and future trends in maternal and child health in the Middle East. J Trop Paediatr. 1987;33:3–10.Search in Google Scholar

[17] De Muylder X. Caesarean sections in developing countries: some considerations. Health Policy Plan. 1993;8:101–12.10.1093/heapol/8.2.101Search in Google Scholar

[18] Kugler E1, Shoham-Vardi I, Burstien E, Mazor M, Hershkovitz R. The safety of a trial of labor after cesarean section in a grandmultiparous population. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008;277:339–44.10.1007/s00404-007-0490-6Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Ghaffari Z, Bener A, Ahmed B. Safety of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2006;92:38–42.10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.09.018Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] Bauer ST, Bonanno C. Abnormal placentation. Semin Perinatol. 2009;33:88–96.10.1053/j.semperi.2008.12.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Palova E, Redecha M, Malova A, Hammerova L, Kosibova Z. Placenta accreta as a cause of peripartum hysterectomy. Bratisl Lek Listy. 2016;117:212–6.10.4149/BLL_2016_040Search in Google Scholar

[22] Gruca-Stryjak K, Ropacka-Lesiak M, Breborowicz G. Placenta percreta–a severe obstetric complication despite correct diagnosis–a case report. Ginekol Pol. 2015;86:951–6.10.17772/gp/60833Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Jauniaux E, Collins SL, Jurkovic D, Burton GJ. Accreta placentation: a systematic review of prenatal ultrasound imaging and grading of villous invasiveness. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016. Epub 2016 Jul 26.10.1016/j.ajog.2016.07.044Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Kumar I, Verma A, Ojha R, Shukla RC, Jain M, Srivastava A. Invasive placental disorders: a prospective US and MRI comparative analysis. Acta Radiol. 2016. Epub 2016 Mar 17.10.1177/0284185116638567Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] Soro MP, Denys A, de Rham M, Baud D. Short & long term adverse outcomes after arterial embolisation for the treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: a systematic review. Eur Radiol. 2016. Epub 2016 May.10.1007/s00330-016-4395-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[26] Birge Ö, Karaca C, Arslan D, Kinali E. Medical management of cesarean scar pregnancy at advanced age: case report and literature review. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2016;43:140–2.10.12891/ceog2056.2016Search in Google Scholar

[27] Birge Ö, Karaca C, Arslan D, Kinali E. Medical management of cesarean scar pregnancy at advanced age: case report and literature review. J Reprod Med. 2002;47:332–4.10.12891/ceog2056.2016Search in Google Scholar

[28] Lam PM, Lo KW. Multiple-dose methotrexate for pregnancy in a cesarean section scar. A case report. J Reprod Med. 2002;47:332–4.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Mueller NT, Bakacs E, Combellick J, Grigoryan Z, Dominguez-Bello MG. The infant microbiome development: mom matters. Trends Mol Med. 2015;21:109–17.10.1016/j.molmed.2014.12.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

  1. The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Received: 2016-7-18
Accepted: 2016-9-30
Published Online: 2016-11-8
Published in Print: 2017-7-26

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Review articles
  3. Mycoplasma/Ureaplasma infection in pregnancy: to screen or not to screen
  4. Increased rates of cesarean sections and large families: a potentially dangerous combination
  5. Original articles - Obstetrics
  6. Clinical chorioamnionitis at term VII: the amniotic fluid cellular immune response
  7. Clinical chorioamnionitis at term VIII: a rapid MMP-8 test for the identification of intra-amniotic inflammation
  8. The importance of clinically and ethically fine-tuning decision-making about cesarean delivery
  9. Use of translabial three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound for cervical assessment before labor induction
  10. Perinatal death associated with umbilical cord prolapse
  11. YKL-40 expression in abnormal invasive placenta cases
  12. B-type natriuretic peptide and echocardiography reflect volume changes during pregnancy
  13. Original articles - Fetus
  14. Evidence-based, ethically justified counseling for fetal bilateral renal agenesis
  15. Fetal thymus size in pregnant women with diabetic diseases
  16. Birth weight discordance and adverse perinatal outcomes
  17. Original articles - Newborn
  18. Carboxyhemoglobin – the forgotten parameter of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia
  19. Growth attainment in German children born preterm, and cardiovascular risk factors in adolescence. Analysis of the population representative KiGGS data
  20. Fresh frozen plasma transfusion – a risk factor for pulmonary hemorrhage in extremely low birth weight infants?
  21. Letter to the Editor
  22. Risk factors for uterine rupture with a special interest in uterine fundal pressure: methodological issues
  23. Congress Calendar
  24. Congress Calendar
Downloaded on 1.1.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2016-0242/pdf
Scroll to top button