FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 348:946-950 March 6, 2003 Number 10 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Letters Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear PubMed Citation

In 1985, the Journal published an article advocating elective cesarean delivery.¹ Although it was provocative, the article had little effect on obstetrical standards. At that time, most efforts within the discipline were focused on arresting the escalation of the rate of cesarean deliveries,² which had increased sharply during the preceding decade. Thus, despite that article, the rate of cesarean deliveries peaked a few years after the article appeared and then declined slightly.

Two decades later, the discussion of elective cesarean delivery has been revitalized. The benefit–risk calculus associated with surgery has evolved, as techniques for surgery, anesthesia, infection control, and . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Benefits of Elective Cesarean Delivery

Benefits to the Mother

Benefits to the Fetus

Risks Associated with Elective Cesarean Delivery

Risks to the Mother

Risks to the Fetus

Conclusions

Source Information

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center (H.M.), and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center (H.M.) — both in Brooklyn, N.Y.; and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Weill Medical College of Cornell University and New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York (F.A.C.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Minkoff at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center, 967 48th St., Brooklyn, NY 11219, or at hminkoff@maimonidesmed.org.

Related Letters:

Elective Primary Cesarean Delivery
Sheldon R. E., Escobedo M. B., Cole D. S., Dayal A. K., Chazotte C., Minkoff H., Chervenak F. A.
Extract | Full Text | PDF  
N Engl J Med 2003; 348:2364-2365, Jun 5, 2003. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Rogers, R. G. (2008). Urinary Stress Incontinence in Women. NEJM 358: 1029-1036 [Full Text]  
• Caughey, A. B. (2007). Preventive Induction of Labor: Potential Benefits if Proved Effective. Ann Fam Med 5: 292-293 [Full Text]  
• Nicholson, J. M., Yeager, D. L., Macones, G. (2007). A Preventive Approach to Obstetric Care in a Rural Hospital: Association Between Higher Rates of Preventive Labor Induction and Lower Rates of Cesarean Delivery. Ann Fam Med 5: 310-319 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Leeman, L. M., Plante, L. A. (2006). Patient-Choice Vaginal Delivery?. Ann Fam Med 4: 265-268 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Declercq, E., Menacker, F., MacDorman, M. (2006). Maternal Risk Profiles and the Primary Cesarean Rate in the United States, 1991-2002. AJPH 96: 867-872 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lavender, T., Kingdon, C., Hart, A., Gyte, G., Gabbay, M., Neilson, J. P (2005). Could a randomised trial answer the controversy relating to elective caesarean section? National survey of consultant obstetricians and heads of midwifery. BMJ 331: 490-491 [Full Text]  
• Martin, J. A., Kochanek, K. D., Strobino, D. M., Guyer, B., MacDorman, M. F. (2005). Annual Summary of Vital Statistics--2003. Pediatrics 115: 619-634 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Anderson, G. M (2004). Making sense of rising caesarean section rates. BMJ 329: 696-697 [Full Text]  
• Sheldon, R. E., Escobedo, M. B., Cole, D. S., Dayal, A. K., Chazotte, C., Minkoff, H., Chervenak, F. A. (2003). Elective Primary Cesarean Delivery. NEJM 348: 2364-2365 [Full Text]