Comments on: Why Cesarean Section Has Not Reduced the Incidence of Cerebral Palsy http://healthewoman.org/2009/03/06/why-cesarean-section-has-not-reduced-the-incidence-of-cerebral-palsy/ Facts Plus Stories Equals Knowledge Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:26:46 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: All American Blogger » Why John Edwards Is Responsible for More Unnecessary Operations Than “Greedy Doctors” http://healthewoman.org/2009/03/06/why-cesarean-section-has-not-reduced-the-incidence-of-cerebral-palsy/comment-page-1/#comment-3123 All American Blogger » Why John Edwards Is Responsible for More Unnecessary Operations Than “Greedy Doctors” Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:20:53 +0000 http://healthewoman.org/2009/03/06/why-cesarean-section-has-not-reduced-the-incidence-of-cerebral-palsy/#comment-3123 [...] So what has been the result of the increase in Caesarean section births? Occurrences of cerebral palsy have “remained fairly stable” at about “1.5/1000 births.” [...] [...] So what has been the result of the increase in Caesarean section births? Occurrences of cerebral palsy have “remained fairly stable” at about “1.5/1000 births.” [...]

]]> By: Shelley Binkley http://healthewoman.org/2009/03/06/why-cesarean-section-has-not-reduced-the-incidence-of-cerebral-palsy/comment-page-1/#comment-318 Shelley Binkley Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:04:12 +0000 http://healthewoman.org/2009/03/06/why-cesarean-section-has-not-reduced-the-incidence-of-cerebral-palsy/#comment-318 @Susana Thank you for the very interesting comment. The slight trend downward in CP rates since 1990 probably does not reach enough statistical significance to qualify as a decrease in the CP rates. Recent studies (since 2000) have shown a slight uptick in the CP rates in the U.S., thought to be due to iatrogenic prematurity (i.e. increased incidence in preterm birth rates due to assisted reproductive technology or IVF). The overall changes in the CP rates since the 1970's has been attributed by the medical community to improvement in care of early preterm infants (i.e. those born before 28 wks). Thanks again for the comment, let's keep the discussion going! @Susana Thank you for the very interesting comment. The slight trend downward in CP rates since 1990 probably does not reach enough statistical significance to qualify as a decrease in the CP rates. Recent studies (since 2000) have shown a slight uptick in the CP rates in the U.S., thought to be due to iatrogenic prematurity (i.e. increased incidence in preterm birth rates due to assisted reproductive technology or IVF).
The overall changes in the CP rates since the 1970’s has been attributed by the medical community to improvement in care of early preterm infants (i.e. those born before 28 wks).
Thanks again for the comment, let’s keep the discussion going!

]]> By: susana http://healthewoman.org/2009/03/06/why-cesarean-section-has-not-reduced-the-incidence-of-cerebral-palsy/comment-page-1/#comment-317 susana Wed, 11 Mar 2009 05:19:45 +0000 http://healthewoman.org/2009/03/06/why-cesarean-section-has-not-reduced-the-incidence-of-cerebral-palsy/#comment-317 Interesting article. Can you clarify for me this statement though: In fact, the incidence of CP seems to be increasing slightly with the increased survival rates of infants born before thirty-two weeks gestation. How can you say that there is an increase when the graph does not show this? It shows a rise from 1970 to 1990, then a decrease from 1990 to 2000. Do you have any idea what the fluctuations could be attributed to? Why were there so many cases in the 70's? Why the sharp decline between ' 75 and ' 80? thanks, Susana Interesting article. Can you clarify for me this statement though:

In fact, the incidence of CP seems to be increasing slightly with the increased survival rates of infants born before thirty-two weeks gestation.

How can you say that there is an increase when the graph does not show this? It shows a rise from 1970 to 1990, then a decrease from 1990 to 2000.

Do you have any idea what the fluctuations could be attributed to? Why were there so many cases in the 70’s? Why the sharp decline between ‘ 75 and ‘ 80?

thanks,
Susana

]]>