Der Gynäkologe

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 36–41 | Cite as

Natürliche Geburt oder „Wunsch-Sectio“?

Wie steht es um die Evidenz?
Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Äußert eine Schwangere den Wunsch nach einer Sectio äußert, ohne dass eine medizinische oder geburtshilfliche Indikation vorliegt, muss möglichst umfassend aufgeklärt werden. Die Entbindung durch eine primäre Sectio darf heute bei einer risikoarmen Ausgangssituation als sehr sicher bezeichnet werden. Vergleichsstudien wurden vorwiegend an Frauen mit Beckenendlage oder nach Sektio in einer vorausgegangenen Schwangerschaft durchgeführt; in diesen Kollektiven muss bei geplanter vaginaler Geburt mit einer deutlich höheren Rate sekundärer Sectiones, die Risiko reicher als der primäre Eingriff sind, gerechnet werden. Die für einen „informed consent“ wünschenswerte Evidenz für eine Gleichwertigkeit oder Überlegenheit der primären Sectio fehlt weitgehend. Umfassende Recherchen der letzten Jahre stellen fest, dass bei Fehlen einer klaren, gut begründeten Indikation für eine Sectio die vaginale Entbindung nach wie vor die sicherste Form der Entbindung für die große Mehrzahl der Frauen ist. Der Gegenbeweis erfordert eine prospektiv randomisierte Studie.

Schlüsselwörter

Wunsch-Sectio Vaginale Geburt Nutzen-Risiko-Abwägung Aufklärung 

Vaginal birth or cesarean delivery on maternal request

What is the evidence?

Abstract

Whenever a pregnant woman requests a cesarean delivery with no medical or obstetric indication, extensive information is essential. In a low-risk situation, an elective cesarean may be considered a safe procedure for mother and fetus. Comparative studies involving vaginal deliveries are mostly based on women with breech presentations or cesarean sections in previous pregnancies; compared with low-risk situations, there will be an increased need for secondary cesareans in the planned vaginal delivery group, which clearly have a higher risk than elective interventions. There is no clear evidence regarding the relative benefit–risk ratio of elective c-section and vaginal delivery, which would be desirable for truly informed consent. Extensive studies of the recent literature show that in pregnancies with no clear medical or obstetric indication, the vaginal route remains the safest mode of delivery for the great majority of women. Randomized prospective studies would be needed to provide proof to the contrary.

Keywords

Cesarean delivery on maternal request Vaginal delivery Benefit-risk ratio Informed consent 

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Feldman GB, Freiman JA (1985) Prophylactic cesarean section at term? N Engl J Med 312: 1264–1267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Institute of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement (2006) Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 107: 1386–1397Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    DGGG (2004) Stellungnahme zur absoluten und relativen Indikation zur Sectio caesarea und zur Frage der so genannten Sectio auf Wunsch. Frauenarzt 2001, 42: 1311. Überarbeitet und aktualisiert im Mai 2004, http://www.dggg.de/leitlinien/4.html
  4. 4.
    Plante LA (2006) Public Health Implications of Cesarean Section on Demand. Obstet Gynecol Surv 61: 807–815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thomas J, Paranjothy S (2001) Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. RCOG Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berufsverband der Frauenärzte Bremen (2006) Die steigende Kaiserschnittrate und ihre Hintergründe. Frauenarzt 47: 12–14Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Childbirth Connection. NIH cesarean conference: Interpreting meeting and media reports. Alerts and responses. http://www.childbirthconnection.org
  8. 8.
    Declerq E, Menacker F, McDorman MF (2006) Maternal risk profiles and the primary cesarean rate in the United States, 1991–2002. Am J Public Health 96: 867–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Young D (2006) „Cesarean delivery on maternal request“: Was the NIH Conference based on a faulty premise? Birth 33: 171–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (2004) SOGC’s position on elective C-sections. Press release, March 2, 2004. http://www.SOGC.org
  11. 11.
    Maternity Center Association (2004) What every woman needs to know about cesarean section. New York. http://www.maternitywise.org/booklet
  12. 12.
    Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA et al. (2000) Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: A randomized multicenter trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 356: 1375–1383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA et al. (1996) A comparison of a trial of labor with an elective cesarean section. N Engl J Med 335: 689–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Neises M, Ploeger A (2003) Psychosomatische Aspekte der Wunsch-Sectio. Frauenarzt 44: 638–640Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG (2004) Patient choice caesarean: an evidence-based review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 59: 601–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Penna L, Arulkumaran S (2003) Cesarean section for non-medical reasons. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 82: 399–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klein MC (2004) Quick fix culture: The cesarean-section-on-demand debate. Birth 31: 161–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    NICE-Guidelines (2004) National Institute for Clinical Excellence, clinical guideline 13: Caesarean section, http://www.nice.org.uk/CG013
  19. 19.
    Ryding EL (1993) Investigation of 33 women who demanded a C-section for personal reasons. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 72: 280–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amu O, Rajendran S, Bolaji II (1998) Should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request? Maternal choice alone should not determine method of delivery. BMJ 317: 463–465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Al Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM (1997) Survey of obstetrician’s personal preference and discretionary practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 73: 1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmutzler RK, Herleyn- Elger LM, Rhiem K et al. (2003) Einstellung deutscher Gynäkologen und Gynäkologinnen zur Wunsch-Sectio. Frauenarzt 44: 632–636Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu JM, Hundley AF, Visco AG (2005) Elective primary cesarean delivery: attitudes of urogynecology and maternal-fetal medicine specialists. Obstet Gynecol 105: 301–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farrell SA, Allen VM, Baskett TF (2001) Parturition and urinary incontinence in primiparas. Obstet Gynecol 97: 350–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Groutz A, Rimon E, Peled S et al. (2004) Cesarean section: does it really prevent the development of postpartum stress urinary incontinence? A prospective study of 363 women one year after their first delivery. Neurourol Urodyn 23: 2–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hodnett ED et al. (2002) Outcomes at 3 months after planned cesarean vs planned vaginal delivery of breech presentation at term: the international randomizd Term Breech Trial. JAMA 287: 1822–1831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ et al. (2004) Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned caesarean section vs planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomizd Term Breech Trial vaginal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191: 917–927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Phipps MG, Watabe B, Clemons JL et al. (2005) Risk factors of bladder injury during caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 105: 156–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Burrows LJ, Meyn LA, Weber AM (2004) Maternal morbidity associated with vaginal versus caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 103: 907–912PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu S, Heaman M, Joseph KS et al. (2005) Risk of maternal postpartum readmission associated with mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 105: 836–842PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berger M, Sachs BP (2006) Maternal mortality with caesarean delivery in Massachusetts (1995–2003) and a review of the literature. In: NIH State-of-the-Science Conference: Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request. Bethesda/MD: US Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health, 2006: 37–39Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lewis G (ed) (2004) Why Mothers Die 2000–2002. The Sixth Report of the Confidential Enquiries Into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom. RCOG Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Welsch H, Wischnik A (2006) Müttersterblichkeit. In: Schneider H, Husslein P, Schneider KTM (Hrsg) Die Geburtshilfe. 3. Aufl. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, S 1049–1063Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Finer NN, Robertson CN, Richards RT et al. (1981) Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in term neonates: perinatal factors and outcome. J Pediatr 98: 112–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    MacDonald HM, Mulligan JC, Allen AC et al. (1980) I. Relationship of obstetric and neonatal complications to neonatal mortality in 38405 consecutive deliveries. J Pediatr 96: 898–902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Badawi N, Kurinczuk LL, Keogh JM et al. (1998) Intrapartum risk factors for newborn encephalopathy: the Western Australian case control study. BMJ 317: 1554–1558PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Clark L, Hankins GD (2003) Temporal and demographic trends in cerebral palsy – facts and fiction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188: 628–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    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
  39. 39.
    Zanardo V, Simbi A, Vedovato S (2004) The influence of timing of elective cesarean section on neonatal resuscitation risk. Pediatr Crit Care Med 5: 566–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    McDorman MF, Declerq E, Menacker F et al. (2006) Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with „No indicated Risk“, United States, 1998−2001 Birth Cohorts. Birth 33: 175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Smith GC, Pell JP, Cameron AD et al. (2002) Risk of perinatal death associated labor after previous caesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies. JAMA 287: 2684–2690PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hovatta O, Lipasti A, Rapola J et al. (1983) Causes of stillbirth: A clinicopathological study of 243 patients. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 90: 691–696PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    NIH State-of-the-Science Conference: Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request. Bethesda/MD: National Institutes of Health, 2006: 1–115Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Getahun D, Oyelese Y, Salihu HM et al. (2006) Previous cesarean delivery and risks of placenta praevia and placental abruption.Obstet Gynecol 107: 771–778PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wu S, Kocherginsky M, Hibbard U (2005) Abnormal placentation: twenty year analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192: 1458–1461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mahoka FM, Felimbach HM, Fathuddien MA et al. (2004) Multiple caesarean section morbidity. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 87: 227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Harer WB Jr (2002) Vaginal birth after caesarean delivery: current status: JAMA 287: 2627–2630Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Smith GCS, Dobbie R (2003) Cesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet 362: 1779–1784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bahtiar MO, Julien S, Robinson JM (2006) Prior caesarean delivery is not associated with an increased risk of stillbirth in a subsequent pregnancy: An analysis of US perinatal mortality data, 1995–1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195: 1373–1378Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hemminki E (1996) Impact of caesarean section on future pregnancy – a review of cohort studies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 10: 366–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Feige A (2004) Der mit Risiken behaftete Wunsch nach Sectio. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 163: 163–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Villar J, Wojdylaa, Zavaleta N (2006) Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 367: 1819–1829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KehrsatzSchweiz

Personalised recommendations