Introduction
The indications for doing CS varied tremendously over last many decades. In the 18th century CSs were done to save foetus in the dead or dying mother. Nineteenth century saw caesarean being done to save life of mother. With use of safe anaesthesia, suturing techniques, antiseptics, asepsis, blood transfusion and antibiotics, CS has become an increasingly safe and common procedure. The continued improvement in safety has led to CS being done on demand today with no medical indications though the mortality related to caesarean birth is still 3-4 times higher than vaginal birth [1,2].
To address the question whether CS without medical indications on maternal request is justified or not, it is imperative to know the associated mortality and morbidity of CS.
Maternal Mortality
Maternal mortality has been defined by World Health Organization (WHO) as the death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of the termination of pregnancy irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy for any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes [3].
Maternal mortality related to CS had dropped to 5-10% by the end of year 1800 and to 0.1% by 1950 [4].
Maternal mortality after CS has been estimated to be between 5.81 and 6.1 per 100,000 procedures [5].
Maternal Mortality: Association with CS Compared to Vaginal delivery (Vd)
The risk of mortality associated with CS compared with Vd after exclusion of pre-existing morbidity was 4- 5 fold [1,6]. The main reasons for increased mortality after CS is post-partum haemorrhage (aOR 3, 95% CI), complications of anaesthesia, thromboembolism (aOR 3.5) and post-partum infections (aOR 1.2, 95% CI) [7].
Maternal Mortality: Association of Emergency and Planned CS with Vd
Liu S et al. showed that emergency caesarean delivery increases the risk of maternal deaths up to 5 times compared to vaginal delivery (9.7 versus 1.8/100,000 births respectively) [8]. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) on maternal deaths for intra-partum CS compared to pre-partum CS was 1.4 (95% CI) [1].
It was found that planned caesarean delivery had the lowest maternal mortality rate compared with all other births after analysis of a CEMACH report in 2008 [9].
Maternal Mortality: Relationship with Rate of CSs
Access to caesarean delivery is an essential strategy for reducing child and maternal mortality. However, its overuse can be harmful to both mother and neonate. World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that CS rates should not exceed 10 to 15 per 100 live births to optimise maternal and neonatal outcomes [10]. However, Molina G et al., in a study of WHO member states representing 97.6% of all live births in the world, has shown that the optimum caesarean rate should be below 19.1% [11].
Maternal Mortality: Causes
Most of the maternal mortalities (73%) are due to direct causes and rest 27% from indirect causes. The important direct causes are haemorrhage (27.1%), hypertensive disorders (14%), sepsis (10.7%), abortion (7.9%) and embolism (3.2%) [12].
Eclampsia and pre-eclampsia account for 88.3% of all hypertensive disorders. Most cases of infection are due to puerperal sepsis. The indirect causes of maternal mortality are cardiovascular disorders (9%), cerebrovascular accidents (7%), pulmonary system disorders (8%), gastrointestinal system disorders (4%), and other indirect causes (9%) [13].
Maternal Morbidity
As maternal mortality is rare, maternal morbidity, or severe maternal morbidity: mortality ratio, reflects the quality of care more appropriately [14-16] and has become an important indicator of maternal health.
WHO has defined maternal morbidity as any health condition which is related to or aggravated by pregnancy and delivery which causes a negative effect on woman’s well being. These morbidities can lead to short-term and long-term effects on mother and baby [17].
Maternal Morbidity: Causes
There are various risk factors for maternal morbidity. They vary in duration and severity; from the most severe form, the ‘maternal near miss’ to non life threatening morbidity, which is more common.
Morbidity for CS births is four times than for Vd [14]. Intraoperative or post-operative complications were reported during hospital stay in 27% women, who had CS; 10% women had severe complications and only 0.76% had life threatening complications. Maternal morbidity was least in Vd followed by instrumental Vd and planned CS. Morbidity was highest in emergency CS. Thus, even in the most high risk woman, Vd is the most safe option, including risks associated with emergency CS [18].
Maternal Morbidity and Complications
Deviation from the normal post-operative course has been defined as complications. Sometimes complications can be asymptomatic i.e., arrhythmias and atelectasis [19]. These complications can have a negative impact on women’s well-being and cause maternal morbidity. The incidence of maternal complications reported in different studies vary according to how complications are defined, the method of collecting data and the period of follow-up after caesarean. The rate of complications related to CS was found to be 90.5% in a retrospective study, where data were collected from all sources including nurses diaries [20].
Severe Acute Maternal Morbidities (SAMM): Life threatening complications, in terms of organ failure and life saving surgery constitute SAMM. Woman with SAMM are unlikely to survive if they do not receive care in a hospital [21]. Incidence of severe maternal morbidity depends on the criteria used: organ system based or intervention criteria. It is 3-4 times more often related to CS than to Vd. The incidence of severe maternal morbidity was 4.77% compared to 1.41% for vaginal deliveries [22]. The OR for severe morbidity in elective CS compared to Vd was 1.7 (95% CI) [23]. SAMM has increased almost 200% over the years from 1993 to 2014. This increase has been mostly because of blood transfusions, which has increased 4-5 times. The rate of SMM has increased by about 20% over time when transfusion of blood is excluded (CDC) [24].
NEAR MISS: A woman who nearly died but survived a complication that occurred during pregnancy, childbirth or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy are near miss cases. These women survive a life threatening condition [25].
Maternal Morbidity: CS Versus Vd
Though CS prevents many maternal and neonatal deaths yet, severe morbidity rate was three times in planned CS compared to planned Vd [8]. Planned caesarean group had significant higher post-partum risk of cardiac arrest (OR 5.1), hysterectomy (OR 3.2), haemorrhage requiring hysterectomy (OR 2.1), wound haematoma (OR 5.1), major puerperal infection (OR 3.0), anaesthetic complication (OR 2.3), venous thromboembolism (OR 2.2) compared to planned vaginal delivery group [26].
Maternal CS Morbidity: in Women with Prior CS
Vaginal Birth After Caesarean (VBAC) result in lower morbidity (regards to maternal transfusion, ICU admissions, unplanned hysterectomy and rupture uterus) than planned repeat CS. Failed trial of labour followed by CS results in increased morbidity . Although rare, rates of ruptured uterus are seven times higher among women attempting a trial of labour after a previous caesarean than among women with elective repeat procedure. In an attempt to avoid such morbidities there is declining percentage of women with previous caesarean deliveries attempting a trial of labour over the last two decades [27].
Short Term Morbidities after CS
| Haemorrhage | It is the most common cause of maternal morbidity. Incidence after CS is 8.6%-13% for haemorrhage ≥1000 mL or need of transfusion [28,29]. Visual estimation is often incorrect [30].Severe haemorrhage is defined as: >1500 mL blood loss, transfusion of ≥ 4 units red cells, fall in the haemoglobin ≥ 40 gm/L., embolisation or hysterectomy or re-operation for haemorrhage [14,16,28]. The reported incidence is 0.8 % in Vd, 2.2 % in elective CS and 3.4% in emergency CS [14,31]. A 6-14 folds increase of most severe forms of haemorrhage leading to hysterectomy or other interventions, even for primary CS compared to Vd, and more after a prior CS is seen [32-34].Risk factors are prior CS which predisposes for abnormal placentation and uterine rupture [34,35]. A prior CS is associated with a higher risk for haemorrhage in CS delivery and also in subsequent Vd compared to a women with a history of Vds only [36,37].Significant risk factors for PPH after adjusting for confounders are: age ≥35 years (OR 1.5), multiple pregnancy (OR 2.8), fibroids (OR 2.0), preeclampsia (OR 3.1), amnionitis (OR 2.9), placenta previa or abruption (OR 7.0), cervical laceration (OR 94.0), uterine rupture (OR 11.6), and CS (OR 1.4) [38]. |
| Blood Tranfusion | Blood transfusion was the most common morbidity, as reported in National Vital Statistics, required in 280.4/100,000 live births [27]. |
| Peripartum Hysterectomy | The incidence varies from 0.3 to 5.0 per 1000 deliveries. Incidence is more in CS than Vd. Women with prior CS compared to without a prior CS is a risk factor for peri-partum hysterectomy [33,34,39].With increase in CS rates, an abnormal adherent placenta has become more common, and has become the most common cause for peripartum hysterectomy [40].Obstetric hysterectomy has high risk of intraoperative and post-operative complications and include-fever, coagulopathy, ICU admissions, acute renal failure, DIC, UTI, ARDS, ureteric/bladder/bowel injury, re-operation, transfusion, cardiac arrest, thromboembolic events, sepsis, wound infections, VVF and maternal deaths [41-45]. No significant differences were observed in frequency of complications in women who underwent total or subtotal hysterectomy [41-43]. |
| Other intraoperative complications | These include accidental incision of foetal skin, laceration of cervix, vagina, uterus and uterine arteries, injury to bowel, bladder and ureter. These injuries are higher in emergency CS and inexperienced surgeon. Bladder injury is more common with prior caesarean scar, emergency CS, prior pelvic surgery and head deep in pelvis. Intraoperative complications ie tissue damage that required extra suturing, bowel/bladder lesion, technical difficulties because of adhesions, and other events that were judged as a complication by the surgeon) amounted to 8.1% of the operations. The risk increased with increasing cervical dilation (19.1% at 9-10 cm of cervical dilation and 4.0% at 0 cm) [28]. |
| Infections | Postpartum infection are five times higher after CS than after Vd [46]. Febrile morbidity was reported in approximately 30% of women undergoing CS. Prophylactic antibiotics reduced the incidence of febrile morbidity from 50% to 15% [47]. Serious infectious morbidity (defined as bacteremia, septic shock, septic thrombophlebitis, necrotising fascitis or death attributed to infection) was reported following 1–2% of caesarean births [47]. Emergency CS is a risk factor (adjusted OR: 5.53; 95% CI) for infections [48]. Prohlylactic use of antibiotics [49] has decreased infection rate.Endometritis-There is ten times higher risk of endometritis after CS than after Vd [50]. Incidence of endometritis after CS in a US study was 6.9% (2.7% and 9.4% in elective and emergency CS, respectively) [51].Wound infection-Surgial Site Infections (SSI) after CS was 8.9% during a 30 days follow-up, though at hospital discharge it was only 1.8% [52]. The risk factors for SSI are: emergency CS, premature rupture of membranes, anaemia, obesity, operating time > 38 minutes. Anaemia has been reported as an independent risk factor for SSI (risk ratio 2.39) [53].Urinary Tract Infections -UTI occurred in 1.5% after Vd, 2.6% after elective CS and 3.0% after emergency CS in a study on infections related to CS [47].Pneumonia-Pneumonia was more common in women delivering by CS than Vd. The incidence was 0.1% after Vd, 0.5% after elective CS and 0.7% after emergency CS. Smokers had a 2-fold risk for pneumonia compared to non-smokers [51].Sepsis- Common cause of maternal deaths especially in low resource settings. This can progress to septic shock with signs of hypotension, low platelet count, hypoperfusion [13]. Postpartum sepsis is 3.2 times more common after CS deliveries compared to Vd [54]. UTI and chorio-amnionitis are common infections associated with septic shock. Risk factors for maternal sepsis - obesity, diabetes or IGT, impaired immunity, immunosuppressive medications, anaemia, prolonged rupture of membranes, amniocentesis, history of pelvic infection, group B streptococcal infection in women or close contacts. Most common organisms involved - group A beta-haemolytic Streptococcus, E.coli. |
| Thromboembolic events | The risk factor for a thromboembolic event during pregnancy is CS, and with other risk factors, the risk increases even more [55]. CS constituted a 3.8-fold risk for pulmonary embolism and a 5.8-fold risk for stroke compared to Vd [56]. Septic pelvic thrombophlebitis, diagnosed by computed tomographic imaging, has an incidence of 1:3000 deliveries. The incidence is 11-folds in CS compared to Vd [57]. |
| Amniotic fuid embolism | A rare and life threatening condition which may occur during or immediately after delivery. The reported incidence is 2-8 per 100,000 deliveries and the mortality rate is 56% in the initial phase till 23 hours) [58]. Rupture of the membranes predisposes to inflow of amniotic fluid into maternal circulation which can occur easily in CS. Significant associations with AFE were observed with medical induction of labour (aOR 1.7; 95% CI), CS (aOR 15.0; 95% CI), instrumental vaginal delivery (aOR 6.6; 95%CI), and cervical/uterine trauma (aOR 7.4; 95% CI). AFE was associated with increase in risk of stillbirth, hysterectomy, maternal death and prolonged hospital stay [59]. |
| Reoperation | In a study on 3380 CS, re-laparotomy was needed in 0.53% of the CS: 66% due to haemorrhage, 17% due to infection and rest due to other causes [60]. In a Norwegian study on 2752 CS, re-operation was needed in 1.7% after a CS performed after ≥30 weeks of pregnancy, and in 5.2% performed before 30 weeks of pregnancy [28]. |
| Ileus | Ileus occurs from hypomotility of the gastrointestinal tract in the absence of mechanical bowel obstruction. Ileus was reported after 1.5% of CS in a Dutch study, and in 0.64% in a Scottish study [20,61]. It usually resolves spontaneously within 2-3 days. Sepsis, diabetes, hypothyroidism, anaemia, low potassium can be the predisposing factors. |
| Wound haematoma | Wound haematoma was recorded in 1.2% of women after CS in a study from Israel and in 3.7% of women after CS in a study from Norway [28,50]. It can get infected leading to wound dehiscence. |
| Post-partum urinary retention | An incidence of 3.38% was identified in a study [62]. Women at risk are: who had undergone emergency CS for lack of progress in labour. These women usually recover completely within 28 days [63]. With early diagnosis an overstreching of the bladder wall, causing detrusor damage can be avoided. |
| Breast feeding problems | Most common among women who undergo elective CS |
| Post surgical fatigue and pain | Post surgical fatigue and pain may affect woman from caring and breastfeeding of the newborn [64]. |
| Anaesthetic complications | Neuraxial anaesthesia for CS is safe and preferred to general anaesthesia because it minimises the risk of failed intubation, ventilation and aspiration. A significant number of the women who died while undergoing CS may have required emergent delivery, requiring general anaesthesia rather than regional anaesthesia, and these factors contributed to the higher rate of mortality and morbidity associated with CS. |
Long Term Complications/Morbidities after CS
| Adherent placenta/ Placenta Accreta | Although rare, it has become more common during recent years, probably due to increased rate of CS [34]. The risk increases progressively with increasing number of prior CS [34,65]. The incidence of an abnormally adherent placenta was as high as 5.8% in a woman with one prior CS associated with placenta previa. The incidence of placenta accreta in woman with 6 or more CS increased to 28-folds and the risk of hysterectomy increased to 14-folds compared to the risk at first CS [65]. |
| Placenta previa | Uterine scarring associated with CS results in endometrial and myometrial damage, defective implantation mechanisms, and failure of differential growth of the scarred lower uterine segment, all of these predispose to low implantation of the placenta. The incidence of placenta previa was 1.75% after previous Vd compared to 6% after one previous CS, an increased risk of 4 times. With 2 or 3 prior CS the risk is 7 times, with 4 or more CS the risk is 45 times higher. Presence of placenta previa increases feto-maternal morbidity and mortality [66]. |
| Placental abruption | Placenta previa increases the risk of placental abruption. It can lead to maternal haemorrhage and decrease the oxygen and nutrient supply to the baby. There is an increased risk of abruption in next pregnancy, in women with previous CS; compared to women who had previous Vd (RR 1.3, 95% CI). Women with 2 previous CS have 30% higher risk of abruption in their next pregnancy [67]. |
| Uterine Rupture | It is a serious complication and may lead to severe morbidity and occasionally to foetal and maternal death. An overall incidence of uterine rupture was reported to be 0.2 per 1000 deliveries. In woman with a prior CS having trial for vaginal delivery, the incidence was 2.1/1000 whereas, its incidence was only 0.3/1000 in an elective CS [68]. Risk factors for uterine rupture are: woman who had two or more prior CS, CS had been performed less than 12 months earlier or if the labour has been induced [68]. |
| Hysterectomy | Women with prior CS are at increased risk of hysterectomy in subsequent pregnancy due to increased risk of placenta previa, placenta accreta and rupture uterus. |
| Still births | Unexplained still birth is more common after a CS than after Vd. In a meta-analysis it was concluded that the risk of stillbirth in later pregnancies increase by 23% in women with prior CS [69]. |
| Preterm births | Women with pregnany after prior CS are at increased risk for placenta previa, therefore, the risk of pre-term births are increased. The pre-term babies are more likely to suffer from morbidities i.e., anaemia, jaundice, infection, apnea, heart failure, vision problems and RDS. |
| Ectopic pregnancy | Ectopic pregnancy is a life threatening condition and must be terminated. Ectopic pregnancy was reported with a RR of 1.3, in a cohort stydy [70]. The embryo can become attached to previous caesarean scar (caesarean scar pregnancy), the management of which is quite critical. |
| Infertility/ Subfertility | It is estimated that 10% women with prior CS have difficulty in becoming pregnant again. It is not clear whether it is due to surgery itself or due to other factors. |
| Chronic pain | Chronic pain after CS is reported in 12.3% of women, 10 months after a CS, and 5.9% of them experienced pain daily or almost daily [71]. Chronic pain may be the result of nerve entrapment, caesarean scar defect or pelvic adhesions [72]. |
| Adhesions | Adhesions can cause difficulty during future intra-abdominal surgical procedures, and may increase the risk of bladder or bowel injury. |
Risk Factors for Maternal Morbidity in CS
| Emergency/elective CS | The risk of complications in emergency CS is more compared to elective CS (RR 1.1 - 2.5) in many studies [28,61]. For severe maternal morbidity the aOR was 2.3 for elective CS and 2.0 for intrapartum CS versus Vd, when adjusted for parity, any comorbidity prior to pregnancy or during pregnancy, hypertensive disorders, bleeding in second half of pregnancy, IUGR and other medical conditions in a large study from eight Latin American countries [48]. The degree of cervical dilatation was linearly related to the rate of maternal complications, with a total complication rate of 4% at 0 cm and of 19.1% at 9-10 cm [28]. |
| Obesity | In obese women, the risk of emergency CS is increased to 2-3 folds compared to normal weight women [73-75]. The risk of CS is increased by 7% for every one unit increase in maternal BMI [76]. Obese women have more intraoperative complications because of technical difficulties [77]. Obesity increases the risk for postpartum haemorrhage. Obesity is also a risk factor for both minor and major infections [52,77,78]. Obese women with BMI>30 had an OR of 2.2 for wound infection [73]. Endometritis occurs 30% more often in obese women than in normal weight women [51]. Pneumonia is also more common in obese women than in normal weight women, possibly due to later mobilisation and weaker lung function [73,77]. Obese women had twice the odds of uncomplicated sepsis [79]. Severe morbidity in a woman with BMI >30 has an OR of 1.4 and a woman with BMI > 40 has an OR of 2.1 [80]. Obesity is also a known risk factor for thromboembolism throughout pregnancy and puerperium with adjusted OR in women with BMI>30 of 5.3 compared to normal weight women [81]. |
| Smoking | Smoking is a risk factor for maternal complications. Risk of placental abruption with maternal smoking has been reported in various studies (RR 1.4-2.5) [82]. It has been studied as an independent risk factor for SSI [83]. |
| Pre-eclampsia (PE) | PE is a severe obstetric complication in itself, but also increases the risk for complications, risk of severe haemorrhage increases by 2 to 3 folds [31,38,51]. Because of changes in coagulation system in women with PE, the risk for thromboembolic events is increased with an OR of 3.8 [55]. |
| Diabetes Mellitus (DM) | Risk of associated maternal complications with diabetes mellitus i.e., pregnancy induced hypertension, pre-eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, CS, hypoglycaemia and the worsening of any degree of a pre-existing renal insufficiency and retinopathy increase the risk of maternal morbidity. Obesity increased the risk of infection for diabetic women during the hospital stay more than two-fold (OR 2.7 (95%CI) [84]. |
| Age | An increased risk for any haemorrhage (OR 1.1-1.3) and severe haemorrhage (OR 1.1-1.5) in older women has been reported [31,36,38]. For every 5-year increase in maternal age, the risk of CS increased by 50% [85]. A higher rate of thromboembolic events related to deliveries in women aged >35 has been reported in several studies (OR 1.3-1.5) compared to younger women [86]. The rate of severe complications increased linearly with increasing maternal age [87]. In a Belgian study, maternal age over 35 years increased the MMR 7-folds, and in a British study the adjusted OR for maternal death was 2.4 for women aged more than 35 years, compared to younger women [81,87].For teenaged mother, rates of transfusion (316.3 per 100,000 live births) and ICU admission (156.4) by maternal age were higher than for mothers aged 20–34 (262.4 and 135.5, respectively), and highest for mothers aged 35–54 (355.5 and 252.8, respectively) [27].Rate of ruptured uterus and unplanned hysterectomy generally increased with maternal age, with a greater increase for unplanned hysterectomy. The rate, for women aged 35–54 was more than 10 times the rate for women under age 20 [26]. |
| Race and ethinicity | Non-Hispanic black women had the highest rates of transfusion (332.3 per 100,000 live births) and ICU admission (239.5) among all racial and ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic black (39.2) and non-Hispanic Asian (32.1) women had the highest rates of ruptured uterus [27]. |
| Surgeon’s experience | The surgeon experience affects the risk of CS-related complications [88]. In a study, comparing CS complications in women operated on by general practitioners and women operated on by specialists, it was observed that major surgical morbidity occurred in 2.5% vs. 1.6%, transfusions need in 5.9% vs. 7.0% and severe morbidity in 3.1% vs.1.9% of the women [88]. An operating time ≥38 min increased the risk for SSI 2.5-folds [52]. Surgeon’s s experience decreased the risk for infections related to CS. The OR was 2.4 for a CS performed by a resident compared to a CS performed by a senior surgeon [50]. |
Neonatal Morbidity In CS versus Vd
Cerebral palsy: It is a common belief that CS protects the neonate from cerebral palsy, but only a small proportion. About 8-28%, of the cases of CP are associated with birth asphyxia [89]. Most neonates who develop CP had damaging events already antenatally (infection, hypoxia, intracranial haemorrhage) or are low-weight or pre-term at birth [89].
Foetal injuries: Foetal lacerations occur in 0.1-3.1% of CS. The risk factors are: emergency operations, abnormal presentations and ruptured membranes [90-92]. Sometimes severe lacerations occur, needing operative repair later [91]. Foetal injuries are more common in Vd especially after instrumental deliveries.
Delayed maternal adaptation: Neonatal adaptation to extrauterine life is delayed in babies born by elective CS related to glucose balance, body temperature and neurologic adaptation. This might be due to catecholamine surge that occurs in neonates born vaginally. Also, during vaginal delivery, the mechanical pressure on the foetus during the passage through the birth canal together with activation of sodium channels that transport liquids from the lungs, help the neonate to start breathing [93]. A study on feto-maternal outcome after CS without medical indications, showed increased respiratory distress with OR of 2.7 in elective CS compared to emergency CS, also the risk of hypoglycaemia doubled for infants born by CS [94].
Respiratory morbidity: Respiratory morbidity risk is two to four times higher in term pregnancies which are uncomplicated, after elective CS compared to VD [95-97]. The risk is reduced by increasing pregnancy duration, and is significantly lower after 39 weeks of pregnancy. The most common form of respiratory morbidity is transitory tachypnoea, but even more severe forms of respiratory morbidity can occur, such as respiratory distress syndrome, pneumothorax and persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn [98-100].
Immune system: Recently, there have been numerous studies on the impact of the mode of delivery on the immune system of the neonate. There is strong evidence suggesting that the early composition of the microbiota of neonates plays an important role for the postnatal development of the immune system [101]. There is growing evidence showing that altered microbial colonisation after CS may affect postnatal maturation of T-cells and predispose to illnesses in later life [92].
Risk of asthma, allergic rhinitis and atopy in children born by CS is increased compared to children born vaginally [102]. In children born by CS, the risk of asthma increased by 20% [103]. CS may also predispose children to food allergy [104]. This association only for emergency CS has been reported by some, therefore, exposure to vaginal microflora alone cannot explain the association between CS and increased childhood asthma seen in many studies [105,106].
Neonatal Mortality: MacDorman MF et al., have examined neonatal mortality risk with no medical or obstetric risk factors in “CS without labour complications” and “planned vaginal delivery” [107]. After adjusting for several confounding factors the OR for neonatal mortality was 1.7 in CS babies compared to babies born after planned Vd.
Complications/Morbidity Related to Vaginal Delivery
Perineal lacerations are more common in Vd. Anal sphincter injury occurs 0.6%-7.8% in Vd, more in instrumental deliveries [51,108]. Reported rate of flatus incontinence was 8-61% and of fecal incontinence 0-20% [109]. Problem of anal incontinence occurs less frequently after CS birth; 4% after elective CS and 6% after emergency CS [110,111].
Urinary incontinence occurred in 4.5% and 7.3% in planned CS and planned Vd [110]. Vd is also a risk factor for Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP). Some protection of caesarean birth against symptomatic POP in later life occurs, ranging from a 50 to 80% reduction, with an OR of symptomatic POP being 0.5 (95% CI: 0.3-0.9) for one or more CS compared with women who had experienced only vaginal births, when adjusted for both age and parity [112].
Conclusion
Caesarean sections can cause complications resulting in death or morbidity. The morbidities associated with CS can be short term or long term. The risk of morbidity and mortality was high in women undergoing emergency CS and in women who previously had a CSs. Neonatal and perinatal mortality and morbidity was also increased in CS babies. Caesarean section more than 19% does not improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. CS are effective in saving maternal and infant lives, if they are done for medical indications. Therefore, CSs should ideally be undertaken only when medically indicated.
[1]. Deneux-Tharaux C, Carmona E, Marie-Hélene BC, Gérard B, Postpartum maternal mortality and cesarean delivery Obstetrics & Gynecology 2006 108(3):541-48.10.1097/01.AOG.0000233154.62729.2416946213 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2]. Callaghan WM, Overview of maternal mortality in the United States Semin Perinatol 2012 36(1):02-06.10.1053/j.semperi.2011.09.00222280858 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[3]. WHO. Health statistics and information systems Maternal mortality ratio (per 100,000 live births) Available at http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/indmaternalmortality/en/ [Google Scholar]
[4]. O’Sullivan JF, Cesarean birth Ulster Med J 1990 59(1):01-10.10.1097/00132582-199007000-00012 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[5]. Lanneau GS, Muffley P, Magann EF, Chapter 74. Cesarean births. Surgical techniques in vol. 2 Gynecology and Obstetrics 2004 editionPublisher Lippincott Williams WilkinsAvailable at https://www.glowm.com/reis/glowm/cd/pages/v2/v2c074.html [Google Scholar]
[6]. Schutte JM, Steegers EA, Santema JG, Schuitemaker NEW, van Roosmalen J, Maternal deaths after elective cesarean section for breech presentation in the Netherlands Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007 86:240-43.10.1080/0001634060110405417364290 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7]. Esteves-Pereira AP, Deneux-Tharaux C, Nakamura-Pereira M, Saucedo M, Bouvier-Colle MH, Leal MdC, Caesarean Delivery and Postpartum Maternal Mortality: A Population-Based Case Control Study in Brazil PLOS ONE 2016 11(4):e015339610.1371/journal.pone.015339627073870 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[8]. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS, Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term CMAJ 2007 176(4):455-60.10.1503/cmaj.06087017296957 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9]. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study BMJ 2007 335:102510.1136/bmj.39363.706956.5517977819 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10]. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/161442/1/WHO_RHR_15.02_eng.pdf [Google Scholar]
[11]. Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, Esquivel MM, Uribe-Leitz T, Azad T, Relationship Between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality JAMA 2015 314(21):2263-70.10.1001/jama.2015.1555326624825 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12]. Say L, Chou D, Gemmill A, Tunçalp O, Moller Daniels J, Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis Lancet 2014 2(6):e323-33.10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[13]. Uzuncakmak C, Ozcam H, Association between maternal mortality and cesarean section: Turkey experience PLOS ONE 2016 11(11):e016662210.1371/journal.pone.016662227880841 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14]. Waterstone M, Bewley S, Wolfe C, Incidence and predictors of severe obstetric morbidity: case control study BMJ 2001 322:1089-94.10.1136/bmj.322.7294.108911337436 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15]. Zhang WH, Alexander S, Bouvier-Colle M-H, Macfarlane A, Incidence of severe pre-eclampsia, postpartum haemorrhage and sepsis as surrogate marker for severe maternal morbidity in a European population-based study: the MOMS-B survey BJOG 2005 112:89-96.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00303.x15663404 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16]. Zwart JJ, Richters JM, Öry F, de Vries JIP, Bloemenkamp KWM, van Roosmalen J, Severe maternal morbidity during pregnancy, delivery and puerperium in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based study of 371,000 pregnancies BJOG 2008 115(7):842-50.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01713.x18485162 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[17]. Monitoring >WHO Maternal Morbidity Working Group available at https://pre-empt.bcchr.ca/who-maternal-morbidity-working-group [Google Scholar]
[18]. Nanneli Pallasmaa, Cesarean Section-Short Term Maternal Complications Related To The Mode Of Delivery 2014 FinlandUniversity of Turku [Google Scholar]
[19]. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA, Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey Ann Surg 2004 240(2):205-13.10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae15273542 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20]. Hillan EM, Postoperative morbidity following cesarean delivery J Adv Nurs 1995 22(6):1035-42.10.1111/j.1365-2648.1995.tb03102.x8675855 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21]. Ronsmans C, Severe acute maternal morbidity in low-income countries Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2009 23:305-16.10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2009.01.00119201657 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22]. Lazariu V, Nguyen T, McNutt L-A, Jeffrey J, Kacica M, Severe maternal morbidity: A population-based study of an expanded measure and associated factors PLOS ONE 2017 12(8):e018234310.1371/journal.pone.018234328787028 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23]. van Dillen J, Zwart JJ, Schutte J, Bloemenkamp KWM, van Roosmalen J, Severe acute maternal morbidity and mode of delivery in the Netherlands Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010 89:1460-65.10.3109/00016349.2010.51901820955100 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24]. Center for disease control and prevention. Severe Maternal Morbidity Indicators and Corresponding ICD Codes during Delivery Hospitalizations. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/smm/severe-morbidity-ICD.htm [Google Scholar]
[25]. Evaluating the quality of care for severe pregnancy complications. The WHO near-miss approach for maternal health. WHO 2011. Available at http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44692/1/9789241502221_eng.pdf [Google Scholar]
[26]. C-section morbidity. Open anaesthesia. Available at https:/www.open anaesthesia.org./c-section morbidity/ [Google Scholar]
[27]. Curtin SC, Gregory KD, Korst LM, Uddin SFG, Maternal Morbidity for Vaginal and Cesarean Deliveries, According to Previous Cesarean History: New Data From the Birth Certificate, 2013 National Vital Statistics Reports 2015 Volume 64(Number 4)https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_04.pdf [Google Scholar]
[28]. Häger RM, Daltveit AK, Hofoss D, Nilsen ST, Kolaas T, Øian P, Complications of cesarean deliveries: Rates and risk factors Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004 190(2):428-34.10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.03714981385 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[29]. Källen K, Rydström H, Olausson PO, Sverige K, 1990-2001. Rapport. (A report on Cesarean Delivery in Sweden in 1990-2001) Epidemiologist centrum, 2005; Socialstyrelsen [Google Scholar]
[30]. Kabel KT, Weeber TA, Measuring and communicating blood loss during obstetric haemorrhage J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2012 41(4):551-58.10.1111/j.1552-6909.2012.01375.x22548283 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[31]. Al-Zirqi I, Vangen S, Forsen L, Stray-Pedersen B, Prevalence and risk factors of severe obstetric haemorrhage BJOG 2008 115:1265-72.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01859.x18715412 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[32]. Simoes E, Kunz S, Bosing-Schwenkglenks M, Schmahl F, Association between method of delivery and puerperal infectious complications in the perinatal database of Baden- Wurttemberg 1998-2001 Gynecol Obstet Invest 2005 60:213-17.10.1159/00008720816088198 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[33]. Stivanello E, Knight M, Dallolio L, Frammartino B, Rizzo N, Fantini MP, Peripartum hysterectomy and cesarean delivery: a population-based study Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010 89:321-27.10.3109/0001634090350862720078253 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[34]. Knight M, Kurinczuk J, Spark P, Brocklehurst P, Cesarean delivery and peripartum hysterectomy; United Kingdom Obstetric Surveillance System Steering Committee Obstet Gynecol 2008 111(1):97-105.10.1097/01.AOG.0000296658.83240.6d18165397 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[35]. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries Obstet Gynecol 2005 107:1226-32.10.1097/01.AOG.0000219750.79480.8416738145 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[36]. Jakobsson M, Gissler M, Tapper AM, Risk factors for blood transfusion at delivery in Finland Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013 92(4):414-20.10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01490.x22708585 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[37]. Holm C, Langhoff-Roos J, Petersen KB, Norgaard A, Diness BR, Severe postpartum haemorrhage and mode of delivery: a retrospective cohort study BJOG 2012 119(5):596-604.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03267.x22313728 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[38]. Kramer MS, Berg C, Abenheim H, Dahhou M, Rouleau J, Mehrabadi A, Incidence, risk factors, and temporal trends in severe postpartum hemorrhage Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013 209(5):449.e01-07.10.1016/j.ajog.2013.07.00723871950 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[39]. O Brien D, Babiker E, O’Sullivan O, Conroy R, McAuliffe F, Geary M, Prediction of peripartum hysterectomy and end organ dysfunction in major obstetric haemorrhage Eur J Obstet Reprod Biol 2010 153(2):165-69.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.07.03920810201 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[40]. Roethlisberger M, Womastek I, Posch M, Husslein P, Pateisky N, Lehner R, Early postpartum hysterectomy: incidence and risk factors Acta Obst Gyn Scand 2010 89:1040-44.10.3109/00016349.2010.49944520602600 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[41]. Chawla J, Arora D, Paul M, Ajmani SN, Emergency obstetric hysterectomy: a retrospective study from a teaching hospital in North India over eight years Oman Med J 2015 30(3):181-86.10.5001/omj.2015.3926171124 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[42]. Juneja SK, MTandon P, Mohan B, Kaushal S, A change in the management of intractable obstetrical hemorrhage over 15 years in a tertiary care center Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2014 4(Suppl 1):S17-19.10.4103/2229-516X.14071025298935 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[43]. Korejo R, Nasir A, Yasmin H, Bhutta S, Emergency obstetric hysterectomy J Pak Med Assoc 2012 62(12):1322-25. [Google Scholar]
[44]. Shellhaas CS, Gilbert S, Landon MB, Varner MW, Leveno KJ, Hauth JC, The frequency and complication rates of hysterectomy accompanying cesarean delivery Obstet Gynecol 2009 114(2 Pt 1):224-29.10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ad944219622981 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[45]. Forna F, Miles AM, Jamieson DJ, Emergency peripartum hysterectomy: A comparison of cesarean and postpartum hysterectomy Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004 190(5):1440-44.10.1016/j.ajog.2004.02.02115167863 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[46]. Leth RA, Møller JK, Thomsen RW, Uldbjerg N, Nørgaard M, Risk of selected postpartum infections after cesarean section compared with vaginal birth: A five-year cohort study of 32,468 women Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009 88(9):976-83.10.1080/0001634090314740519642043 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[47]. Smaill F, Hofmeyr GJ, Antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean section Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002 3:CD00093310.1002/14651858.CD000933 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[48]. Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N, Donner A, Wojdyla D, Faunders A, Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study BMJ 2007 335:1025-29.10.1136/bmj.39363.706956.5517977819 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[49]. Hofmeyr GJ, Mathai M, Shah AN, Novikova N, Techniques for cesarean section (Review) Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 23(1):CD00466210.1002/14651858.CD004662.pub2 [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
[50]. Hadar E, Melamed N, Tzadikevitch_geffen K, Yogev Y, Timing and risk factors of maternal complications of cesarean section Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011 283(4):735-41.10.1007/s00404-010-1450-020354706 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[51]. Burrows LJ, Meyn LA, Weber AM, Maternal morbidity associated with vaginal versus cesarean delivery Obstet Gynecol 2004 103(5 Pt1):907-12.10.1097/01.AOG.0000124568.71597.ce15121564 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[52]. Opøien HK, Valbø A, Grinde-Andersen A, Walberg M, Post-cesarean surgical site infections according to CDC standards: rates and risk factors. A prospective cohort study Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007 86:1097-102.10.1080/0001634070151522517712651 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[53]. Bhartiya N, Gupta M, Jain S, Saini V, Anaemia: A risk factor for surgical site infection following caesarean section Accepted for publication in Indian Obst Gynae 2018 8(1) [Google Scholar]
[54]. Kankuri E, Kurki T, Carlson P, Hiilesmaa V, Incidence, treatment and outcome of peripartum sepsis Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003 82:730-35.10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.00265.x12848644 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[55]. Jakobsen AF, Skjeldestad FE, Sandset PM, Incidence and risk patterns of venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and puerperium – a register-based case-control study Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008 198(2):233.e01-07.10.1016/j.ajog.2007.08.04117997389 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[56]. Ros HS, Lichtenstein P, Bellocco P, Petersson G, Cnattingius S, Pulmonary embolism and stroke in relation to pregnancy: How can high-risk women be identified? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002 186(2):198-203.10.1067/mob.2002.11917711854635 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[57]. Brown CE, Stettler RW, Twickler D, Cunningham FG, Puerperal septic pelvic thrombophlebitis: incidence and response to heparin therapy Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999 181(1):143-48.10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70450-3 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[58]. Piva I, Cutiero G, Greco P, Amniotic fluid embolism: an update of the evidence Med Toxicol Clin Forens Med 2016 2:0210.21767/2471-9641.100018 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[59]. Kramer MS, Haim A, Mourad D, Jocelyn R, Cynthia B, Incidence, risk factors, and consequences of amniotic fluid embolism Source: Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology 2013 27(5):436-41.10.1111/ppe.1206623930779 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[60]. Lurie S, Sadan O, Golan A, Re-laparotomy after cesarean section Eur J Obstet Gynecol and Reprod Biol 2007 134:184-87.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.10.01717123691 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[61]. van Ham MAPC, van Dongen PWJ, Mulder J, Maternal consequences of cesarean section. A retrospective study of intraoperative and post-operative maternal complications of cesarean section during a 10-year period Eur J Obstet Gynecol and Reprod Biol 1997 74:01-06.10.1016/S0301-2115(97)02725-5 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[62]. Chai AH, Wong T, Mak HJ, Cheon C, Yip SK, Wong AS, Prevalence and associated risk factors of retention of urine after caesarean section Int Urogynecol J 2008 19:537-42.10.1007/s00192-007-0470-117932614 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[63]. Groutz A, Levin I, Gold R, Pauzner D, Lessing JB, Gordon D, Protracted postpartum urinary retention: the importance of early diagnosis and timely intervention Neurourol Urodyn 2011 30:83-86.10.1002/nau.2092620860036 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[64]. Lobel M, DeLuca RS, Psychosocial sequelae of cesarean delivery: Review and analysis of their causes and implications Soc Sci Med 2007 64(11):2272-81.10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.02817395349 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[65]. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network Obstet Gynecol 2006 107:1226-32.10.1097/01.AOG.0000219750.79480.8416738145 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[66]. Bellala Swetha, Study on Association of Placenta Previa with Previous Cesarean Section Pregnancy IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 2016 e-ISSN: 2279-0853, p-ISSN: 2279-0861. 15 (5) Ver. IV: PP 60-63 [Google Scholar]
[67]. Getahun D, Oyelese Y, Salihu HM, Ananth C, Previous Cesarean Delivery and Risks of Placenta Previa and Placental Abruption Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006 107(4):771-78.10.1097/01.AOG.0000206182.63788.8016582111 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[68]. Fitzpatrick KE, Sellers S, Spark P, Kurinczuk JJ, Brocklehurst P, Knight M, Incidence and risk factors for placenta accrete/increta/percreta in the UK: A national case-control study PLOS One 2012 7(12):e5289310.1371/journal.pone.005289323300807 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[69]. O’Neill SM, Kearney PM, Kenny LC, Khashan AS, Henriksen TB, Lutomski JE, Cesarean delivery and subsequent stillbirth or miscarriage: Systematic review and meta-analysis PLOS One 2013 8(1):e5458810.1371/journal.pone.005458823372739 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[70]. Hemminki E, Meriläinen J, Long-term effects of cesarean sections: ectopic pregnancies and placental problems Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996 174(5):1569-74.10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70608-7 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
[71]. Nikolajsen L, Sørensen HC, Jensen TS, Kehlet H, Chronic pain following Cesarean section Acta Anaesthaesiol Scand 2004 48(1):111-16.10.1111/j.1399-6576.2004.00271.x14674981 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[72]. Silver RM, Delivery after previous cesarean: Long term maternal outcome Semin Perinatol 2010 34(4):258-66.10.1053/j.semperi.2010.03.00620654776 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[73]. Sebire NJ, Jolly M, Harris JP, Wadsworth J, Joffe M, Beard RW, Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome: a study of 287,213 pregnancies in London Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001 25(8):1175-82.10.1038/sj.ijo.080167011477502 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[74]. Weiss JL, Malone FD, Emig D, Ball R, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, Obesity, obstetric complications and cesarean delivery rate – A population-based screening study Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004 190:1091-97.10.1016/j.ajog.2003.09.05815118648 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[75]. Fyfe EM, Thompson JM, Anderson NH, Groom KM, McCowan LM, Maternal obesity and postpartum haemorrhage after vaginal and cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term: a retrospective cohort study BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012 12(1):11210.1186/1471-2393-12-11223078042 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[76]. Galtier-Dereure F, Boegner C, Bringer J, Obesity and pregnancy: complications and cost Am J Clin Nutr 2000 71(Suppl. 5):S1242-S1248.10.1093/ajcn/71.5.1242s10799397 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[77]. Dinatale A, Ermito S, Fonti I, Giordano R, Cacciatore A, Romano M, Obesity and fetal maternal outcomes. Review Journal of Prenatal Medicine 2010 4(1):05-08. [Google Scholar]
[78]. Jarvie E, Ramsay JE, Obstetric management of obesity in pregnancy Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 2010 15:83-88.10.1016/j.siny.2009.10.00119880362 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[79]. Acosta CD, Knight M, Lee HC, Kurinczuk JJ, Gould JB, Lyndon A, The continuum of maternal sepsis severity: incidence and risk factors in a population-based cohort study PLOS One 2013 8(7):e6717510.1371/journal.pone.006717523843991 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[80]. Witteveen T, Zwart JJ, Gast KB, Bloemenkamp KW, van Roosmalen J, Overweight and severe acute maternal morbidity in a low-risk pregnant population in the Netherlands PLOS One 2013 8(9):e7449410.1371/journal.pone.007449424069316 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[81]. Larsen TB, Sørensen HT, Gislum M, Johnsen SP, Maternal smoking, obesity, and risk of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy and the puerperium: A population-based nested case-control study Thrombosis Research 2007 120:505-09.10.1016/j.thromres.2006.12.00317257657 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[82]. Kaminsky LM, Ananth CV, Prasad V, Nath C, Vintzileos AM, The influence of maternal cigarette smoking on placental pathology in pregnancies complicated by abruption Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007 197(3):275.e01-05.10.1016/j.ajog.2007.06.02617826418 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[83]. Avila C, Bhangoo R, Figueroa R, Santorelli J, Ogburn P, Desan PH, Association of smoking with wound complications after cesarean delivery J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012 25(8):1250-53.10.3109/14767058.2011.63646222081871 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[84]. Leth RA, Uldberg N, Nørgaard M, Møller JK, Thomsen RW, Obesity, diabetes, and the risk of infections diagnosed in hospital and post-discharge infections after cesarean section: a prospective cohort study Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011 90(5):501-09.10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01090.x21306347 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[85]. Smith GCS, Cordeaux Y, White IR, Pasupathy D, Missfelder-Lobos H, Pell JP, The effect of delaying childbirth on primary cesarean section rates PLOS Med 2008 5(7):e14410.1371/journal.pmed.005014418597550 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[86]. James AH, Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism in pregnancy Clin Obstet Gynecol 2012 55(3):774-87.10.1097/GRF.0b013e31825cfe7b22828110 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[87]. Temmerman M, Verstraelen H, Martens G, Bekaert A, Delayed childbearing and maternal mortality Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004 114(1):19-22.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2003.09.01915099865 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[88]. Aubrey-Bassier K, Newbery S, Kelly L, Weaver B, Wilson S, Maternal outcomes of cesarean sections: do eneralists’ patients have different outcomes than specialists’ patients? Can Fam Physician 2007 53(12):2132-38. [Google Scholar]
[89]. Clark SM, Ghulmiyyah LM, Hankins GDV, Antenatal antecedents and the impact of obstetric care in the etiology of cerebral palsy Clin Obstet Gynecol 2008 51(4):775-86.10.1097/GRF.0b013e318187099418981802 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[90]. Haas DM, Ayres AW, Laceration injury at cesarean section J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2002 11(3):196-98.10.1080/jmf.11.3.196.19812380677 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[91]. Dessole S, Cosmi E, Balata A, Uras L, Caserta D, Capobianco G, Accidental fetal lacerations during cesarean delivery: experience in an Italian level III university hospital Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004 191(3 Pt 1):897-98.10.1016/j.ajog.2004.03.03015547541 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[92]. Signore C, Klebanoff M, Neonatal morbidity and mortality after elective cesarean delivery Clin Perinatol 2008 35:361-71.10.1016/j.clp.2008.03.00918456074 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[93]. Jain L, Eaton DC, Physiology of fetal lung fluid clearance and the effect of labour Semin Perinatol 2006 30(1):34-43.10.1053/j.semperi.2006.01.00616549212 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[94]. Karlström A, Lindgren H, Hildingsson I, Maternal and infant outcome after cesarean section without recorded medical indication: findings from a Swedish case-control study BJOG 2013 120(4):479-86.10.1111/1471-0528.1212923316937 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[95]. Fogelson N, Menard K, Hulsey T, Ebeling M, Neonatal impact of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term: a comment on patient choice cesarean delivery Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005 192:1433-36.10.1016/j.ajog.2005.01.01015902129 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[96]. Hansen AK, Wisborg K, Uldberg N, Henriksen TB, Elective cesarean section and respiratory morbidity in the term and near-term neonate Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007 86(4):389-94.10.1080/0001634060115925617486457 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[97]. Hansen AK, Wisborg K, Uldberg N, Henriksen TB, Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective cesarean section: cohort study BMJ 2008 336(7635):85-87.10.1136/bmj.39405.539282.BE18077440 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[98]. Kolås T, Saugstad OD, Daltveit AK, Nilsen ST, Øian P, Planned cesarean versus planned vaginal delivery at term: Comparison of newborn infant outcomes Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006 195:1538-43.10.1016/j.ajog.2006.05.00516846577 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[99]. Zanardo V, Padovani E, Pittini C, Doglioni N, Ferrante A, Trevisanuto D, The influence of elective cesarean section on risk of neonatal pneumothorax J Pediatr 2007 150(3):252-55.10.1016/j.jpeds.2006.12.00817307540 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[100]. Benterud T, Sandvik L, Lindeman R, Cesarean section is associated with more frequent pneumothorax and respiratory problems in the neonate Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009 88:359-61.10.1080/0001634080266889919107644 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[101]. Biasucci G, Benennati B, Morelli L, Bessi E, Boehm G, Cesarean delivery may affect the early biodiversity of intestinal bacteria J Nutr 2008 138(9):1796S-800S.10.1093/jn/138.9.1796S18716189 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[102]. Roduit C, Scholtens S, de Jongste JC, Wijga AH, Gerritsen J, Postma DS, Asthma at 8 years of age in children born by cesarean section Thorax 2009 64(9):824-25.10.1136/thx.2008.10087519052046 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[103]. Thavagnanam S, Fleming J, Bromley A, Shields MD, Cardwell CR, A meta-analysis of the association between cesarean section and childhood asthma Clin Exp Allergy 2008 38(4):554-56.10.1111/j.1365-2222.2007.02780.x18352976 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[104]. Eggesbo M, Botten G, Stigum H, Nafstad P, Magnus P, Is delivery by cesarean section a risk factor for food allergy J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003 112(2):420-26.10.1067/mai.2003.161012897751 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[105]. Almqvist C, Cnattingius S, Lichtenstein P, Lundholm C, The impact of birth mode of delivery on childhood asthma and allergic diseases – a sibling study Clin Exp Allergy 2012 42(9):1369-76.10.1111/j.1365-2222.2012.04021.x22925323 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[106]. Tollånes MC, Moster D, Daltveit AK, Irgens LM, Cesarean section and risk of severe childhood asthma a population-based cohort study J Pediatr 2008 153(1):112-16.10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.01.02918571547 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[107]. MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declercq E, Cesarean Birth in the United States: Epidemiology, Trends, and Outcomes Clin Perinatol 2008 35:293-307.10.1016/j.clp.2008.03.00718456070 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[108]. Laine K, Gissler M, Pirhonen J, Changing incidence of anal sphincter tears in four Nordic countries through the last decades Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009 146(1):71-75.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.04.03319482405 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[109]. Pinta TM, Kylänpää ML, Salmi TK, Teramo KA, Luukkonen PS, Primary sphincter repair: are the results of the operation good enough? Dis Colon Rectum 2004 47(1):18-23.10.1007/s10350-003-0006-914719146 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[110]. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hodnett ED, Chalmers S, Kung R, Willan A, 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(14):1822-31.10.1001/jama.287.14.182211939868 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[111]. Lal M, Mann CH, Callender R, Radley S, Does cesarean delivery prevent anal incontinence? Obstet Gynecol 2003 101:305-12.10.1097/00006250-200302000-0001712576254 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[112]. Tegerstedt G, Miedel A, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyren O, Hammarstrom M, Obstetric risk factors for symptomatic prolapse: a population-based approach Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006 194(1):75-81.10.1016/j.ajog.2005.06.08616389012 [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]