Could elective cesarean sections influence the birth weight of full-term infants?

13Citations
Citations of this article
52Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Context and Objective: There are no studies on birth weights among full-term infants born by means of elective cesarean section. We aimed to study this in private and public hospitals. Design and Setting: Retrospective study at Universidade Federal do Triongulo Mineiro, Uberaba, Brazil. Methods: Data were collected from the municipal medical birth register of Uberaba from January to December 2000. The data obtained (maternal age, type of delivery, number of prenatal care visits and birth weight, from full-term pregnancy) from the university hospital (UH), which is a tertiary hospital that only attends patients within the National Health System (SUS), were compared with data from four private hospitals (PHs) that attend health insurance plans and private patients. Student's t test, x2 test and multiple logistic regression were used for statistical analysis, with the significance level set at p < 0.05. Results: In the PHs, 1, 100 out of 1,354 births (81.2%) were by cesarian section and in the UH, 373 out of 1,332 (28%). Birth weight increased significantly in association with increasing numbers of prenatal care visits, except for cesarean section cases in PHs. Birth weights among vaginal delivery cases in PHs wre greater than in the UH (p < 0.05), but this was not observed among cesarean section cases. Multiple logistic regression showed that there was greater risk of low birth weight in PHs (odds ratio: 2.33; 95% confidence interval: 1.19 to 4.55). Conclusion: Elective cesarean section performed in PHs may be associated with low birth weight among full-term infants. Copyright © 2006, Associação Paulista de Medicina.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Murta, E. F. C., Freire, G. C., Fabri, D. C., & Fabri, R. H. (2006). Could elective cesarean sections influence the birth weight of full-term infants? Sao Paulo Medical Journal, 124(6), 313–315. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-31802006000600002

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free