title: [Repeat cesarean section: a necessary procedure?].
abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify the clinical indications for the repeated cesarean section (RCS). In order to determine if the indication was an absolute or a relative one and to establish if it was justified. This is a cross sectional study of all patients with a previous cesarean delivery who underwent a RCS from January 1996 to December 1997 at the National Institute of Perinatology. Multiple pregnancies were excluded. According to the indication two groups were identified: those with an absolute indications and those with a relative one. In order to assess the differences between both groups data were analyzed through chi square test or Fisher's Exact test. During the study period there were 5,545 cesarean deliveries, 664 were RSC (11.9%). Only 641 of the RCS complied with the inclusion criteria for the study. Average maternal age was 30 years. More than half the patients under study (57.2%) did not have any pathological condition during pregnancy, and the rest (42.7%) had at least one (preeclampsia, diabetes mellitus/gestational, chronic hypertension). Indications for the previous cesarean section were absolute in 25.9% and relative in 74.1% (p = 0.0006). Indications for the RCS were also predominantly relative (70.7%), with only 29.3%) absolute (p = 0.0001). The main RCS indications were: elective (20.1%) cephalopelvic disproportion (17.8%), preeclampsia (15.4%), fetal distress (8%). Trial for vaginal delivery was undertaken in 65.4% of the absolute indications group and in 36.9% of the relative indications group (p = 0.0001). Low Apgar one minute and five minute scores were more frequent among the absolute indications group (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01 respectively). Newborns having had an absolute cesarean delivery indication entered the National Intensive Care Unit more frequently (53.6%) than those with relative indications (46.4%) (p = 0.001). The main indication for RCS in our hospital were relative, and thus it is possible to reduce the cesarean rate through a thorough assessment of all cases with a previous cesarean section, and by giving a delivery trial of all this patients.
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Lira Plascencia
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Tiscareño Barajas
authors.forename: Y
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Duque Segundino
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Coria Soto
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Zambrana Castañeda
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Ibargüengoitia Ochoa
authors.forename: C Q
authors.initials: CQ
authors.lastname: García-Benítez
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D017604:Cesarean Section, Repeat / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D011247:Pregnancy; D012189:Retrospective Studies