I saw this great info graphic on the vbacfacts group & thought I'd share it for all the previous cesarean moms!
Pretty neat to see all the stats!
(It's kinda hard to read, but It think it's worth the squinting. tehe)
-
Good info! Thanks!
-
Appreciate this too! I had a c section for #1 and am debating what I'll do next go round (assuming there is one)
-
Where did you find this? I would love to add this to my bookmark list for doula references!
-
@FarmWifeGina: I'm part of Jen Kamel's vbacfacts group on fb.... One of the moms was asking about it & another mom posted it (sounded like its a common facts graphic that floats around there).
-
@runsyellowlites: I've never seen this exact one, but its simplicity and hard, cold facts appeals to me.
-
Did they have a source(s)? I have to have sections from here on out
so I'd love to see where the stats are from.
-
@Espion: I'd imagine that all the studies are on the vbacfacts site. I've seen all these stats separate, but this is the first time I've seen them all together.
I'll see if I can track down the sources
-
@Espion: Found it! (not sure why you have to have cesareans, but there are moms that have had vba2c & even vba3/4c..... just not sure if you knew that)
This graphic is from the ICAN "After a Cesarean" brochure.... here's what it says in the brochure along with the cites:
"All VBAC statistics for this to hire are taken from the Mercer & Gilbert study which includes induced and augmented labors. Additional studies have shown lower uterine rupture rates (especially with spontaneous labors) and higher VBAC rates."
Three studies are cited:
1) Mercer, B. M. & Gilbert, S. et al. "Labor outcomes with increasing number of prior vaginal births after cesarean delivery."2) Silver, R. M. & Landon, M. B. et al "Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries."
3) Nisenblat, V., Baraj, S. & Griness, O. B. et al. "Maternal complications associated with multiple cesarean deliveries."
-
@runsyellowlites: Awesome, thanks!
I need them because my teensy baby couldn't make it down far enough to engage the cervix, due to severe cephalopelvic dysproportion. My uterus was working like gangbusters on a perfectly positioned LO for a little more than 30 hours with zero dilation, because E couldn't make it down far enough to engage the cervix. The kid never touched it and he had the craziest conehead. (The only way I dilated was mechanically with a Cook catheter.) My water even broke spontaneously sometime in the middle of labor with absolutely no influence on cervical dilation.
Thankfully, I had a great OB and he would have let me continue to labor into the next day if I wanted, but I threw in the towel. Only after we had LO out, was the OB like, "Whoa, I think you made the right decision."
I'm glad he gave me the choice, though. I think what happened might have something to do with a serious car wreck I was in when I was 14. I was ejected from the vehicle and landed on my hip. I didn't break anything, but it must've messed with the bony structure somehow, because I think the term "CPD" gets thrown around a little too often as a "cause" or "reason" for sections. Although my mother had to have c-sections for the same reason.
-
@Espion: Wow! Sounds like you've definitely done your homework though & that's the biggest thing that matters! And it would make sense with your history on the CPD.
It did take me forever to dilate too (about 24 hrs to dilate a cm & the another 13 to dilate to 4 & then 8 to fully dilate), BUT P stayed high until I was well into labor & I was upright almost the whole time so no cone head for her so we know that it wasn't an issues of having her on my cervix & it just not dilating.
-
Thank you. I hate the fact I have to even consider this. Sigh.
-
saving this for my VBAC quest folder. Thanks Momma!
-
@sea_bass: I can completely relate, especially considering I believe my cesarean was a very avoidable one. Boo.
I'm just thankful I started learning this stuff before I "needed" it... I definitely wouldn't have gotten any of this info from the doctors we have here (they're the kind that still say the recommendation is erc & that the risk of rupture is like 5%) @Phillybaby2013: If you haven't already check out Jen Kamel's site vbacfacts.com AND vbac.com AND childbirthconnection.org (they have a great erc vs vbac page)
-
@runsyellowlites: yes.. I certainly understand that feeling.. Do you know anything about child spacing and VBACs? We had planned to have our children close together... On the operating table they said to wait a year before TTC. Do you know if time since Caesarian affects VBAC outcomes? Would uterine rupture risks decrease with time since the operation? Sorry, I should look into it but am too traumatized to google anything relating to a c section!
-
@sea_bass: The standard rec in the US seems to be 12-18 months between pregnancies, although that answer varies depending on the doctor. (I've been told 10 mos is long enough and I know some doctors consider even shorter intervals.) ACOG stipulates that a 'short' interval between pregnancies could be a risk factor for decreased success of TOLAC. I don't think they defined 'short', but I don't have the practice bulletin completely memorized!
If there is an ICAN chapter near you, I recommend checking them out. They're often tapped into the docs/midwives who are really VBAC-friendly.
-
@sea_bass: The risk of uterine rupture decreases the longer you wait between c section and the implantation of the next pregnancy. A year is standard but if you have a flexible OB group and hospital, they may be willing to push it a little bit.
-
@sea_bass: The recommendation by acog is atleast 18 mths between deliveries. Of course, as mentioned above, the longer your body has time to heal the better.
I think your most local ICAN chapter would be the best route... They're great at informing & empowerer at the same time.
-
I found a MUCH clearer copy of the info-graphic so I thought I'd add it! (now you can see the initial cesarean risks too!)
ETA: Remember the rupture & success rates were gathered from a study that induced & augmented labor so spontaneous labor rates would have lower ruptures & higher successes.
-
Great post!
so I'd love to see where the stats are from.
Reply
Subscribe to our newsletter
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite3
19 comments