Nowadays, 1 in 3 babies are delivered through C-section, in accordance to the latest information – a fifty percent hike over the past ten years and is bound to rise even further. The procedure is conducted when the mother or the baby are distressed or other reasons that are contributing to making vaginal birth risky – in such circumstances, it could be a major lifesaving procedure. However, just approx. 5% of C-sections are proper emergencies. Nearly 3% are totally elective, translating to the fact that there is no relevant medical reason. However, the huge majority of C-sections essentially come into the grey area – the foetus appearing big, the mother is past her delivery date, labour progression not happening as desired.

An increasing number of sceptics are now enquiring why an increasing number of normal, healthy pregnancies must conclude in surgery. To this several surgeons state that there is undoubtedly a basic, irrefutable number of C-sections they are needed to do for women’s health and this has been done far too often across the globe.

A month long recuperation period is needed subsequent to a C-section – that comprises incising the skin, tissue and the wall of the uterus to extract the baby and placenta, and suturing the cut – in comparison to merely a week or 2 weeks in case of vaginal births. The several risks associated with surgery include infection, heavy bleeding and clot formations, alongside several potentially grave complications.

Though many are aware of the category A mommas and the profit-minded doctors are major elicitors of this trend, the truth is by far more convoluted. Below mentioned are the actual facts what all women need to be aware of prior to attempting pregnancy.

Why C-sections are the happening trend

Explanation # 1:Enhanced know-how is attracting further problems

With 3rd trimester ultrasound scans which forecast the baby’s size, monitors that keep tabs on the heart rate of the baby during labor and birth, gynaecologists and hospitals increasingly relying on technology for spotting potential difficulties during pregnancy, labor and child birth. Any inkling of trouble spotted, doctors prefer playing safe and conducting a c-section. The continual foetal heart recorder that was firstly introduced in 1970s is the major contributing factor to the rise in C-sections. Doctors presently have greater inclinations to carry out a C-section in case anything bothersome is encountered.

Explanation # 2: Older Mothers

Increasingly women are postponing motherhood and C-sections are prevalent with increasing age. Also, older women face greater medical conditions which could lead to complications during delivery, find it increasingly hard to push the baby out, and are more prone to requesting for C-sections.

Adding it this is the fact that fertility treatments which several elder women opt for often lead to twin or triplet conceptions – and multiple conceptions mostly require an operative delivery. It is quite tricky for doctors to forecast how the second child would be delivered. Multiple conceptions often are noted to be in problematical positions. A trial printed in The Lancet during 2002, revealed that the delivery of a baby in breech position – head located upwards and feet or bottom are located towards the base, by C-section is safer for the baby, the surgery needs to be conducted by default in case of delivery of multiple foetuses, irrespective of what position they are in.

Explanation #3: Earlier C-section means subsequent one to be analogous

Doctors usually counsel that once one has undergone a C-section, then the next deliveries would be the same. VBAC or vaginal birth after a Caesarean – that were once increasingly accessible, is hardly ever conducted now-a-days. A 1999 study revealed that a small likelihood that a scar giving way could pose an appalling threat to both mother and child. About that time periods, ACOG suggested that doctors conduct VBAC’s solely in those centers that could offer emergency C-sections. There are accountability concerns for doctors in case a VBAC leads to complications.

This inclination could invalidate several C-sections have associated risks like injury because of hardened scar tissue and an increased risk in subsequent conceptions involving anomalous implantation of the placenta.

C-sections or Vaginal Births – Which one is more risky?

There is no real sure-fire way of knowing which one would be a safer means of delivery. Unambiguously, several doctors state that safest means is an uncomplicated natural vaginal birth. With that stated, many doctors would not be able to discern who would end up undergoing an uncomplicated vaginal birth.

A large-scaled study on VBACs done the previous year discovered that it was not possible to ascertain if a vaginal child birth would be safe in women that have earlier undergone a C-section.

What all womankind need to be aware of

In case a normal pregnancy abruptly turns risky, few methods have given better outcomes or are simpler for doctors in mastering as compared to a C-section. C-sections are the safest course to take in case the foremost signs of trouble crop up.

The cited cases of puerperal uterine inversion observed was one in 1,860 women that underwent caesarean section or CS and was one among 3,737 women who underwent normal vaginal deliveries. The nonpuerperal inversion is atypical in nature with no printed figures made public in regards to its occurrence. It is normally linked with a rudimentary mild or malevolent uterine mass. A suspended tumour of the anatomy of the uterus could also be the reason. Seldom unprompted, inversion might take place in the older age bracket lacking neoplasm, possibly due to by and large atony.

There have been cited varied cases that have been observed with diverse modes of uterus presentation. Inversion of Uterus could be categorised into two classes namely puerperal and non-puerperal.  Puerperal uterine inversion is deemed amongst the grave complications in the field of obstetrics. The nonpuerperal uterine inversion is quite infrequent. Majority of the nonpuerperal cases are severe and analysis is quite tricky during physical examination.

The extent of uterine inversion could be incomplete, complete or total. Clinical examination of uterine inversion is complicated unless the palpitation of the fundal depression can be carried out during rectal exam. Idiopathic inversion is believed to be extremely rare.

Tumour or an idiopathic occurrence is known to cause nonpuerperal inversion. It is normally linked with uterine fibroid but uncommonly linked with uterine sarcoma. Clinical characteristics of chronic inversion comprise of severe, irregular and unnatural blood loss from vagina, anemia and pelvic distress. At times its occurrence may not be understood till the time of surgical intervention. The seemingly uncommon causes comprise of uterine tumours like sarcoma and the less generalised carcinoma as noted in nonpuerperal case. An unusual situation of severe nonpuerperal uterine inversion caused due to malignant varied mullerian tumour has also been cited.

Imaging methods like ultrasound and magnetic imaging resonance or MRI greatly assisted in detection of uterine inversion. MRI is quite pricy and not accessible in resource deficit countries. The treatment of uterine inversion is dependent on the pre-operative examination. Procedures like clamping and cutting the infundibulopelvic tendons is considered the foremost steps in averting an embolus caused due to pelvic congestion.