Pelvi-périnéologie

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 200–206 | Cite as

Les risques maternels et fœtaux de la césarienne programmée et en urgence

Mise au Point / Update

Résumé

L’augmentation du taux de césarienne a un impact probable sur la santé publique; même si cette intervention est actuellement banalisée et rapide. Les médecins et les patients doivent tenir compte de la balance risques/bénéfices de la césarienne par rapport à la voie basse. Cet article étudie la morbimortalité maternelle et foetale en cas d’accouchement par césarienne et recherche également des différences entre les césariennes en urgence et celles qui sont programmées en dehors du travail. Les données sur ce sujet sont limitées; il n’y a actuellement pas d’études randomisées permettant de comparer les deux voies d’accouchements. La césarienne en urgence semble liée à une augmentation de la mortalité et de la morbidité maternelle grave et minime, que ce soit par rapport à l’accouchement par voie basse ou par rapport à la césarienne programmée. Les risques d’hémorragie de la délivrance sont doublés et les complications peropératoires triplées en cas de césarienne en urgence. Le taux d’infection postnatale peut atteindre 10 % en cas de césarienne. Pour les risques foetaux associés à la naissance par césarienne, il y a peu de données; en particulier pour comparer les résultats entre césarienne programmée et en urgence. Il existe un excès de pathologies respiratoires néonatales en cas de césarienne en comparaison à la voie basse, pouvant être multiplié par un facteur dix. Un excès d’échecs d’allaitement maternel est également associé à l’accouchement par césarienne.

Mots clés

Césarienne Allaitement Pathologie respiratoire Urologie 

Maternal and foetal’s risks of planned and emergency cesarean delivery

Abstract

Increased rate of cesarean section have the potential for a significant impact on public health, even if this intervention is now considered a routine procedure. Physicians and patients considering cesarean delivery may consider the balance between the risks and benefits of a cesarean section versus a planned vaginal delivery. This article aims to investigate the association between cesarean delivery and maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. Differences between emergency cesarean section and planned cesarean delivery were studied. Available data are subject to several limitations. There are no randomized trial data comparing outcomes among cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth. Emergency cesarean sections are associated with an increased maternal mortality as well as minor and severe maternal morbidity in comparison with vaginal delivery or planned cesarean section. The rate of respiratory morbidity is significantly higher in neonates delivered by c-section compared to those delivered vaginally. In addition, an excess of breastfeeding failure is associated with caesarean delivery.

Keywords

Cesarean Breastfeeding Respiratory morbidity Urology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hall MH, Bewley S (1999) Maternal mortality and mode of delivery. Lancet 354(9180):776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah ME (2003) Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD000166PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, et al (2007) Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ 335(7628):1025PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Ham MA, van Dongen PW, Mulder J (1997) Maternal consequences of caesarean section. A retrospective study of intraoperative and postoperative maternal complications of caesarean section during a 10 year period. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 74(1):1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA Jr, Olshan AF (1996) Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med 335(10):689–695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Subtil D, Vaast P, Dufour P, et al (2000) Maternal consequences of cesarean as related to vaginal delivery. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 29(Suppl 2):10–16Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Al-Took S, Platt R, Tulandi T (1999) Adhesion-related smallbowel obstruction after gynecologic operations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180(2 Pt 1):313–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hemminki E, Merilainen J (1996) Long-term effects of cesarean sections: ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. Am J Obstet Gynecol 174(5):1569–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hemminki E (1991) Long-term maternal health effects of caesarean section. J Epidemiol Community Health 45(1):24–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barnhart KT, Sammel MD, Gracia CR, et al (2006) Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy in women with symptomatic first-trimester pregnancies. Fertil Steril 86(1):36–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kendrick JS, Tierney EF, Lawson HW, et al (1996) Previous cesarean delivery and the risk of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 87(2):297–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maymon R, Halperin R, Mendlovic S, et al (2004) Ectopic pregnancies in Caesarean section scars: the 8 year experience of one medical centre. Hum Reprod 19(2):278–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thompson JF, Roberts CL, Currie M, Ellwood DA (2002) Prevalence and persistence of health problems after childbirth: associations with parity and method of birth. Birth 29(2):83–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Signorello LB, Harlow BL, Chekos AK, Repke JT (2001) Postpartum sexual functioning and its relationship to perineal trauma: a retrospective cohort study of primiparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184(5):881–888; discussion 8–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zdeb MS, Therriault GD, Logrillo VM (1984) Frequency, spacing, and outcome of pregnancies subsequent to primary cesarean childbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 150(2):205–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Collin SM, Marshall T, Filippi V (2006) Caesarean section and subsequent fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa. BJOG 113(3): 276–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Visco AG, Viswanathan M, Lohr KN, et al (2006) Cesarean delivery on maternal request: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 108(6):1517–1529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ryding EL, Wijma K, Wijma B (1998) Experiences of emergency cesarean section: a phenomenological study of 53 women. Birth 25(4):246–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith GC, Wood AM, Pell JP, Dobbie R (2006) First cesarean birth and subsequent fertility. Fertil Steril 85(1):90–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jolly J, Walker J, Bhabra K (1999) Subsequent obstetric performance related to primary mode of delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 106(3):227–232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garel M, Lelong N, Marchand A, Kaminski M (1990) Psychosocial consequences of caesarean childbirth: a four-year follow-up study. Early Hum Dev 21(2):105–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bhattacharya S, Porter M, Harrild K, et al (2006) Absence of conception after caesarean section: voluntary or involuntary? BJOG 113(3):268–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wolf ME, Daling JR, Voigt LF (1990) Prior cesarean delivery in women with secondary tubal infertility. Am J Public Health 80(11):1382–1383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pandian Z, Bhattacharya S, Templeton A (2001) Review of unexplained infertility and obstetric outcome: a 10 year review. Hum Reprod 16(12):2593–2597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM (1999) Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med 341(23):1709–1714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    O’Driscoll K, Foley M (1983) Correlation of decrease in perinatal mortality and increase in cesarean section rates. Obstet Gynecol 61(1):1–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sheehan KH (1987) Caesarean section for dystocia: a comparison of practices in two countries. Lancet 1(8532):548–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Myers SA, Gleicher N (1988) A successful program to lower cesarean-section rates. N Engl J Med 319(23):1511–1516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Signore C, Klebanoff M (2008) Neonatal morbidity and mortality after elective cesarean delivery. Clin Perinatol 35(2): 361–371, viPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mozurkewich EL, Hutton EK (2000) Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183(5):1187–1197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F, Malloy MH (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(3):175–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Signore C, Hemachandra A, Klebanoff M (2006) Neonatal mortality and morbidity after elective cesarean delivery versus routine expectant management: a decision analysis. Semin Perinatol 30(5):288–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Richardson BS, Czikk MJ, daSilva O, Natale R (2005) The impact of labor at term on measures of neonatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(1):219–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hansen AK, Wisborg K, Uldbjerg N, Henriksen TB (2008) Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective caesarean section: cohort study. BMJ 336(7635):85–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brown MJ, Olver RE, Ramsden CA, et al (1983) Effects of adrenaline and of spontaneous labour on the secretion and absorption of lung liquid in the fetal lamb. J Physiol 344:137–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Olver R, Walters D (2008) Why babies don’t drown at birth? Acta Paediatr 97(10):1324–1326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Irestedt L, Lagercrantz H, Hjemdahl P, et al (1982) Fetal and maternal plasma catecholamine levels at elective cesarean section under general or epidural anesthesia versus vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 142(8):1004–1010PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Eisler G, Hjertberg R, Lagercrantz H (1999) Randomised controlled trial of effect of terbutaline before elective caesarean section on postnatal respiration and glucose homeostasis. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 80(2):F88–F92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Borgwardt L, Bach D, Nickelsen C, et al (2009) Elective caesarean section increases the risk of respiratory morbidity of the newborn. Acta Paediatr 98(1):187–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Morrison JJ, Rennie JM, Milton PJ (1995) Neonatal respiratory morbidity and mode of delivery at term: influence of timing of elective caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 102(2):101–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Levine EM, Ghai V, Barton JJ, Strom CM (2001) Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol 97(3):439–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ramachandrappa A, Jain L (2008) Elective cesarean section: its impact on neonatal respiratory outcome. Clin Perinatol 35(2): 373–393, viiPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Minkoff H, Chervenak FA (2003) Elective primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 348(10):946–950PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Parilla BV, Dooley SL, Jansen RD, Socol ML (1993) Iatrogenic respiratory distress syndrome following elective repeat cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 81(3):392–395PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Haas DM, Ayres AW (2002) Laceration injury at cesarean section. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 11(3):196–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dessole S, Cosmi E, Balata A, et al (2004) Accidental fetal lacerations during cesarean delivery: experience in an Italian level III university hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(5):1673–1677PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dewey KG, Nommsen-Rivers LA, Heinig MJ, Cohen RJ (2003) Risk factors for suboptimal infant breastfeeding behavior, delayed onset of lactation, and excess neonatal weight loss. Pediatrics 112(3 Pt 1):607–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hodnett ED, et al (2002) Outcomes at 3 months after planned cesarean vs planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. JAMA 287(14):1822–1831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Crost M, Kaminski M (1998) Breast feeding at maternity hospitals in France in 1995. National perinatal survey. Arch Pediatr 5(12):1316–1326Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Perez-Escamilla R, Maulen-Radovan I, Dewey KG (1996) The association between cesarean delivery and breast-feeding outcomes among Mexican women. Am J Public Health 86(6):832–836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Marlow N (1992) Do we need an Apgar score? Arch Dis Child 67(7 Spec No):765–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Truffert P (2000) Neonatal consequences of cesarean section. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 29(Suppl 2):17–21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Paris 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pôle d’obstétrique, hôpital Jeanne-de-FlandreCHRU de LilleLilleFrance
  2. 2.Faculté de médecine Henri-Warembourguniversité de LilleLille cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations