Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 283, Issue 6, pp 1193–1198 | Cite as

Influence of the mode of delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes: a comparison between elective cesarean section and planned vaginal delivery in a low-risk obstetric population

  • Klaus BodnerEmail author
  • Franz Wierrani
  • Werner Grünberger
  • Barbara Bodner-Adler
Materno-fetal Medicine



The aim of the study was to compare the maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with elective cesarean sections with planned vaginal delivery.


A total of 178 women with elective cesarean section were compared with the next parity- and age-matched women presenting in spontaneous labor. Our analysis was restricted to a sample of low-risk obstetrical women. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were the main outcome variables of interest. Maternal morbidity outcome variables included wound infection, trauma, puerperal febrile morbidity and significant blood loss (>500 ml). Neonatal outcomes were captured by Apgar scores, cord pH as well as the occurrence of neonatal infections.


A significantly higher rate of puerperal febrile morbidity (n = 46 vs. 14, p = 0.0001) and wound infections (n = 16 vs. 2, p = 0.0001) could be detected in the elective cesarean section group. Additionally, a significant blood loss > 500 ml was more than twice as frequent in the cesarean section group (n = 22 vs. 10, p = 0.03) with non-significant lower postpartum hemoglobin levels being observed (10.4 vs. 11.2 g/dL, p > 0.05). A significant increase for the use of iron supplementation (n = 146 vs. 122, p = 0.002), analgesics (n = 168 vs. 60, p = 0.0001) and antibiotics (n = 48 vs. 18, p = 0.0001) could be found in the puerperal period and hospital admission was prolonged in elective cesarean section (6.8 vs. 3.5 days, p = 0.0001). Additionally, problems in breastfeeding occurred more frequently in this group (n = 18 vs. 4, p = 0.002). Neonatal complications were generally low in both the groups with no significant differences being observed (p > 0.05).


The increased maternal morbidity in elective cesarean section included puerperal febrile morbidity, wound infections as well as breastfeeding problems in the postpartum period. Women should be sufficiently counseled regarding the increased risk of these complications.


Elective cesarean section Spontaneous onset of labor Planned vaginal delivery Maternal and neonatal morbidity 


Conflict of interest statement



  1. 1.
    Placek PJ, Taffel SM (1984) Cesarean section delivery rates: United States 1982. Am J Public Health 73:861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Institutes of Health (1981) Cesarean childbirth NIH publication No. 82–2067. National Institutes of Health, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albers L, Garcia J, Renfrew M, McCandlish R, Elbourne D (1999) Distribution of genital tract trauma in childbirth and related postnatal pain. Birth 26:11–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haadem K, Ohrlander S, Lingman G (1988) Long-term ailments due to anal sphincter rupture caused by delivery—a hidden problem. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 27:27–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haadem K, Dahlstrom JA, Ling L, Ohrlander S (1987) Anal sphincter function after delivery rupture. Obstet Gynecol 70:53–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Al Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk MN (1996) Obstetricians’ personal choice and mode of delivery. Lancet 347:544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Husslein P (2001) Elective cesarean section versus vaginal delivery. Whither the end of traditional obstetrics? Arch Gynecol Obstet 265(4):169–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allen VM, O`Connell CM, Liston RM, Baskett TF (2003) Maternal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery without labor compared with spontaneous onset of labor at term. Obstet Gynecol 102:477–482PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wax JR (2006) Maternal request cesarean versus planned spontaneous vaginal delivery: maternal morbidity and short term outcomes. Semin Perinatol 30:247–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness, Perinatal Research Branch (1966) The collaborative study on cerebral palsy, mental retardation and other neurological and sensory disorders of infancy and childhood. Part III: manuals. BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bewley S, Cockburn J (2002) The unethics of “request” cesarean section. BJOG 109:593–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bewley S, Cockburn J (2002) The unfacts of “request” cesarean section. BJOG 109:597–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J (2004) Patient choice cesarean: An evidence-based review. Obstet Gynecol Survey 59(8):601–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Penna L, Arulkumaran S (2003) Cesarean section for non-medical reasons. Int J Gynecol Obstet 82:399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mc Farlin B (2004) Elective cesarean birth: issues and ethics of an informed decision. J Midwifery Womens Health 49(5):421–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Ham MA, van Dongen PW, Mulder J (1997) Maternal consequences of cesarean section. A retrospective study of intraoperative and postoperative maternal complications of cesarean section over a 10 year period. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 74:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Declercq E, Barger M, Cabral HJ, Evans SR, Kotelchuck M, Simon C, Weiss J, Heffner LJ (2007) Maternal outcomes associated with planned primary cesarean births compared with planned vaginal births. Obstet Gynecol 109(3):669–677PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS (2007) Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ 176(4):455–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morisson J, Mac Kenzie IZ (2003) Cesarean section on demand. Semin Perinatol 27(1):20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Irion O, Hirsbrunner Almagbaly P, Morabia A (1988) Planned vaginal delivery versus elective cesarean section: a study of 705 singleton term breech presentations. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105:710–717Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Audit Comimission (1997) First class delivery: improving maternity services in England and Wales. Audit commissions Publications, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Henderson J, Mc Candlish R, Kumiega L, Petrou S (2001) Systematic review of economic aspects of alternative modes of delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 108:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mazur J, Mikiel-Kostyra K (2000) Determinanats of newborn feeding in materity hospital care. Part II: factors associated with exclusive breast feeding. Ginekol Pol 71:604–611PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levine EM, Ghai V, Barton JJ et al (2001) Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol 97:439–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zanardo V, Simbi AK, Franzoi M, Solda G, Salvadori A, Trevisanuto D (2004) Neonatal respiratory morbidity risk and mode of delivery at term: influence of timing of elective cesarean delivery. Acta Paediatr 93(5):643–647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hansen AK, Wisborg K, Uldbjerg N, Henriksen TB (2008) Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective cesarean section: cohort study. BMJ 336(7635):85–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Bodner
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Franz Wierrani
    • 1
  • Werner Grünberger
    • 1
  • Barbara Bodner-Adler
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsHospital RudolfstiftungViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine and Health SciencesUnited Arab Emirates UniversityAl AinUnited Arab Emirates
  3. 3.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsAl Ain HospitalAl AinUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations