Risk of cesarean section in singleton pregnancies after assisted reproductive techniques

Zoltán Kozinszky, Janos Zádori, Hajnalka Orvos, Márta Katona, Attila Pál, László Kovács

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)


OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perinatal outcome of singleton pregnancies after assisted reproductive techniques in comparison with that in matched controls from spontaneous pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 11,776 deliveries from January 1, 1995, to May 31, 2001, were subjected to retrospective analysis. Data on 259 neonates from singleton pregnancies after ovulation induction (n=85, 32.8%), intrauterine insemination (n = 17, 6.6%) or in vitro fertilization (n = 157, 60.6%) were evaluated. The pregnancy outcome was compared with that for controls (n = 518) matched for age, gravidity and parity after spontaneous pregnancies. RESULTS: Cesarean section was significantly more frequent in the study group than in the control group (42.1% vs. 27.6%, P <.001, odds ratio [OR] 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39-2.61). The prevalence of preterm deliveries was not significantly higher (P=.40, OR 1.23, 95% CI .78-1.95) in the study group as compared with the controls (12.7% vs. 10.6%). There was no significant difference in intrauterine growth retardation between the two groups (9.3% vs. 6.2%, P = .14, OR 1.55, 95% CI .89-2.69). CONCLUSION: Singleton pregnancies after assisted reproductive techniques are associated with an increased rate of cesarean section, whereas neonatal outcome is not influenced.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)160-164
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Reproductive Medicine for the Obstetrician and Gynecologist
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Mar 1 2003


  • Cesarean section
  • Pregnancy
  • Reproduction techniques

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Risk of cesarean section in singleton pregnancies after assisted reproductive techniques'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this