Planned caesarean section or trial of vaginal delivery? A meta-analysis

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 461-468

  Azam, Sultana ^a   Khanam, Amina ^a   Tirlapur, Seema ^b   Khan, Khalid ^b,c  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL LONDON HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Caesarean section; Maternal morbidity; Systematic review; Vaginal delivery

Indexed keywords

BLOOD TRANSFUSION; CESAREAN SECTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; HUMAN; LOW RISK PATIENT; MATERNAL MORBIDITY; MATERNAL MORTALITY; META ANALYSIS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUERPERAL DEPRESSION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; URINE INCONTINENCE; VAGINAL DELIVERY; ADVERSE EFFECTS; CONTRAINDICATIONS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROPHYLACTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE; PUERPERIUM; RISK; URINARY INCONTINENCE;

BLOOD TRANSFUSION; CESAREAN SECTION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMANS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; POSTPARTUM HEMORRHAGE; POSTPARTUM PERIOD; PREGNANCY; PROPHYLACTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES; RISK; URINARY INCONTINENCE;

EID: 84928047391     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: 1473656X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000114     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Belizan JM, Althabe F, Barros FC, Alexander S. Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999; 319:1397-1400.
2. Belizan JM, Althabe F, Cafferata ML. Health consequences of the increasing caesarean section rates. Epidemiology 2007; 18:485-486.
3. Mazzoni A, Althabe F, Liu NH, et al. Women's preference for caesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BJOG 2011; 118:391-399.
4. Miesnik SR, Reale BJ. A review of issues surrounding medically elective cesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2007; 36:605-615.
5. Habiba M, Kaminski M, Da Fre M, et al. Caesarean section on request: a comparison of obstetricians' attitudes in eight European countries. BJOG 2006; 113:647-656.
6. Cotzias CS, Paterson-Brown S, Fisk NM. Obstetricians say yes to maternal request for elective caesarean section: a survey of current opinion. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 97:15-16.
7. Gonen R, Tamir A, Degani S. Obstetricians' opinions regarding patient choice in cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:577-580.
8. Lee-Parritz A. Surgical techniques for cesarean delivery: what are the best practices? Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004; 47:286-298.
9. Nielsen TF, Hokegard KH. Cesarean section and intraoperative surgical complications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1984; 63:103-108.
10. Lavender T, Hofmeyr GJ, Neilson JP, et al. Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 3:CD004660.
11. Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6:e1000100.
12. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ontario, Canada: University of Ottawa; 2013. http://www.evidencebasedpublichealth. de/download/Newcastle-Ottowa-Scale-Pope-Bruce.pdf. [Accessed 2013]
13. Higgins JPT, AltmanDG, Sterne JAC, editors. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
14. Kor-Anantakul O, Suwanrath C, Lim A, Chongsuviwatwong V. Comparing complications in intended vaginal and caesarean deliveries. J Obstet Gynaecol 2008; 28:64-68.
15. Larsson C, Saltvedt S, Wiklund I, Andolf E. Planned vaginal delivery versus planned caesarean section: short-term medical outcome analyzed according to intended mode of delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2011; 33:796-802. The authors collected data as a prospective study from 541 primiparous women and aimed to look at maternal outcomes from planned vaginal deliveries or planned caesarean sections. The intended mode of delivery was also documented and the data have shown that there were no differences in the short-term outcomes between different groups. Comparing data to previous recorded data shows an increase in the number of complications seen in planned vaginal deliveries.
16. Wesnes SL, Hunskaar S, Bo K, Rortveit G. The effect of urinary incontinence status during pregnancy and delivery mode on incontinence postpartum. A cohort study. BJOG 2009; 116:700-707.
17. Geller EJ, Wu JM, Jannelli ML, et al. Maternal outcomes associated with planned vaginal versus planned primary cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol 2010; 27:675-684. The authors compared the causes of maternal morbidity amongst 26 356 women between 1995 and 2005. The women were categorized based on planned vaginal delivery and planned caesarean deliveries. One of the causes they focused on was PPH. The data show that women who had planned caesarean deliveries were at a reduced risk of maternal morbidities, such as PPH, opposed to women who had planned vaginal deliveries.
18. Holm C, Langhoff-Roos J, Petersen KB, et al. Severe postpartum haemorrhage and mode of delivery: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG 2012; 119:596-604. The authors conducted a restrospective study looking at 382 266 women in Denmark over the period of 2001-2008. The main objective of this study was to monitor the use of blood transfusions within the first week of delivery and whether this was influenced by the mode of delivery. The mode of delivery was recorded as actual and planned to allow us to compare data amongst the groups. The authors here divided the individuals into further categories, which helps us look at the impact of labour type in correlation to mode of delivery, and whether prelabour, spontaneous labour or induction of labour determined the severity of PPH and, hence, use of blood transfusions. The data in the article strongly suggest that the use of less blood transfusions was accounted for women who had undergone planned caesarean sections opposed to other modes of delivery.
19. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, et al. Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ 2007; 176:455-460.
20. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, et al. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 2000; 356:1375-1383.
21. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hodnett ED, et al. World Health Organization 2005 Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group. Outcomes at 3 months after planned cesarean vs planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. JAMA 2002; 287:1822-1831.
22. Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, et al. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized term breech trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191:917-927.
23. NICE. Caesarean section. Clinical guideline 132 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2011 (in press).
24. Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, et al. World Health Organization 2005 Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ 2007; 335:1025-1029.
25. Declercq E, Barger M, Cabral HJ, et al. Maternal outcomes associated with planned primary cesarean births compared with planned vaginal births. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109:669-677.
26. Wax JR. Maternal request cesarean versus planned spontaneous vaginal delivery: maternal morbidity and short term outcomes. Semin Perinatol 2006; 30:247-252.
27. Gilliam M. Cesarean delivery on request: reproductive consequences. Semin Perinatol 2006; 30:257-260.
28. Allen VM, O'Connell CM, Liston RM, Baskett TF. Maternal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery without labor compared with spontaneous onset of labor at term. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102:477-482.
29. Rossen J, Okland I, Nilsen OB, Eggebo TM. Is there an increase of postpartum hemorrhage, and is severe hemorrhage associated with more frequent use of obstetric interventions? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010; 89:1248-1255.
30. Waterstone M, Bewley S, Wolfe C. Incidence and predictors of severe obstetric morbidity: case-control study. BMJ 2001; 322:1089-1093.
31. Burrows LJ, Meyn LA, Weber AM. Maternal morbidity associated with vaginal versus cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:907-912.
32. Nielsen Forman D, Videbech P, Hedegaard M, et al. Postpartum depression: identification of women at risk. BJOG 2000; 107:1210-1217.
33. Soderquist J, Wijma B, Thorbert G, Wijma K. Risk factors in pregnancy for posttraumatic stress and depression after childbirth. BJOG 2009; 116:672-680.
34. Carter FA, Frampton CM, Mulder RT. Cesarean section and postpartum depression: a review of the evidence examining the link. Psychosom Med 2006; 68:321-330.
35. Patel RR, Murphy DJ, Peters TJ. Operative delivery and postnatal depression: a cohort study. BMJ 2005; 330:879.
36. Fisher J, Astbury J, Smith A. Adverse psychological impact of operative obstetric interventions: a prospective longitudinal study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 1997; 31:728-738.
37. Ryding EL, Wijma K, Wijma B. Psychological impact of emergency cesarean section in comparison with elective cesarean section, instrumental and normal vaginal delivery. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 19:135-144.
38. Lydon-Rochelle MT, Holt VL, Martin DP. Delivery method and self-reported postpartum general health status among primiparous women. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2001; 15:232-240.
39. McKinnie V, Swift SE, Wang W, et al. The effect of pregnancy and mode of delivery on the prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193:512-517.
40. Ekstrom A, Altman D, Wiklund I, et al. Planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal delivery: comparison of lower urinary tract symptoms. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008; 19:459-465.
41. Pretlove SJ, Thompson PJ, Toozs-Hobson PM, et al. Does the mode of delivery predispose women to anal incontinence in the first year postpartum? A comparative systematic review. BJOG 2008; 115:421-434.
42. Farrell SA, Allen VM, Baskett TF. Parturition and urinary incontinence in primiparas. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97:350-356.
43. Van Brummen HJ, Bruinse HW, van de Pol G, et al. The effect of vaginal and cesarean delivery on lower urinary tract symptoms: What makes the difference? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2007; 18:133-139.
44. Abramov Y, Sand PK, Botros SM, et al. Risk factors for female anal incontinence: new insight through the Evanston-Northwestern twin sisters study. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106:726-732.
45. MacArthur C, Glazener C, Lancashire R, et al. Exclusive caesarean section delivery and subsequent urinary and faecal incontinence: a 12-year longitudinal study. BJOG 2011; 118:1001-1007.
46. Nama V, Wilcock F. Caesarean section on maternal request: is justification necessary? Obstet Gynaecol 2011; 13:263-269.
47. Burgio KL, Borello-France D, Richter HE, et al. Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Risk factors for fecal and urinary incontinence after childbirth: the childbirth and pelvic symptoms study. American J Gastroenterol 2007; 102:1998-2004.