PDA

View Full Version : Obese women force up rate of caesarean births


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Demi
Tue, Feb-27-07, 12:48
The Daily Telegraph
London, UK
27 February, 2007


Obese women force up rate of caesarean births

Overweight women (in the UK) are driving up the number of babies born by caesarean section, which stands at almost one in four of all births, statisticians said yesterday.

Being overweight or obese increases the risks of problems in labour and caesarean rates show no sign of declining.

In 1995 the rate was 16.6 per cent and last year it was up to 23.2 per cent.

At the same time obesity in women has become much more common, with 21 per cent of women obese compared with 16.5 per cent in 1995.

The Office of Health Economics (OHE), which published its annual Compendium of Health Statistics yesterday, said that each caesarean delivery cost the NHS twice as much as a normal birth.

The health service could save £1 million for every 800 caesareans compared with births that are normal and uncomplicated.

Emma Hawe, the head statistician at the OHE, said there were several reasons for the rise in caesareans but it was not likely that women who are "too posh to push" were causing the increase.

"Our figures show that the numbers of elective caesareans has levelled off while the number of emergency caesareans has continued to increase," she said.

Elective caesareans, as a proportion of deliveries went down from 9.6 to 9.4 per cent between 2004 and 2005 while emergency caesareans went up from 13.3 to 13.8 per cent.

A rise in the number of older women giving birth did not necessarily account for the increase in caesarean births, she said.

"In the Netherlands and Finland where women are also having babies at an older age, caesarean rates are much lower."

The rate in Finland is 16.1 per cent and in the Netherlands it is 13.6 per cent.

Another reason for the increase is that doctors are afraid of litigation, according to a survey conducted in 2000. But the most commonly cited causes are "foetal distress and "failure to progress".

Prof James Walker, of St James's University Hospital, Leeds, and spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, said he now expected to see one woman a week in the labour ward who was grossly obese.

"It causes problems. If you have a young slim woman in her 20s the probability is that she with have a normal, uncomplicated birth. If the woman is older and obese the probability is she will not.

"There are more difficulties in assessing the labour, in knowing where the baby is and hearing its heart beat".

Prof Walker said that overweight women also tended to have bigger babies and that internal fat could restrict the passage of the baby.

"We have to have bigger delivery beds and operating tables. The effects of being obese accumulate," he said.

Women gain about 26lb during pregnancy of which 8½lb was body fat. "One of the problems is that women do not lose this weight between pregnancies. We need to encourage them to get back into shape, after the baby, by breast feeding, taking exercise or dieting," he said.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/27/nbirths127.xml

2bthinner!
Tue, Feb-27-07, 13:26
Sometimes it's the bones/baby. My first delivery, when I was slim, was difficult as I apparently have a borderline pelvis. The whites of my dd's eyes were bloodshot from the pressure of going through my pelvis. She was 7lb 13½ oz. They x-rayed her too as they heard a pop and thought she might have gotten a broken collar bone. (I probably got a fractured pelvis :lol: :help: )

My second dd, seven years later. I was a bit heavier, but actually lighter than I am today. She was a c-section. 8lbs4oz. There were other issues with second dd anyway. My water was leaking for a week, I kept going in there and they kept saying I was wetting myself. Well, turns out I developed an infection from it, which can keep you from dilating. No fever. My body temp runs low anyway. If my temp is NORMAL I'm running a temperature. However, they did discover I had a high white blood cell count. Ya think? ETA: I went through 15 hours of petocin induced labor before they decided (I never asked) that I needed a c-section. Due to the infection/inflammation, I couldn't progress...

Sometimes too, once a c-section, always a c-section. People also have the impression it's easier too. Having had both, I'd rather give birth naturally. Much less recovery and pain afterwards.

Calianna
Tue, Feb-27-07, 19:16
I had two c-secs.

For the first one, I was in the overweight range when I got pregnant, and only gained about 20 lbs during pregnancy. The baby was breech. No attempt was made to turn the baby or see if it might turn on it's own during labor (I was just barely 3cm on arrival at the hospital), I was just whisked off to surgery because Labor and Delivery weren't busy right then and he had time.

For the second baby, I was just barely in the obese weight range when I got pregnant, but again only gained about 20 lbs during the pregnancy. I was warned that chances were very slim that I'd be able to have a normal delivery after having had a c-sec the first time around, but was allowed to attempt it anyway. After 36 hours of labor (about 24 at the hospital - I waited as long as I dared, because in those days they essentially put the ones who were attempting vaginal birth after c-sec [v-bac] on a timer and if you didn't pop that baby out after so many hours in the hospital, they did another c-sec automatically), I was "failing to progress", and the baby was "showing signs of distress".

There was more to it though. There was a good reason I failed to progress and the baby was showing signs of distress: The cord was around the child's neck, preventing the head from coming down on the cervix. That meant that the only pressure on the cervix to dilate it was from the amniotic sac, which is obviously not enough to cause full dilation. Had the doctor been able to reach it to break my water, it still wouldn't have prevented the c-sec, because breaking the water to try to get the head to come down would have made the fetal distress worse, as the cord was wrapped in such a way that the baby's head couldn't get that far down without tightening and cutting off the blood supply to her brain.

I felt bad enough about having 2 c-secs as it was - now they're claiming it was my fault, because I dared to get pregnant when I was obese? Not hardly, sometimes there are other circumstances totally unrelated to the size of the mother.

unitydkn
Tue, Feb-27-07, 19:35
I am "grossly obese" and had mine at home...my last labor was 5 min long..he was 9.5 lbs and I am only 5 feet...he was over 2 lbs heavier than my other 2...and birth was a breeze...it is genetics not size..mom was the same as me..maybe bigger...sorry mom