Cesarean section in twin pregnancies in two Danish counties with different cesarean section rates

References

• Hawrylyshyn P A, Barkin M, Bernstein A, Papsin F R. Twin pregnancies - a continuing perinatal challenge. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 59: 463–6
   Google Scholar
• Olofsson P, Rydhstrom H. Twin delivery, how should the second twin be delivered?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153: 479–81
   Google Scholar
• Kiely J L. The epidemiology of perinatal mortality in multiple births. Bull N Y Acad Med 1990; 66: 618–37
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cetrulo C L, Ingardia C J, Sbarra A J. Management of multiple gestations. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1980; 23: 533–48
   Google Scholar
• Farooqui M O, Grossman J H, Shannon R A. A review of twin pregnancy and perinatal mortality. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1973; 144: 153, suppl
   Google Scholar
• Buekens P, Lagasse R, Puissant F, Leory F. Do breech presentations in twins and singletons run different risks?. Acta Genet Med Gemellol Roma 1985; 34: 207–11
   Google Scholar
• Laros R KJ, Dattel B J. Management of twin pregnancy: the vaginal route is still safe. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158: 1330–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casperson L S. Discussion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158: 1334–6
   Google Scholar
• Sperling L S, Henriksen T B, Ulrichsen H, et al. Indications for cesarean section in singleton pregnancies in two Danish counties with different cesarean section rates. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
   Google Scholar
• Anderson G M, Lomas J. Determinants of the increasing cesarean birth rate. Ontario data 1979 to 1982. N Engl J Med 1984; 311: 887–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959; 22: 719–48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parazzini F, Pirotta N, La-Vecchia C, Fedele L. Determinats of caesarean section rates in Italy. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 99: 203–6
   Google Scholar
• Crawford J S. A prospective study of 200 consecutive twin deliveries. Anaesthesia 1987; 42: 33–43
   Google Scholar
• Rattan P K, Knuppel R A, O'Brien W F, Scerbo J C. Cesarean delivery of the second twin after vaginal delivery of the first twin. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986; 154: 936–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chervenak F A, Johnson R E, Youcha S, Hobbins J C, Berkowitz R L. Intrapartum management of twin gestation. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 65: 119–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marieskind H I. Cesarean section in the United States: has it changed since 1979?. Birth 1989; 16: 196–202
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maternity Alliance. One birth in Nine - Caesarean section trends since 1978. Maternity Alliance, London 1983
   Google Scholar
• Lomas J, Enkin M. Variations in operative delivery rates. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth, I Chalmers, M Enkin, M J Keirse. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1989; 1182–95
   Google Scholar
• Enkin M. Labour and delivery following previous caesarean section. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth, I Chalmers, M Enkin, M J Keirse. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1989; 1211
   Google Scholar
• Panel. Indications for cesarean section: Final statement of the panel of the National Consensus Conference on aspects of cesarean birth. Can Med Assoc J 1986; 134: 1348–52
   Google Scholar
• Warenski J C, Kochenour N K. Intrapartum management of twin gestation. Clin Perinatol 1989; 16: 889–97
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cetrulo C L. The controversy of mode of delivery in twins: the intrapartum management of twin gestation (Part I). Semin Perinatol 1986; 10: 39–43
   Google Scholar
• Cohen M, Kohl S G, Rosenthal A H. Fetal Interlocking complicating twin gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1965; 91: 407
   Google Scholar
• Trofatter K FJ. Twin pregnancy. Management of delivery. Clin Perinatol 1988; 15: 93–106
   Google Scholar
• Seiler J S. The demise of vaginal operative obstetrics: a suggested plan for its revival. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75: 710–3
   Google Scholar
• Taylor E S. Editorial. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1984; 39: 498–9
   Google Scholar
• Acker D, Lieberman M, Holbrook R H, James O, Phillippe M, Edelin K C. Delivery of the second twin. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 59: 710–1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chervenak F A, Johnson R E, Berkowitz R L, Grannum P, Hobbins J C. Is routine cesarean section necessary for vertex-breech and vertex-transverse twin gestations?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 148: 1–5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blickstein I, Schwartz-Shoham Z, Lancet M, Borenstein R. Vaginal delivery of the second twin in breech presentation. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 69: 774–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazor M, Leiberman J R, Dreval D, Wiznitzer A, Alyagon A, Insler V. Management and outcome of vertex-breech and vertex-vertex presentation in twin gestation: a comparative study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1986; 22: 69–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adam C, Allen A C, Baskett T F. Twin delivery, influence of the presentation and method of delivery on the second twin. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165: 23–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabinovici J, Barkai G, Reichman B, Serr D M, Mashiach S. Randomized management of the second nonvertex twin: vaginal delivery of cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156: 52–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gocke S E, Nageotte M P, Garite T, Towers C V, Dorcester W. Management of the nonvertex second twin: primary cesarean section, external version, or primary breech extraction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 111–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells S R, Thorp J MJ, Bowes W AJ. Management of the nonvertex second twin. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1991; 172: 383–5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anderson G M, Lomas J. Explaining variations in cesarean section rates: patients, facilities, or policies?. Can Med Assoc J 1985; 132: 253–9
   Google Scholar
• Berkowitz G S, Fiarman G S, Mojica M A, Bauman J, de-Regt R H. Effect of physician characteristics on the cesarean birth rate [see comments]. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 146–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClain C S. Why women choose trial of labor or repeat cesarean section. J Fam Pract 1985; 21(5)210–6, [published erratum appears in J Fam Pract 1986 Nov; 23 (5): 425]
   Google Scholar