Details
Category: Volume 07 Issue 05 May 2019
Hits: 1252

Title: A Review on Normal Birth and Cesarean Birth: What is at Stake for Mother and Babies?

Authors: Alagarraja.M, Roshni Priyanka.V, Bavatharani.T, Chandru.S, Udhayakumar.T, Vimal Raj.G, Arunachalam.G, Sumathi.M, Selvakumar.D

 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v7i5.104

Abstract

We reviewed the risks and benefits of vaginal and cesarean delivery to help frame the inherent tradeoffs that should be considered as part of the informed consent discussion between patients and providers. We performed a targeted literature review for common complications of childbirth. Approximately 30% of women will experience a maternal or neonatal complication during childbirth. Both cesarean and vaginal delivery is associated with well-known measurable short- and long-term maternal and neonatal complications and benefits. Childbirth is not risk free. There are data available that can guide the informed consent process with objective quantifiable data that patients and providers can use to weigh risks and benefits of delivery methods. This Review also aimed to identifying the contribution of the research published in both national and international journals regarding women’s perception of vaginal birth versus caesarean section. The results indicate aspects of care that may contribute to women’s satisfaction and the need for further research in order to better understand the multidimensionality of the delivery process, whether vaginal birth or cesarean section.

Keywords: Vaginal and cesarean delivery, Labor and delivery complications, obstetric quality and safety.

References

  1. Ganong LH. Integrative reviews of nursing research. Res Nurs Health. 1987 Mar; 10(1):1-11.
  2. McGrath P, Ray-Barruel G. The easy option? Australian findings on mother’s perception of elective caesarean as a birth choice after a prior caesarean section. Int J Nurs Pract. 2009 Aug; 15(4):271-79.
  3. Bryanton J, Gagnon A, Johnston C, Hatem M. Predictors of women’s perceptions of the childbirth experience. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008 Jan- Feb; 37(1):24-34.
  4. Crizóstomo CD, Nery IS, Luz MHB. A vivência de mulheres no parto domiciliar e hospitalar. Esc Anna Nery R Enferm. 2007 Mar; 11(1):98-104.
  5. Bezerra MGA, Cardoso MVLML. Fatores culturais que interferem nas experiências das mulheres durante o trabalho de parto e parto. Rev Latino-am Enfermagem. 2006 Mai-Jun; 14(3):414-21.
  6. Brüggemann OM, Monticelli M, Furtado C, Fernandes CM, Lemos FN, Gayeski ME. Filosofia assistencial de uma maternidade-escola: fatores associados à satisfação das mulheres usuárias. Texto Contexto Enferm. 2011 Out-Dez; 20(4):658-68.
  7. Ministério da Saúde (BR), Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos, Departamento de Ciência e Tecnologia. Pesquisa nacional de demografia e saúde da criança e da mulher. Brasília (DF): MS; 2008.
  8. Ganong LH. Integrative reviews of nursing research. Res Nurs Health. 1987 Mar; 10(1):1-11.
  9. Roman AR, Friedlander MR. Revisão integrativa de pesquisa aplicada à enfermagem. Cogitare Enferm.1998 Jul-Dez; 3(2):109-12.
  10. Beyea S, Nicoll LH. Writing an integrative review. AORN J. 1998 Apr; 67(4):877-80.
  11. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: update methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005 Dez; 52(5):546-53.
  12. Callister LC, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K, Lauri S. Giving birth: perceptions of finnish childbearing women. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2001 Jan- Feb; 26(1):28-32.
  13. Osis MJD, Pádua KS, Duarte GA, Souza TR, Faúndes A. The opinion of brazilian women regarding vaginal labor and cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001 Nov; 75(1 Supl):59-66.
  14. Mccallum C, Reis AP. Re-significando a dor e superando a solidão: experiências do parto entre adolescentes de classes populares atendidas em uma maternidade pública de Salvador, Bahia, Brasil. Cad Saúde Pública. 2006 Jul; 22(7):1483-91.
  15. Teixeira NZF, Pereira WR. Parto hospitalar: experiências de mulheres da periferia de Cuibá-MT. Rev Bras Enferm. 2006 Nov-Dez; 59(6):740-4.
  16. Bryanton J, Gagnon A, Johnston C, Hatem M. Predictors of women’s perceptions of the childbirth experience. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008 Jan- Feb; 37(1):24-34.
  17. Miranda DB, Bortolon FCS, Matão MEL, Campos, PHF. Parto normal e cesária: representações de mulheres que vivenciaram as duas experiências. Rev Eletr Enferm. 2008 Mai-Ago; 10(2):337-46.
  18. Baston H, Rijnders M, Green JM, Buitendijk S. Looking back on birth three years later: factors associated with a negative appraisal in england and in the netherlands. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2008 Nov; 26(4):323-39.
  19. McGrath P, Ray-Barruel G. The easy option? Australian findings on mothers’ perception of elective caesarean as a birth choice after a prior caesarean section. Int J Nurs Pract. 2009 Aug; 15(4):271-79.
  20. Gama AS, Giffin KM, Angulo-Tuesta A, Barbosa GP, d’Orsi E. Representações e experiências das mulheres sobre a assistência ao parto vaginal e cesárea em maternidades pública e privada. Cad Saúde Pública. 2009 Nov; 25(11):2480-8.
  21. Oweis A. Jordanian mother’s report of their childbirth experience: findings from a questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Pract. 2009 Dec; 15(6):525-33.
  22. Siassakos D, Clark J, Sibanda T, Attilakos G, Jefferys A, Cullen L, et al. A simple tool to measure patient perceptions of operative birth. BJOG. 2009 Dec; 116(13):1755-61
  23. Gregory KD, Korst LM, Fridman M, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: clinical risk factors associated with adverse outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(4),451-410.
  24. Loebel G, Zelop CM, Egan JFX, Wax J. Maternal and neonatal morbidity after elective repeat Cesarean delivery versus a trial of labor after previous Cesarean delivery in a community teaching hospital. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004; 15(4):243-246.
  25. Flamm BL, Goings JR, Liu Y, Wolde-Tsadik G. Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a prospective multicenter study. Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 83(6):927-932.
  26. Phelan JP, Clark SL, Diaz F, Paul RH. Vaginal birth after cesarean. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;157(6):15101515.
  27. Dominguez-BelloMG, Costello EK, Contreras M, et al. Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitatsinnewborns.ProcNatlAcadSciUSA 2010;107;11971–11975.
  28. Nikpour M, Abedian Z, Mokhber N, Ebrahimzadeh S, Khani S. Comparison of Quality of Life in Women after Vaginal Delivery and Cesarean Section. Journal of Babol Univercity Medical Sciences. 2011;13(1):44-50.
  29. Symon A. A review of mothers' prenatal and postnatal quality of life. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2003:1-38.
  30. Torkan B, Parsay S, Lamyian M, Kazemnejad A, Montazeri A. Postnatal quality of life in women after normal vaginal delivery and caesarean section. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2009;9: 4
  31. Verdult R. Prenatal Aspects in Alzheimer's Disease. Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Medicine. 2009;23(4):235-262.
  32. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care. 1992;30(6):473-483.
  33. Gamble J, Creedy DK. Women’s preference for a Caesarean Section: incidence and associated factors. Birth. 2001; 28(2):101-110.
  34. Horney CM, Ware J, raczek A. The MOS 36-Item short form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care. 1993; 31(3):247-263.
  35. Kaur J, Kaur K. Obstetric complications: Primiparity Vs. Multiparity. European Journal of Experimental Biology. 2012; 2(5):1462-1468.
  36. Lee SY, Lee KA. Early Postpartum Sleep and Fatigue for Mothers After Cesarean Delivery Compared With Vaginal Delivery An Exploratory Study. The journal of Perinatal Neonatal Nursing. 2007; 21(2):109–113.
  37. Lydon-Rochelle MT, Holt VL, Martin DP. Delivery method and self-reported postpartum general health status among primiparous women. Paediatr Perinat Ep. 2001; 15(3):232–240.
  38. McMahon S, Koltzenburg M. Wall and Melzack’s textbook of pain. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Churchill Living stone; 2006.
  39. Melzack R, Taenzer P, Feldman P, Kinch RA. Labour is still painful after prepared childbirth training. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1981;125(24):357-363.
  40. Ganong LH. Integrative reviews of nursing research. Res Nurs Health. 1987 Mar; 10(1):1-11.
  41. Roman AR, Friedlander MR. Revisão integrativa de pesquisa aplicada à enfermagem. Cogitare Enferm.1998 Jul-Dez; 3(2):109-12.
  42. Beyea S, Nicoll LH. Writing an integrative review. AORN J. 1998 Apr; 67(4):877-80.
  43. Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: update methodology. J Adv Nurs. 2005 Dez; 52(5):546-53.
  44. Callister LC, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K, Lauri S. Giving birth: perceptions of finnish childbearing women. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2001 Jan- Feb; 26(1):28-32.
  45. Thorp JM. Clinical aspects of normal and abnormal labor. In: Creasy RK, Resnik R, Iams JD, Lockwood CJ, Moore TR, et al, eds. Creasy & Resnik's Maternal-Fetal Medicine Principles & Practices. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Elsevier; 2009:692–724
  46. Kamilya G, Seal SL, Mukherji J, Bhattacharyya SK, Hazra A. Maternal mortality and cesarean delivery: an analytical observational study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2010; 36; 248–253.

Corresponding Author

Alagarraja.M

PGP College of Pharmaceutical Science & Research Institute, Namakkal, Tamilnadu, India