Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Childbirth

Share experiences and get support around labour, birth and recovery.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Caesarean sections linked to higher risk of hysterectomies

65 replies

BumblBeee · 08/01/2008 17:30

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.

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

FioFio · 09/01/2008 14:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

becka1 · 09/01/2008 14:20

Fiofio - of course a c-section is not risk free. I think the problem here is the generalisation - vaginal birth is safer for most people but wasn't for me! Led to serious complications for both me and the baby.....I would only have another baby if I could elect to have a c-section as after my experience of vaginal birth could never contemplate it again.

Missingmyheels - you make a good point - a lot of people going in for sections are high risk for a multitude of reasons anyway.

redadmiral · 09/01/2008 14:20

I too thought most people were aware that having a section might reduce the number of potential pregnancies you might have, whether they know the reason for it or not...

FioFio · 09/01/2008 14:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

redadmiral · 09/01/2008 14:25

I was also informed that the risk of uterine rupture for a VBAC was between 1 in 100, and 1 in 200. I'm not a statistician, but it sounds like better odds to have an elective 2nd time around, if the risk for hysterectomy with that would be 1 in 1,300. (And I would still think that that even taking into account risk of infection, nicking the bladder, and all other related risks.)

Hulababy · 09/01/2008 14:29

I apppparently signed a consent form to have my c section. However as I was in pain, had had pethidine and epidural, had had no sleep for 2 nights, etc - I have no idea what was on that form. TBH at that moment in time I probably didn't even care. I must have signed it, I vaguely remember I think. But I'd have signed anything right then.

My c section left me with uterine adhesions, leaving me with a lot of cyclic pain, abnormal periods and infertility issues. 5.5 years on it is just beinf sorted out. I hadn't got a clue that c sections could lead to things like this.

lulumama · 09/01/2008 14:30

"Missingmyheels - you make a good point - a lot of people going in for sections are high risk for a multitude of reasons anyway."

for elective , mabye, not neccesarily for emergency

stats for rupture are less than 0.1 % , it is still a risk, as is the c.s , nothing is risk free or an easy option, is it?

also, what about c.s for breech, that is not the same as c.s for grade 4 placenta previa, that is high risk as could potentially kill you if you delivered vaginally....

numbers are easily swayed

lies, damn lies and statistics, but they do give an idea of risk and help to make an informed choice

i did not know any of the things in that article when i had my first child by emergency c.s 8 years ago and i would consider myself to have been well educated, well read and fairly knowleadgeable about 'stuff'

becka1 · 09/01/2008 14:31

yes it is safer for most people....but not all....thats the point I'm trying to make. Can't generalise either way.
I begged for a c section at the start of labour as there were complications from the off - pre-eclampsia (leaving me exhausted and ill going in to the whole thing), irregular heartbeat with baby on every contraction but got told no! no! no! Well the problems just got worse and worse as labour progressed and ended up with no heartbeat resulting in rapidly done episiotomy, very bad tear, failed forceps, ventouse, finally got the baby out who has trouble with head control ever since, rush to theatre to stop bleeding that wouldn't stop, then manual removal of placenta in theatre as they couldn't get it out - the worse part of the whole thing , blood transfusion.....a c-section would have been a lot safer for me, and when I asked the consultants about it after they had said they avoid c-sections on safety grounds!!! It was obvious it would have been safer for me from the off.....

chrissnow · 09/01/2008 14:31

I don't remember risk of hysterectomy ever being mentioned to me when I signed my consent form. I remember the consultant/surgeon/midwife etc talking me through it all. I remember him mentioning risks of nicks in bladder/bowel etc and bleeding. Definately nothing about hysterectomy. Mind you I had been trying to push baby out for 72 hours so was a little tired!!!

chrissnow · 09/01/2008 14:34

hulababy - just read your post with interest. I have had a nightmare with periods since babies. Is this something I should look into do you think?

Hulababy · 09/01/2008 14:35

chrissnow - depends on your symptoms really. adhesions normally lead to very light to no bledding, often with pain. I will link to my thread and you can see there.

TellusMater · 09/01/2008 14:38

But, to people who have had emergency sections, would knowing the increased risk of hysterectomy have made you think again about consenting? In the situation you were in?

Hulababy · 09/01/2008 14:39

For chrissnow: my original thread

Hulababy · 09/01/2008 14:41

TellusMater - no, it would have made no difference at all. I needed the c section and a healthy baby was all that I was concerned with. My own personal experience afterwards would make be question an unecessary elective though.

lulumama · 09/01/2008 14:42

unlikely, TUM, but i did not even know until years after the birht, that a vaginal birth would even be an issue second time round

maybe in such circs, a sort of debrief afterwards to ensure you know exactly what happened and why, and any possible effects or things to watch out for

bundle · 09/01/2008 14:44

I went for a vaginal birth both times but didn't get one: I had an emergency c/s with dd1 and a crash one with dd2.

In both cases the surgery was carried out to save my baby's life, in the second one to save mine too as they feared my uterus was rupturing as my bp dropped massively and wouldn't come back up.

Surgery is always risky but I made informed decisions about my pregnancies and a higher risk of hysterectomy is the price I spose I'll pay for having two healthy gorgeous children.

redadmiral · 09/01/2008 14:46

I agree Lulumama with your statistics quote. What I find irritating is when papers use statistics in this way to get a headline, when the actual risks are pretty small relative to other risks in the equation. I think the real point of this article is summed up in the bit about rising CS levels leading to more hysterectomies overall, and it is statistics for policymakers rather than individual women. I think articles like this are written in a way that is frightening for people who may think their risk of hysterectomy is greater than it really is. Even if the risk of rupture is less than 0.1%, which is not what the consultants said 4 years ago to me, it is still 100 times more likely than hysterectomy due to a second caesarian.

TellusMater · 09/01/2008 14:49

God yes. A debrief for sure.

Becka1 - My first delivery was very similar to yours. A bit of a mess.

I was also very nervous about another vaginal delivery, but had a marvellous midwife who held my hand (metaphorically and sometimes literally) through it all and it was a completely different story.

Is there anyone you can talk to about it all?

chrissnow · 09/01/2008 14:51

thanks you very much hulababy. Very kind especially considering the grief you've been through. After all that I think that's a no no for me (opposite problem for me). Must do more research (and get new gp)
Sorry hijack over.

Hulababy · 09/01/2008 14:58

Hope you get sorted chrissnow and glad it isn't AS - although sound s liek you need an understandig GP to help you out too. It took me a few doctors over 4 years to get to the point of being referred!

chrissnow · 09/01/2008 15:05

agreed there. he's truly awful. never looks up from computer the whole 3 mins you're in his surgery (no kidding). I've been given a referral to the health dept at work (thank god I work for large multi national company hey!? had to get into trouble over sick record first but if I can get some help I don't care)
(sorry second hijack!)

FioFio · 09/01/2008 15:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

FioFio · 09/01/2008 15:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

redadmiral · 09/01/2008 16:20

I had the opposite experience FioFio. I was the natural birth enthusiast (risks of Caesarians, resist the knife-wielding doctors, even if you are small nature will give you the size of baby you can deliver, etc, etc..) and I held off having a CS for as long as possible. When I went for my 6-week check, the registrar said that the cord samples showed that DD1 had been short of oxygen during the birth and I was mortified.

It has made me very suspicious of any kind of dogma or agenda regarding childbirth. This report is talking about a level of risk that people in everyday life would probably consider quite small, and I hope it wouldn't affect someone's decision-making if they were in the same position as I was where there was potentially a much greater risk to their baby from not having a c-section.

PortAndLemonaid · 09/01/2008 16:45

TellusMater -- wouldn't have made me think again about consenting to the c-section when we got to that point. It would have made me think again about consenting to some earlier intervention that I knew would increase the chance of needing a c-section later. And, perhaps more importantly, DH's knowing about it would have made him more vocal in backing me up about not wanting that intervention (which I didn't want, and tried to resist, but got rather steamrollered and was too knackered to keep arguing so "consented" to). If DH (considerably less knackered) had fully understood the implications not just of the interventions (which he kind of did) but the potential long-term implications of having a c-section first time (which I'm pretty sure he didn't) then he might have been more help as an advocate.

Fortunately this time round I have a nice high placenta well away from my scar, so with any luck there shouldn't be a problem.

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread