Caesarean sections linked to higher risk of hysterectomies

[BumblBeee]

this is a link to that Guardian article. Searched but did not see a post for it yet:

sections linked to higher risk of hysterectomies

Apologies if I am repeating info.

your link does not appear to be working

This article?

God I just want to cry at quite a points in that article.

quite a few

interesting reading.

what made you want to cry?

a mumsnetter just had to have crash c.s and hysterectomy due to placenta accreta and big complications, don't know if the placental issue was due to previous c,s or not...

it is food for thought

and the rise in the number of c.s is quite staggering.

it is something that is not really discussed is it. or is in a list of possible complications when you have a c.s. certainly don't remember it ever being talked about , nor placental issues, when i had my c.s

interesting article. Wonder if that was a contributing factor in my severe PPH after my recent 2nd c/s? - I lost 2.3L of blood & was a whisker away from being taken back to theatre when they finally managed to stem the bleeding - the consultant did warn me that it was possible they might have to do a hysterectomy if they still couldn't stem the bleeding in theatre - sounds like I was VERY lucky...

Lulumama, is there a thread about the mumsnetter you mention?

I recently had a crash cs and it terrified me the thought of having one but I didn't have a choice. The more information available to everyone the better I'd say

mmm, interesting
this is already known though isnt it or is this a new study? I thought I'd already read the same odds before anyway?
I really wish it was more commonly talked about, yet again read daft person in papers this weekend arguing women should all have c sections cos safer, such nonsense

look under birth announcements, called 'i wasn;t drunk i only had 10 pints', lady called furitful

sorry, fruitful.

that sounds scary, betsy

OK firstly she says "some obstetricians persist in thinking that surgery is a safer way of delivering a baby than labour" but doesn't point out that this view is challenged, regularly, by people who actually deliver babies (though analysing the stats of it would be a book rather than a short newspaper article...)

"There is a perception in this country that childbirth is a risk-free procedure" - NO THERE ISN'T! IMO the perception in this country is that medical intervention is necessary and welcome for birth to proceed without risk, when generally speaking the exact opposite is true.

I am not against an article that gives information in clear terms about the risks of caesarians, not at all....it just makes me sad that the article is necessary iyswim.

i think it depends on who you ask

if you ask midwives, who are experts in the normal , you will get a different answer to obstetricians , who are experts in the abnormal

I find it frightening that c.s rates are rising, and have done so for many years and that women are losing faith in their bodies, as c.s becomes normal. rather than the life saving procedure it was developed to be.

yes, there are two ways to deliver a baby. both have benefits, both have risks, to mother and baby, but taking an overall view of those risks and making an informed decision. the article sounds very scary. but if you read it again, it says approx 80 women per year need a hysterectomy after c.s. at my local unit, there are approx 3000 births per year.. so 80 hysterectomies nationwide puts it in perspective somewhat. but to be one of those 80 must be devastating.

Oh agree totally
It wasn't the information I was sad about, it was just the fact that this is happening and still people say cs is safe, still it's seen as just another option, still women are being treated counterintuitively in labour and ending up with sections they don't want.
The bigger picture makes me really cross

Sorry that wasn't clear
It wasn't the fact that she was giving this information that I was sad about - the information itself is a shocker

lulu do you know what kind of suturing is used routinely in British cs?
cf Gaskin and her focus on single-layer suturing leading to absurdly higher rates of placenta accreta and percreta

i don;t know about the suturing, but can find out fairly easily re our hospital, i think NICE might recommend something? or other national guidelines. i imagine there is a general recommended good practice

the problem is , when you have c.s for failure to progress, and often that failure to progress is down to women being treated , as you say, counterintuitively, and women very often have no idea how much that c.s could affect their other births or reproductive health.

Surely, the reason most people have a c section is due to a problem or complication. Therefore of course statistically a c section looks like it is higher risk because lots of the people who have them are already deemed higher risk before they even enter theatre.

I just don't think these articles ever seem to take context into account.

to a lot of people, yes, it is fio

fio, yes it is all explained in the consent form.

Why the vitriol? Are your comments only directed to mothers who choose to have electives, for whatever reason?

well, i don't remember that from the consent form, nor any attention being paid to it, nor the ramifications being pointed out.. but that could be due to the time that has passed, or me blocking it out

not sure why you are so angry?

c.sections, emergency, crash and elective have a more than valid place in childbirth, but not everyone knows or remembers the issues they can raise.

ok ! you just seemed a little tense about it !!

MissingMyHeels -- it's not talking about the risk in the pregnancy that ends with the c/s, it's talking about the risk in subsequent pregnancies/deliveries because of the interaction between the placenta and the scar left over from the previous c/s.

I remember the consent form having lots of stuff about the risk right then and there (things that could go wrong during the c/s, risk of needing a hysterectomy following the c/s, etc., etc.) but I don't actually remember its saying anything about risks in subsequent pregnancies. Mind you, I was fairly out of it at the time, so it's entirely possible it had a section about the risks of herds of stampeding water-buffalo invading my bathroom and I wouldn't have noticed.

fio, it's alright then

To be honest, I have the gap in my memory like others do about what exactly was in that consent form. BTW I only read it for my elective and not my crash where the form was waved under my nose and I signed upside down backlit against the operating theatre lights, then blackness.

I remember the bowel and bladder being nicked bit. And bleeding. But not risk of hysterectomy in subsequent pregnancies. So it would be worthwhile to highlight that risk more, for women to make a more informed choice.