Cited by 68Maternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsMaternal and fetal healthcareAnesthesia and Pain Management

Timing of caesarean section according to urgency

Leung, Tak Yeung, Lao, Terence T.·2013·Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology

Abstract

Fetal distress is an emergency condition requiring rapid caesarean delivery. Hence, it has been recommended that the decision-to-delivery interval should be within 30 mins. Many previous studies have failed to show any improved outcome with short decision-to-delivery interval. The reasons are (1) most of these studies were of small scale and retrospective with limitation in design; (2) the indications for caesarean deliveries recruited in these studies were not specific for life-threatening fetal distress; (3) selection bias as clinicians tended to deliver worse cases more quickly than less severe cases; (4) correlation was analysed between adverse fetal outcome and decision to delivery interval, but ignored the bradycardia-to-delivery interval, which reflected the actual duration of fetal hypoxia. Latest studies indeed have shown that bradycardia-to-delivery interval correlated significantly with arterial pH and base excess in life-threatening fetal conditions. The longer the bradycardia-to-delivery, the poorer the arterial blood gases parameters and neonatal outcomes. This result supports that every obstetric unit should have the capability to accomplish emergency caesarean section in 30 mins of decision for fetal safety. The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology has standardised the classification of the urgency of caesarean delivery, which helps to identify those life-threatening fetal conditions that will be benefited from rapid delivery. Training in teamwork and communication, availability of anaesthetists, and operation theatre are the main factors to achieve a quick caesarean delivery.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.09.005

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leung, T. Y., & Lao, T. T.
Affiliations
Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Leung, Tak Yeung
Venue
Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-04
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
251-267
ISSN
1521-6934 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2099064299
Cited by
68
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
Keywords
decision-to-delivery interval, fetal distress, emergency caesarean delivery, fetal hypoxia, arterial blood gases, base excess, arterial pH, neonatal outcomes, urgency classification
MeSH terms
Cesarean Section, Emergencies, Female, Fetal Distress, Humans, Pregnancy, Resuscitation, Severity of Illness Index, Time Factors, Practice Guidelines as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review