Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Sezaryen doğum oranlarında “kıymetli bebek” etkisi

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 45 Sayı: 4, 1543 - 1554, 27.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.738328

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma sezaryen doğum oranlarında “kıymetli bebek” etkisini belirlemek amacıyla yapıldı.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma Trabzon il merkezinde bulunan üç hastanenin kadın hastalıkları ve doğum servislerinde Ocak - Ekim 2018 tarihleri arasında örnekleme dahil edilme kriterlerine uygun 850 kadın ile yapıldı. Veriler toplanmasında anket formu ve hasta dosyası kullanıldı. Veriler, frekans ve yüzdelik hesaplamalarının yanı lojistik regresyon analizi ile değerlendirildi.
Bulgular: Sezaryen endikasyonlarının ilk üç sıralamasında sırasıyla anneye bağlı endikasyonlar (%52.6), bebeğe bağlı endikasyonlar (%21.4) ve sosyal endikasyonlar (%13.1) [tedavi ile bebek sahibi olma (kıymetli bebek) (%86.5), anne isteği (%13.5)] ilk üç sırada yer aldı. Sezaryen doğum yapan kadınların %88.7’sinin gebeliklerinin kendiliğinden, %11.3’ünün ise tedavi ile olduğu saptandı. Bu kadınların %44.8’i 35-45 yaş grubundadır. Kıymetli bebek sahibi olan kadınların %50,0’sinin ilk gebeliği, %86,5’inin yaşayan çocuğunun olmadığı, %60,4’ünün daha önce hiç düşük, ölü doğum (%91,7) ve daha önce sezaryen ile doğum (%99) yapmadığı ve %87,5’inin gebeliklerinin tekil olduğu tespit edildi. Kıymetli bebek sahibi olan kadınların %57.3’ünün herhangi bir kronik hastalığı olmadığı ancak %53.1’inin gebelik öncesi bir sağlık probleminin olduğu ve ilk sırada jinekolojik hastalıkların (%37.5) yer aldığı saptandı. Kadının yaşı arttıkça gebeliğin kıymetli gebelik olma riski 1,448 kat, gebelik öncesi saptanmış sağlık probleminin varlığında ise 5,74 kat daha artmaktadır.
Sonuç: Kıymetli bebek olarak tanımlanan gebeliklerin sezaryen endikasyonları sıralamasında 3. sırada yer alarak sezaryen oranlarının artışına katkı vermiştir.

Kaynakça

  • 1. World Health Organization. World health statistics. [Online]. World Health Organization; 2015 [Erişim Tarihi 25 Eylül 2018]. Available from:http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/ 10665/170250/1/9789240694439_eng. pdf 4.
  • 2. T.C.Sağlık Bakanlığı Sağlık İstatistikleri Yıllığı. [Online]. Sağlık İstatistikleri Yıllığı 2016 [Erişim Tarihi 18 Eylül 2018]. Available from:https://dosyasb.saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/ 13183,sy2016turkcepdf.pdf?0.
  • 3. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. [Online]. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Indıcators. Health at a Glance. Caesarean Section 9: 2017 [Erişim Tarihi 25 Ekim 2018]. Available from:http://www.oecd.org › health-systems.
  • 4. Yeşilçiçek Çalık K, Erkaya R, Karabulutlu Ö. Üçüncü basamak bir hastanede 4 yıllık sezaryen doğumlarının oranları ve endikasyonları. HSP. 2018; 5(2): 201-209. (Turkish)
  • 5. Sayın NC, Erzincan SG, Çilingir IU. Sezaryen: kanıta dayalı bilgiler. Turkiye Klinikleri J Gynecol Obst-Special Topics. 2018; 11(1): 76-81. (Turkish)
  • 6. Robson SJ, de Costa CM. Thirty years of the World Health Organization’s target caesarean section rate: time to move on. Med J Aust. 2017;206(4):181-185.
  • 7. Minkoff HL, Berkowitz R. The myth of the precious baby. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106(3): 607-609.
  • 8. Qin C, Zhou M, Callaghan WM, Posner SF, Zhang J, Berg CJ, Zhao G. Clinical indications and determinants of the rise of cesarean section in three hospitals in rural China. Matern Chıld Healt J. 2012;16(7): 1484-1490.
  • 9. Stern JE, Liu CL, Cabral HJ, Richards EG, Coddington CC, Missmer SA, et al. Factors associated with increased odds of cesarean delivery in ART pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(3), 429-436.
  • 10. Aisien AO, Lawson JO, Adebayo AA. A five year appraisal of caesarean section in a northern Nigeria university teaching hospital. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2002; 9(3): 146-150.
  • 11. Zaibun-Nisa S, Ghazal-Aswad S, Badrinath P. Outcome of twin pregnancies after assisted reproductive techniques a comparative study. Eur J Obstet Gyn R B. 2003; 109(1): 51-54.
  • 12. Kozinszky Z, Zádori J, Orvos H, Katona M, Pál A, Kovács L. Obstetric and neonatal risk of pregnancies after assisted reproductive technology: a matched control study. Acta Obstet Gyn Scan. 2003; 82(9): 850-856.
  • 13. Türk Dil Kurumu. [Online]. Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlükler; 2018 [Erişim Tarihi 20 Kasım 2018]. Erişim Adresi: http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php? option=com_bts&view=bts& kategori1=veritbn&kelimesec=198141.
  • 14. Pinborg A, Loft A, Rasmussen S, Schmidt L, Langhoff-Roos J, Greisen G, Andersen AN. Neonatal outcome in a Danish national cohort of 3438 IVF/ICSI and 10362 non IVF/ICSI twins born between 1995 and 2000. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19(2): 435-441.
  • 15. Baxi A, Kaushal M. Outcome of twin pregnancies conceived after assisted reproductive techniques. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2008; 1(1): 25-28.
  • 16. Chatzicharalampous C, Garvin SE, Korzeniewski SJ, Puscheck E. Are infertile patients at greater risk of cesarean delivery?. Fertil Steril. 2018; 110(3): 403–404.
  • 17. Gillet E, Martens E, Martens G, Cammu H. Prelabour caesarean section following IVF/ICSI in older-term nulliparous women: too precious to push?. Journal of Pregnancy. 2011; 2011: 1-5.
  • 18. Cammu H, Martens G, Keirse MJ. Mothers level of education and childbirth interventions: A populationbased study in Flanders, Northern Belgium. Birth 2011;38(3): 191-199.
  • 19. Unnikrishnan B, Prasad RB, Amarnath A, Kumar N, Rekha T, Mithra PP, Pal S. Trends and indications for caesarean section in a tertiary care obstetric hospital in coastal south India. AMJ. 2010; 3(12): 821-825.
  • 20. Wang X, Hellerstein S, Hou L, Zou L, Ruan Y, Zhang W. Caesarean deliveries in China. BMC Pregnancy Child B. 2017; 17(54):1-9.
  • 21. Joshi AS, Joshi KK, Joshi SB, Joshi KS. Changing trends in the rate of caesarean section over a decade in rural Maharashtra. Int J Sci Res. 2018; 5(10): 1-3.
  • 22. Sümer D, Çetin M, Yenicesu A, Yanık A. Spontan ve IVF ikiz gebeliklerin obstetrik ve perinatal sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması. CMJ. 2013;35(4): 526-531. (Turkish)
  • 23. Egbe TO, Sandjon G, Ourtchingh C, Simo A, Priso EB, Benifla JL. In-vitro fertilization and spontaneous pregnancies: matching outcomes in Douala, Cameroon. Fertil Res Pract. 2016; 2(1): 1-8.
  • 24. Pandya JM, Pandya MJ, Joshi JM, Velani SP. Analytical study of indications of cesarean section. IJRCOG. 2017; 4(5): 1460-1463.
  • 25. Wanjari SA. Rising caesarean section rate: a matter of concern?. JRCOG. 2017; 3(3): 728-731.
  • 26. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Ana Çocuk Sağlığı ve Aile Planlaması Genel Müdürlüğü Doğum ve sezaryen eylemi yönetim rehberi. [Online]. Sağlık Bakanlığı Ana Çocuk Sağlığı ve Aile Planlaması Genel Müdürlüğü; 2010 [Erişim Tarihi 10 Eylül 2018]. Available from: https://www.saglik.gov.tr/TR,11152/dogum-ve-sezaryen-eylemi-yonetim-rehberi---2010--42.html.
  • 27. Rafiei M, Ghare MS, Akbari M, Kiani F, Sayehmiri F, Sayehmiri K, Vafaee R. Prevalence, causes, and complications of cesarean delivery in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis. IJRM. 2018; 16(4): 221-234.
  • 28. Başar F, Yeşildere Sağlam H. Women’s choice of delivery methods and the factors that affect them.JoCReHeS. 2018; 8 (1): 59-74.
  • 29. Yang X, Li Y, Li C, Zhang W. Current overview of pregnancy complications and live-birth outcome of assisted reproductive technology in mainland China. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(2): 385-391.
  • 30. Begum T, Rahman A, Nababan H, Hoque DME, Khan AF, Ali T, Anwar I. Indications and determinants of caesarean section delivery: Evidence from a population-based study in Matlab, Bangladesh. PloSone. 2017; 12(11): 1-16.
  • 31. Cambaztepe B, Yücel FD, Pektaş G, Bulut B, Uzun HC, Mihmanlı V. Pregnancy in women 40 years old or older: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Okmeydanı Tıp Dergisi. 2017; 33(1): 28-32.
  • 32. Luke B, Gopal D, Cabral H, Stern JE, Diop H). Pregnancy, birth, and infant outcomes by maternal fertility status: the massachusetts outcomes study of assisted reproductive technology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217(3): 1-14.
  • 33. Liang H, Fan Y, Zhang N, Chongsuvivatwong V, Wang Q, Gong J, Sriplung H. Women’s cesarean section preferences and influencing factors in relation to China’s two-child policy: a cross-sectional study. Patient Patient Prefer Adher. 2018; 12: 2093–2101.
  • 34. Gündüz S, Çetin BA, Bahat PY, Aydın AA, Köroğlu N. Çok ileri anne yaşının perinatal ve neonatal sonuçlara etkisi. JCOG. 2016; 26(4): 220-225. (Turkish)
  • 35. Kersten I, Lange AE, Haas JP, Fusch C, Lode H, Hoffmann W, Thyrian JR. Chronic diseases in pregnant women: prevalence and birth outcomes based on the SNiP-study. BMC Pregnancy Childb.2014;14(1): 75-88. 36. Zhang N, Chen H, Xu Z, Wang B, Sun H, Hu Y. Pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in patient with previous cesarean scar. Med Sci Monit. 2016;22: 3288–3295.
  • 37. Szymusik I, Kosinska-Kaczynska K, Krowicka M, Sep M, Marianowski P, Wielgos M. Perinatal outcome of in vitro fertilization singletons–10 years’ experience of one center. Arch Med Sci. 2019;15(3): 666–672.
  • 38. Yılmaz M, İsaoğlu Ü, Kadanalı S. Kliniğimizde 2002-2007 yılları arasında sezaryen olan hastaların incelenmesi. Marmara Med J. 2009; 22(2): 104-110. (Turkish)
  • 39. Jeon JH, Hwang YI, Shin IH, Park CW, Yang KM, Kim HO. The risk factors and pregnancy outcomes of 48 cases of heterotopic pregnancy from a single center. J Korean Med Sci. 2016; 31(7): 1094-1099.
  • 40. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. [Online]. ACOG committee opinion no. 559. Cesarean delivery on maternal request; 2013 [Erişim Tarihi 9 Temmuz 2018]. Available from: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2019/01/cesarean-delivery-on-maternal-request.
  • 41. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. [Online]. FIGO Statement on Caesarean Section; 2017 [Erişim Tarihi 9 Temmuz 2018 Available from: https://www.figo.org/ sites/default/files/uploads/Project-publications/SMN/FIGO_cesar_230107%20% 282%29.pdf.
  • 42. Schantz C, de Loenzien M, Goyet S, Ravit M, Dancoisne A, Dumont A. How is women’s demand for caesarean section measured? A systematic literature review. PloS One. 2019; 14(3): 1-14.
  • 43. Jenabi E, Khazaei S, Bashirian S, Aghababaei S, Matinnia N. Reasons for elective cesarean section on maternal request: a systematic review. J Matern-Fetal Neo M. 2019;8: 1-6.
  • 44. Feng XL, Wang Y, An L, Ronsmans C. Cesarean section in the People’s Republic of China: current perspectives. Int J Womens Health. 2014;6: 59-74.
  • 45. Feng L, Yue J. Analysis on the 50-year cesarean rate and indications. CMS. 2005; 34: 628–630.
  • 46. Boz İ, Özçetin E, Teskereci G. İnfertilitede anne olma: Kuramsal bir analiz. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar. 2018;10(4): 496-511.(Turkish)
  • 47. Sheffer-Mimouni G, Mashiach S, Dor J, Levran D, Seidman DS. Factors influencing the obstetric and perinatal outcome after oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17(10): 2636-2640.
  • 48. Vilchez G, Dai J, Hoyos LR, Babbar S, Bahado-Singh RO, Maulik D, et al. Optimal delivery mode in singleton pregnancies conceived after infertility treatment: is the “precious baby” effect justified?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214(1): 445-446.
  • 49. Benli AR, Benli NC, Usta AT, Atakul T, Koroglu M. Effect of maternal age on pregnancy outcome and cesarean delivery rate. J Clin Med Res. 2015;7(2): 97-102.
  • 50. Tan JKH, Tan EL, Kanagalingam D, Yu SL, Tan LK. Multiple pregnancy is the leading contributor to cesarean sections in in vitro fertilization pregnancies: An analysis using the Robson 10‐group classification system. J Obstet Gynaecol Re. 2016; 42(9): 1141-11451
  • 51. Sullivan EA, Chapman MG, Wang YA, Adamson GD. Population-based study of cesarean section after in vitro fertilization in Australia. Birth. 2010; 37: 184-191.
  • 52. Srebnik N, Miron-Shatz T, Rolison JJ, Hanoch Y, Tsafrir A. Physician recommendation for invasive prenatal testing: the case of the “precious baby”. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2014; 69(3): 131-132.

Effects of “precious baby” on Cesarean birth rates

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 45 Sayı: 4, 1543 - 1554, 27.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.738328

Öz

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of "precious baby" on Cesarean delivery rates.
Materials and Methods: This study was carried out with 850 women meeting the inclusion criteria in the gynecology and obstetrics units of three hospitals in the city center of Trabzon between January and October 2018. A questionnaire form and patient files were used for data collection. The data were evaluated using logistic regression analysis, frequency, and percentage calculations.
Results: The study revealed that the first three rankings of cesarean indications were the mother (52.6%), baby (21.4%) and social (13.1%) indications [having a baby with treatment (precious baby) (86.5%), the desire of the mother (13.5%)]. 88.7% and 11.3% of women giving cesarean delivery got pregnant spontaneously and through treatment respectively. 44.8% of them were in the 35-45 age group. Those who had a precious baby had their first pregnancy (50.0%), had no other alive children (86.5%), never had a miscarriage (60.4%) and stillbirth (91.7%), never had a cesarean delivery before (99%), had a singleton pregnancy (87.5%), had no chronic diseases (57.3%), had a pre-pregnancy health problem (53.1%) and gynecological diseases (37.5%). As the age of the woman increased, the risk of a pregnancy being a precious pregnancy having and a pre-pregnancy health problem increased 1.448 times and 5.74 times respectively.
Conclusion: Pregnancies defined as precious babies ranked 3rd in cesarean indications, and contributed to the increase of cesarean rates.

Kaynakça

  • 1. World Health Organization. World health statistics. [Online]. World Health Organization; 2015 [Erişim Tarihi 25 Eylül 2018]. Available from:http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/ 10665/170250/1/9789240694439_eng. pdf 4.
  • 2. T.C.Sağlık Bakanlığı Sağlık İstatistikleri Yıllığı. [Online]. Sağlık İstatistikleri Yıllığı 2016 [Erişim Tarihi 18 Eylül 2018]. Available from:https://dosyasb.saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/ 13183,sy2016turkcepdf.pdf?0.
  • 3. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. [Online]. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Indıcators. Health at a Glance. Caesarean Section 9: 2017 [Erişim Tarihi 25 Ekim 2018]. Available from:http://www.oecd.org › health-systems.
  • 4. Yeşilçiçek Çalık K, Erkaya R, Karabulutlu Ö. Üçüncü basamak bir hastanede 4 yıllık sezaryen doğumlarının oranları ve endikasyonları. HSP. 2018; 5(2): 201-209. (Turkish)
  • 5. Sayın NC, Erzincan SG, Çilingir IU. Sezaryen: kanıta dayalı bilgiler. Turkiye Klinikleri J Gynecol Obst-Special Topics. 2018; 11(1): 76-81. (Turkish)
  • 6. Robson SJ, de Costa CM. Thirty years of the World Health Organization’s target caesarean section rate: time to move on. Med J Aust. 2017;206(4):181-185.
  • 7. Minkoff HL, Berkowitz R. The myth of the precious baby. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106(3): 607-609.
  • 8. Qin C, Zhou M, Callaghan WM, Posner SF, Zhang J, Berg CJ, Zhao G. Clinical indications and determinants of the rise of cesarean section in three hospitals in rural China. Matern Chıld Healt J. 2012;16(7): 1484-1490.
  • 9. Stern JE, Liu CL, Cabral HJ, Richards EG, Coddington CC, Missmer SA, et al. Factors associated with increased odds of cesarean delivery in ART pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(3), 429-436.
  • 10. Aisien AO, Lawson JO, Adebayo AA. A five year appraisal of caesarean section in a northern Nigeria university teaching hospital. Niger Postgrad Med J. 2002; 9(3): 146-150.
  • 11. Zaibun-Nisa S, Ghazal-Aswad S, Badrinath P. Outcome of twin pregnancies after assisted reproductive techniques a comparative study. Eur J Obstet Gyn R B. 2003; 109(1): 51-54.
  • 12. Kozinszky Z, Zádori J, Orvos H, Katona M, Pál A, Kovács L. Obstetric and neonatal risk of pregnancies after assisted reproductive technology: a matched control study. Acta Obstet Gyn Scan. 2003; 82(9): 850-856.
  • 13. Türk Dil Kurumu. [Online]. Türk Dil Kurumu Sözlükler; 2018 [Erişim Tarihi 20 Kasım 2018]. Erişim Adresi: http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php? option=com_bts&view=bts& kategori1=veritbn&kelimesec=198141.
  • 14. Pinborg A, Loft A, Rasmussen S, Schmidt L, Langhoff-Roos J, Greisen G, Andersen AN. Neonatal outcome in a Danish national cohort of 3438 IVF/ICSI and 10362 non IVF/ICSI twins born between 1995 and 2000. Hum Reprod. 2004; 19(2): 435-441.
  • 15. Baxi A, Kaushal M. Outcome of twin pregnancies conceived after assisted reproductive techniques. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2008; 1(1): 25-28.
  • 16. Chatzicharalampous C, Garvin SE, Korzeniewski SJ, Puscheck E. Are infertile patients at greater risk of cesarean delivery?. Fertil Steril. 2018; 110(3): 403–404.
  • 17. Gillet E, Martens E, Martens G, Cammu H. Prelabour caesarean section following IVF/ICSI in older-term nulliparous women: too precious to push?. Journal of Pregnancy. 2011; 2011: 1-5.
  • 18. Cammu H, Martens G, Keirse MJ. Mothers level of education and childbirth interventions: A populationbased study in Flanders, Northern Belgium. Birth 2011;38(3): 191-199.
  • 19. Unnikrishnan B, Prasad RB, Amarnath A, Kumar N, Rekha T, Mithra PP, Pal S. Trends and indications for caesarean section in a tertiary care obstetric hospital in coastal south India. AMJ. 2010; 3(12): 821-825.
  • 20. Wang X, Hellerstein S, Hou L, Zou L, Ruan Y, Zhang W. Caesarean deliveries in China. BMC Pregnancy Child B. 2017; 17(54):1-9.
  • 21. Joshi AS, Joshi KK, Joshi SB, Joshi KS. Changing trends in the rate of caesarean section over a decade in rural Maharashtra. Int J Sci Res. 2018; 5(10): 1-3.
  • 22. Sümer D, Çetin M, Yenicesu A, Yanık A. Spontan ve IVF ikiz gebeliklerin obstetrik ve perinatal sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması. CMJ. 2013;35(4): 526-531. (Turkish)
  • 23. Egbe TO, Sandjon G, Ourtchingh C, Simo A, Priso EB, Benifla JL. In-vitro fertilization and spontaneous pregnancies: matching outcomes in Douala, Cameroon. Fertil Res Pract. 2016; 2(1): 1-8.
  • 24. Pandya JM, Pandya MJ, Joshi JM, Velani SP. Analytical study of indications of cesarean section. IJRCOG. 2017; 4(5): 1460-1463.
  • 25. Wanjari SA. Rising caesarean section rate: a matter of concern?. JRCOG. 2017; 3(3): 728-731.
  • 26. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı Ana Çocuk Sağlığı ve Aile Planlaması Genel Müdürlüğü Doğum ve sezaryen eylemi yönetim rehberi. [Online]. Sağlık Bakanlığı Ana Çocuk Sağlığı ve Aile Planlaması Genel Müdürlüğü; 2010 [Erişim Tarihi 10 Eylül 2018]. Available from: https://www.saglik.gov.tr/TR,11152/dogum-ve-sezaryen-eylemi-yonetim-rehberi---2010--42.html.
  • 27. Rafiei M, Ghare MS, Akbari M, Kiani F, Sayehmiri F, Sayehmiri K, Vafaee R. Prevalence, causes, and complications of cesarean delivery in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis. IJRM. 2018; 16(4): 221-234.
  • 28. Başar F, Yeşildere Sağlam H. Women’s choice of delivery methods and the factors that affect them.JoCReHeS. 2018; 8 (1): 59-74.
  • 29. Yang X, Li Y, Li C, Zhang W. Current overview of pregnancy complications and live-birth outcome of assisted reproductive technology in mainland China. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(2): 385-391.
  • 30. Begum T, Rahman A, Nababan H, Hoque DME, Khan AF, Ali T, Anwar I. Indications and determinants of caesarean section delivery: Evidence from a population-based study in Matlab, Bangladesh. PloSone. 2017; 12(11): 1-16.
  • 31. Cambaztepe B, Yücel FD, Pektaş G, Bulut B, Uzun HC, Mihmanlı V. Pregnancy in women 40 years old or older: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Okmeydanı Tıp Dergisi. 2017; 33(1): 28-32.
  • 32. Luke B, Gopal D, Cabral H, Stern JE, Diop H). Pregnancy, birth, and infant outcomes by maternal fertility status: the massachusetts outcomes study of assisted reproductive technology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217(3): 1-14.
  • 33. Liang H, Fan Y, Zhang N, Chongsuvivatwong V, Wang Q, Gong J, Sriplung H. Women’s cesarean section preferences and influencing factors in relation to China’s two-child policy: a cross-sectional study. Patient Patient Prefer Adher. 2018; 12: 2093–2101.
  • 34. Gündüz S, Çetin BA, Bahat PY, Aydın AA, Köroğlu N. Çok ileri anne yaşının perinatal ve neonatal sonuçlara etkisi. JCOG. 2016; 26(4): 220-225. (Turkish)
  • 35. Kersten I, Lange AE, Haas JP, Fusch C, Lode H, Hoffmann W, Thyrian JR. Chronic diseases in pregnant women: prevalence and birth outcomes based on the SNiP-study. BMC Pregnancy Childb.2014;14(1): 75-88. 36. Zhang N, Chen H, Xu Z, Wang B, Sun H, Hu Y. Pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in patient with previous cesarean scar. Med Sci Monit. 2016;22: 3288–3295.
  • 37. Szymusik I, Kosinska-Kaczynska K, Krowicka M, Sep M, Marianowski P, Wielgos M. Perinatal outcome of in vitro fertilization singletons–10 years’ experience of one center. Arch Med Sci. 2019;15(3): 666–672.
  • 38. Yılmaz M, İsaoğlu Ü, Kadanalı S. Kliniğimizde 2002-2007 yılları arasında sezaryen olan hastaların incelenmesi. Marmara Med J. 2009; 22(2): 104-110. (Turkish)
  • 39. Jeon JH, Hwang YI, Shin IH, Park CW, Yang KM, Kim HO. The risk factors and pregnancy outcomes of 48 cases of heterotopic pregnancy from a single center. J Korean Med Sci. 2016; 31(7): 1094-1099.
  • 40. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. [Online]. ACOG committee opinion no. 559. Cesarean delivery on maternal request; 2013 [Erişim Tarihi 9 Temmuz 2018]. Available from: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2019/01/cesarean-delivery-on-maternal-request.
  • 41. The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. [Online]. FIGO Statement on Caesarean Section; 2017 [Erişim Tarihi 9 Temmuz 2018 Available from: https://www.figo.org/ sites/default/files/uploads/Project-publications/SMN/FIGO_cesar_230107%20% 282%29.pdf.
  • 42. Schantz C, de Loenzien M, Goyet S, Ravit M, Dancoisne A, Dumont A. How is women’s demand for caesarean section measured? A systematic literature review. PloS One. 2019; 14(3): 1-14.
  • 43. Jenabi E, Khazaei S, Bashirian S, Aghababaei S, Matinnia N. Reasons for elective cesarean section on maternal request: a systematic review. J Matern-Fetal Neo M. 2019;8: 1-6.
  • 44. Feng XL, Wang Y, An L, Ronsmans C. Cesarean section in the People’s Republic of China: current perspectives. Int J Womens Health. 2014;6: 59-74.
  • 45. Feng L, Yue J. Analysis on the 50-year cesarean rate and indications. CMS. 2005; 34: 628–630.
  • 46. Boz İ, Özçetin E, Teskereci G. İnfertilitede anne olma: Kuramsal bir analiz. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar. 2018;10(4): 496-511.(Turkish)
  • 47. Sheffer-Mimouni G, Mashiach S, Dor J, Levran D, Seidman DS. Factors influencing the obstetric and perinatal outcome after oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17(10): 2636-2640.
  • 48. Vilchez G, Dai J, Hoyos LR, Babbar S, Bahado-Singh RO, Maulik D, et al. Optimal delivery mode in singleton pregnancies conceived after infertility treatment: is the “precious baby” effect justified?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214(1): 445-446.
  • 49. Benli AR, Benli NC, Usta AT, Atakul T, Koroglu M. Effect of maternal age on pregnancy outcome and cesarean delivery rate. J Clin Med Res. 2015;7(2): 97-102.
  • 50. Tan JKH, Tan EL, Kanagalingam D, Yu SL, Tan LK. Multiple pregnancy is the leading contributor to cesarean sections in in vitro fertilization pregnancies: An analysis using the Robson 10‐group classification system. J Obstet Gynaecol Re. 2016; 42(9): 1141-11451
  • 51. Sullivan EA, Chapman MG, Wang YA, Adamson GD. Population-based study of cesarean section after in vitro fertilization in Australia. Birth. 2010; 37: 184-191.
  • 52. Srebnik N, Miron-Shatz T, Rolison JJ, Hanoch Y, Tsafrir A. Physician recommendation for invasive prenatal testing: the case of the “precious baby”. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2014; 69(3): 131-132.
Toplam 51 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum
Bölüm Araştırma
Yazarlar

Büşra Halimoğlu Bu kişi benim 0000-0001-5498-7072

Kıymet Yeşilçiçek Çalık 0000-0001-7146-3385

Yayımlanma Tarihi 27 Aralık 2020
Kabul Tarihi 2 Eylül 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Cilt: 45 Sayı: 4

Kaynak Göster

MLA Halimoğlu, Büşra ve Kıymet Yeşilçiçek Çalık. “Sezaryen doğum oranlarında ‘kıymetli bebek’ Etkisi”. Cukurova Medical Journal, c. 45, sy. 4, 2020, ss. 1543-54, doi:10.17826/cumj.738328.