Sunday, January 24, 2010
Northern Virginia Midwifery is now on Facebook
I won't be posting here anymore. Come on over to http://www.facebook.com/pages/Northern-Virginia-Midwifery/115869881626 for regular posts.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Video: Placenta Preparation for Ingestion Workshop
I hosted a workshop on Saturday, 12/5. I went over the benefits of ingesting one's placenta post partum, and then we had hands-on practice of preparing it for raw consumption as well as for encapsulation or powder form. Followed by a great lunch where we talked about all things woman!
I'd love to lead another one - let me know if you'd like to gather a group together to do it! Fun!
[View in High Quality, larger size, here:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1297863210789]
I'd love to lead another one - let me know if you'd like to gather a group together to do it! Fun!
[View in High Quality, larger size, here:
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1297863210789]
Saturday, December 5, 2009
The Natural Healing Power of the Placenta book
Don't miss out - great book! All about the benenfits of placenta ingestion, and how to prepare the placenta both raw and encapsulated/dried. 
http://birthingconcepts.com/home/the-natural-healing-power-of-the-placenta/
http://birthingconcepts.com/home/the-natural-healing-power-of-the-placenta/ Tuesday, October 27, 2009
More on homeopathy
Having discussed the swine flu and homeopathy in an earlier post, the Washington Post called me to interview me about this in their Medical Mystery section.
For me, homeopathy is not a mystery - it just works with the right remedy. Really not rocket science most of the time. The article from the Post came out today, and it didn't seem to me that they followed up with my suggestions to get more information from the National Center for Homeopathy, right here in Alexandria, nor to look at the data on Flu Solution (homeopathy for influenza).
So, the article is biased against homeopathy. That's ok. They interviewed one of my homebirth moms who is very well educated and she did a good job.
At least more people now know that this is an option and one they may look into. Like homebirth. Like not vaccinating, and other non-mainstream decisions. At least Homeopathy is on the front page of the Post's Health section today. Cheers!
For me, homeopathy is not a mystery - it just works with the right remedy. Really not rocket science most of the time. The article from the Post came out today, and it didn't seem to me that they followed up with my suggestions to get more information from the National Center for Homeopathy, right here in Alexandria, nor to look at the data on Flu Solution (homeopathy for influenza).
So, the article is biased against homeopathy. That's ok. They interviewed one of my homebirth moms who is very well educated and she did a good job.
At least more people now know that this is an option and one they may look into. Like homebirth. Like not vaccinating, and other non-mainstream decisions. At least Homeopathy is on the front page of the Post's Health section today. Cheers!
Saturday, October 17, 2009
International Breech Conference
I can't say enough about this conference. It is probably one of the most important I will ever attend. The information (and great recent research!) I have added to my knowledge base on breech birth (in addition to what I have seen in attending breech births), and the empowerment to serve more breech babies and their mommas, is invaluable! I'll be sharing more.
Needless to say, these photos say it all:
So, who's afraid of a little bum? Not I!!!!
Needless to say, these photos say it all:
So, who's afraid of a little bum? Not I!!!!
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Systematic Review: Vaginal birth after two caesarean sections
[Never quite found research to support my HBA5C momma last year - and she had a GREAT VBAC!]
Vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC-2)—a systematic review with meta-analysis of success rate and adverse outcomes of VBAC-2 versus VBAC-1 and repeat (third) caesarean sections
Samina Tahseen a , Malcolm Griffiths b
a Leeds University Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK b Luton & Dunstable Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Luton UK
Correspondence to Dr S Tahseen, 20 Malthouse Green, Luton LU2 8SN, UK. Email stjavaid@yahoo.co.uk
Copyright Journal compilation © 2009 RCOG
KEYWORDS
Complications uterine rupture vaginal birth after two caesarean sections
ABSTRACT
Background Trial of vaginal birth after Caesarean (VBAC) is considered acceptable after one caesarean section (CS), however, women wishing to have trial after two CS are generally not allowed or counselled appropriately of efficacy and complications.
Objective To perform a systematic review of literature on success rate of vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC-2) and associated adverse maternal and fetal outcomes; and compare with commonly accepted VBAC-1 and the alternative option of repeat third CS (RCS).
Search strategy We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, HMIC Database, Grey Literature Databases (SIGLE, Biomed Central), using search terms Caesarean section, caesarian, C*rean, C*rian, and MeSH headings 'Vaginal birth after caesarean section', combined with second search string two, twice, second, multiple.
Selection criteria No randomised studies were available, case series or cohort studies were assessed for quality (STROBE), 20/23 available studies included.
Data collection and analysis Two independent reviewers selected studies and abstracted and tabulated data and pooled estimates were obtained on success rate, uterine rupture and other adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan-5 to compare VBAC-1 versus VBAC-2 and VBAC-2 versus RCS.
Main results VBAC-2 success rate was 71.1%, uterine rupture rate 1.36%, hysterectomy rate 0.55%, blood transfusion 2.01%, neonatal unit admission rate 7.78% and perinatal asphyxial injury/death 0.09%. VBAC-2 versus VBAC-1 success rates were 4064/5666 (71.1%) versus 38 814/50 685 (76.5%) (P < 0.001); associated uterine rupture rate 1.59% versus 0.72% (P < 0.001) and hysterectomy rates were 0.56% versus 0.19% (P = 0.001) respectively. Comparing VBAC-2 versus RCS, the hysterectomy rates were 0.40% versus 0.63% (P = 0.63), transfusion 1.68% versus 1.67% (P = 0.86) and febrile morbidity 6.03% versus 6.39%, respectively (P = 0.27). Maternal morbidity of VBAC-2 was comparable to RCS. Neonatal morbidity data were too limited to draw valid conclusions, however, no significant differences were indicated in VBAC-2, VBAC-1 and RCS groups in NNU admission rates and asphyxial injury/neonatal death rates (Mantel–Haenszel).
Conclusions Women requesting for a trial of vaginal delivery after two caesarean sections should be counselled appropriately considering available data of success rate 71.1%, uterine rupture rate 1.36% and of a comparative maternal morbidity with repeat CS option.
Vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC-2)—a systematic review with meta-analysis of success rate and adverse outcomes of VBAC-2 versus VBAC-1 and repeat (third) caesarean sections
Samina Tahseen a , Malcolm Griffiths b
a Leeds University Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK b Luton & Dunstable Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Luton UK
Correspondence to Dr S Tahseen, 20 Malthouse Green, Luton LU2 8SN, UK. Email stjavaid@yahoo.co.uk
Copyright Journal compilation © 2009 RCOG
KEYWORDS
Complications uterine rupture vaginal birth after two caesarean sections
ABSTRACT
Background Trial of vaginal birth after Caesarean (VBAC) is considered acceptable after one caesarean section (CS), however, women wishing to have trial after two CS are generally not allowed or counselled appropriately of efficacy and complications.
Objective To perform a systematic review of literature on success rate of vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC-2) and associated adverse maternal and fetal outcomes; and compare with commonly accepted VBAC-1 and the alternative option of repeat third CS (RCS).
Search strategy We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, HMIC Database, Grey Literature Databases (SIGLE, Biomed Central), using search terms Caesarean section, caesarian, C*rean, C*rian, and MeSH headings 'Vaginal birth after caesarean section', combined with second search string two, twice, second, multiple.
Selection criteria No randomised studies were available, case series or cohort studies were assessed for quality (STROBE), 20/23 available studies included.
Data collection and analysis Two independent reviewers selected studies and abstracted and tabulated data and pooled estimates were obtained on success rate, uterine rupture and other adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan-5 to compare VBAC-1 versus VBAC-2 and VBAC-2 versus RCS.
Main results VBAC-2 success rate was 71.1%, uterine rupture rate 1.36%, hysterectomy rate 0.55%, blood transfusion 2.01%, neonatal unit admission rate 7.78% and perinatal asphyxial injury/death 0.09%. VBAC-2 versus VBAC-1 success rates were 4064/5666 (71.1%) versus 38 814/50 685 (76.5%) (P < 0.001); associated uterine rupture rate 1.59% versus 0.72% (P < 0.001) and hysterectomy rates were 0.56% versus 0.19% (P = 0.001) respectively. Comparing VBAC-2 versus RCS, the hysterectomy rates were 0.40% versus 0.63% (P = 0.63), transfusion 1.68% versus 1.67% (P = 0.86) and febrile morbidity 6.03% versus 6.39%, respectively (P = 0.27). Maternal morbidity of VBAC-2 was comparable to RCS. Neonatal morbidity data were too limited to draw valid conclusions, however, no significant differences were indicated in VBAC-2, VBAC-1 and RCS groups in NNU admission rates and asphyxial injury/neonatal death rates (Mantel–Haenszel).
Conclusions Women requesting for a trial of vaginal delivery after two caesarean sections should be counselled appropriately considering available data of success rate 71.1%, uterine rupture rate 1.36% and of a comparative maternal morbidity with repeat CS option.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
