Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of maternal and fetal complications in elective and emergency cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Though the same types of complication were found in both elective cesarean section (ElCS) and emergence cesarean section (EmCS), the aim of this study is to compare the rates of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality between ElCS and EmCS.

Methods

Full-text articles involved in the maternal and fetal complications and outcomes of ElCS and EmCS were searched in multiple database. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted for meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and bias analysis. Funnel plots and Egger’s tests were also applied with STATA 10.0 software to assess possible publication bias.

Results

Totally nine articles were included in this study. Among these articles, seven, three, and four studies were involved in the maternal complication, fetal complication, and fetal outcomes, respectively. The combined analyses showed that both rates of maternal complication and fetal complication in EmCS were higher than those in ElCS. The rates of infection, fever, UTI (urinary tract infection), wound dehiscence, DIC (disseminated intravascular coagulation), and reoperation of postpartum women with EmCS were much higher than those with ElCS. Larger infant mortality rate of EmCS was also observed.

Conclusion

Emergency cesarean sections showed significantly more maternal and fetal complications and mortality than elective cesarean sections in this study. Certain plans should be worked out by obstetric practitioners to avoid the post-operative complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL et al (2005) Williams obstetrics, 22nd edn. McGraw-Hill Companies, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sachs BP (2001) Vaginal birth after caesaren: a heath policy perspective. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 44:553–560

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Khawaja NP, Yousaf T, Tayyeb R (2004) Analysis of caesarean delivery at a tertiary hospital in Pakistan. J Obstet Gynaecol 24:139–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Lenevo KL et al (2005) Maternal and perinatal outcome associated with a trial of labor after prior caesarean delivery. N England J Med 352:1718–1720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chauhan S, Martin J, Henrichs C et al (2003) Maternal and perinatal complications with uterine rupture in 142,075 patients who attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a review of the literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:408–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Keith Edmonds D (2008) Malpresentation, malposition, cephalopelvic disproportion and obstetric procedures. Blackwell publishing, London 17:311–325

  7. Rao BK (1994) Global aspects of a rising caesarean section rate. In: Women’s health today: perspectives on current research and clinical practice. The proceedings of the XIV world congress of obstetrics and gynecology, Montreal, pp 59–64

  8. Adashek JA, Peaceman AM, Lopez-Zeno JA et al (1993) Factors contributing to the increased cesarean birth rate in older parturient women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 169:936–940

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sowmya M, Dutta I (2014) Comparative Study of Neonatal outcome in Cesarean section done in referred cases vs Elective Cesarean delivery in a rural medical college hospital. J Evol Med Dent Sci 24:13993–13998

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hasssan S, Tariq S, Javaid MK (2008) Comparative analysis of problems encountered between patients of elective caesarean section and patient for whom elective caesarean section was planned but ended up in emergency. Professional Med J 15:211–215

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bergholt T, Stenderup JK, Vedsted-Jakobsen A et al (2003) Intraoperative surgical complication during cesarean section: an observational study of the incidence and risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 82:251–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA et al (2000) Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomized multicentre trial: term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 356:1375–1383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. World Health Organization (1985) Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 2:436–437

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tampakoudis P, Assimakopoulos E, Grimbizis G et al (2004) Caesarean section rates and indications in Greece: data from a 24 year period in a teaching hospital. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 31:289–292

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McCarthy FP, Rigg L, Cady L et al (2007) A new way of looking at Caesarean section births. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 47:316–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Notzon FC, Cnattingius S, Bergsjø P et al (1994) Cesarean section delivery in the 1980s: international comparison by indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 170:495–504

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Belizán JM, Althabe F, Cafferata ML (2007) Health consequences of the increasing caesarean section rates. Epidemiology 18:485–486

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ghazi Asifa, Karim Farah, Hussain Ayesha Muhammad et al (2012) Maternal morbidity in emergency versus elective caesarean section at tertiary care hospital. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 24:10–13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Raees M, Yasmeen S, Jabeen S et al (2013) Maternal morbidity associated with emergency versus elective caesarean section. JPMI 27:55–62

    Google Scholar 

  20. Najam R, Sharma R (2013) Maternal and fetal outcomes in elective and emergency caesarean sections at a teaching hospital in North India. A retrospective study. J Adv Res Biolo Sci 5:5–9

    Google Scholar 

  21. SoukaynaBenzouina Mohamed El-mahdiBoubkraoui, Mrabet Mustapha et al (2016) Fetal outcome in emergency versus elective cesarean sections at Souissi Maternity Hospital, Rabat, Morocco. Pan Afr Med J 23:197

    Google Scholar 

  22. Suja Daniel M, Viswanathan BN Simi et al (2014) Comparison of fetal outcomes of emergency and elective caesarean sections in a teaching hospital in Kerala. Acad Med J India 2:32–36

    Google Scholar 

  23. Daniel Suja, ManjushaViswanathan Simi BN et al (2014) Study of maternal outcome of emergency and elective caesarean section in a semi-rural tertiary hospital. Natl J Med Res 4:14–18

    Google Scholar 

  24. Thakur V, Chiheriya H, Thakur A et al (2015) Study of maternal and fetal outcome in elective and emergency caesarean section. Int J Med Res Rev 3:1300–1305

    Google Scholar 

  25. Diana V, Tipandjan A (2016) Emergency and elective caesarean sections: comparison of maternal and fetal outcomes in a suburban tertiary care hospital in Puducherry. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 5:3060–3065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang ZW (2016) The study of clinical comparisons with emergency cesarean and selective cesarean. China Foreign Med Treat 17:69–70

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ (2013) Births: preliminary data for 2012. Natl Vital Stat Rep 62:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rao BK (1994) Global aspects of a rising caesarean section rate. Women’s health today: perspectives on current research and clinical practice. The proceedings of the XIV world congress of obstetrics and gynecology, Montreal, pp. 59–64

  29. World Health Organization (2009) Monitoring emergency obstetric care: a handbook. Geneva. World Health Organization

  30. Chongsuvivatwong V, Bachtiar H, Chowdhury ME et al (2010) Maternal and fetal mortality and complications associated with C/S deliveries in teaching hospitals in Asia. J Obstetric Gynaecol 36:45–51

    Google Scholar 

  31. ACO Obstetricians gynecologists (2014) Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 210:179–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Choate JW, Lund CJ (1968) Emergency cesarean section: an analysis of maternal and fetal results in 177 operations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 100:703–715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Berlit S, Welzel G, Tuschy B et al (2013) Emergency caesarean section: risk factors for adverse neonatal outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287:901–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Paganelli S, Soncini E, Gargano G et al (2013) Retrospective analysis on the efficacy of corticosteroid prophylaxis prior to elective caesarean section to reduce neonatal respiratory complications at term of pregnancy: review of literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288:1223–1229

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hillemanns P, Hasbargen U, Strauss A et al (2003) Maternal and neonatal morbidity of emergency caesarean sections with a decision-to-delivery interval under 30 minutes: evidence from 10 years. Arch Gynecol Obstet 268:136–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics, Tai’an Central Hospital, No. 29 Longtan Road, Tai’an, 271000, China

    Xiao-Jing Yang & Shan-Shan Sun

Authors
  1. Xiao-Jing Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shan-Shan Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

XJY: protocol/project development and manuscript writing/editing. SSS: data collection or management and data analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiao-Jing Yang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This study does not involve human participants or animals.

Informed consent

Informed consent is not required for this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, XJ., Sun, SS. Comparison of maternal and fetal complications in elective and emergency cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 296, 503–512 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4445-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4445-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation