Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Is planned cesarean childbirth a safe alternative?

B. Anthony Armson
CMAJ February 13, 2007 176 (4) 475-476; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.061724
B. Anthony Armson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Metrics
  • Responses
  • PDF
Loading
  • © 2007 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

Cesarean birth rates have risen dramatically during the past decade, reaching more than 50% in some regions of the world, despite a lack of evidence of any increase in obstetric emergencies.1,2 The marked increase in primary elective cesarean delivery, particularly among women without an established medical indication, has stimulated debate in the medical community and heightened interest and publicity. This trend is owing, in part, to some evidence that suggests that planned cesarean birth may reduce the risk of maternal pelvic disorders, such as urinary and fecal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse, and may decrease the risk of unexplained stillbirth and neonatal morbidity associated with cord prolapse, chorioamnionitis, fetal heart rate abnormalities and breech presentation when compared with vaginal delivery.3,4 Avoidance of anxiety and the pain of labour, reduced parental concern about the baby's health, and the convenience of a scheduled delivery are other perceived benefits of planned cesarean birth. However, concern about the effect of rising global cesarean birth rates on maternal, fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality has motivated researchers as well as regional, national and international organizations to evaluate the determinants and consequences of this trend more closely.5,6

In Canada, the rate of cesarean births has increased from 5.2% in 1969 to 25.6% in 2003.7,8 The temporal trends and regional variations have been quantified in national and provincial database reports that have highlighted the complex interplay of obstetric and nonobstetric factors contributing to these trends.5,9,10 After a transient decline in the cesarean birth rate in the late 1980s and mid-1990s that was related to an increased use and success of vaginal birth after a prior cesarean, the cesarean birth rate has increased steadily from 18.0% in 1994/95 to 22.1% in 2000/01.5 Wide interprovincial variations in cesarean birth rates have been observed, with the highest rate occurring in Prince Edward Island (33.5%) and the lowest in Nunavut (9.9%).8

Several Canadian retrospective cohort studies have provided relevant and very timely information about cesarean-related maternal morbidity and mortality.11–13 In this issue of CMAJ, Liu and the Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System report on a population-based cohort study of all women in Canada (excluding Quebec and Manitoba) who gave birth between April 1991 and March 2005, inclusive.14 Using the Discharge Abstract Database of the Canadian Institute of Health Information, the investigators selected a cohort of healthy women who underwent a primary cesarean section for breech presentation (n = 46 766) to form a surrogate group for low-risk planned cesarean delivery, to be compared with a similar low-risk planned vaginal delivery group (n = 2 292 420). The selection involved the exclusion of women with a prior cesarean birth, multiple pregnancy, preterm labour, medical risk factors and obstetrical complications.

In the planned cesarean group, the overall risk of severe maternal morbidity was 3.1 times that in the planned vaginal delivery group, including increased risks of postpartum cardiac arrest, wound hematoma, hysterectomy, major puerperal infection, anesthetic complications, venous thromboembolism and hemorrhage requiring hysterectomy. The absolute increases in severe maternal morbidity rates with planned cesarean birth, however, were small. Women in the planned vaginal birth group who had spontaneous or instrumental vaginal delivery were less likely to experience death or serious morbidity than were those who delivered by emergency cesarean birth. Emergency cesarean delivery was associated with the highest in-hospital mortality and most severe maternal morbidity rates. The study was limited by the fact that an unknown proportion of women with planned cesarean birth might have undergone labour that was not recorded in the database. The inability to link maternal and neonatal records resulted in some missing information. The lengthy period of observation (14 years) makes it difficult to draw conclusions relevant to current Canadian obstetric practice about the maternal consequences of planned cesarean delivery. Some of the outcomes classified as severe morbidity (e.g., wound hematoma, major puerperal infection, anesthetic complications) may not constitute what many obstetricians consider severe. Cesarean delivery for breech presentation is often more difficult than that for cephalic presentation and may increase the risk of maternal problems; the results of this study may therefore not apply to low-risk pregnancies having normal presentation. Since the focus of this paper was on maternal mortality and severe morbidity, information on neonatal outcomes is absent.

This study provides additional support to a growing body of evidence suggesting that primary elective cesarean birth may place both mother and newborn at greater risk for adverse outcomes than planned vaginal birth.3,11–13 In Nova Scotia, cesarean delivery without labour was found to be associated with an increased risk of puerperal infection compared with spontaneous onset of labour, whereas early postpartum hemorrhage and composite maternal morbidity were found to be decreased when cesarean births without labour were compared with vaginal births with induced labour.11,12 Other Canadian observational reports have linked cesarean birth to higher rates of severe maternal morbidity,13 including hemorrhage requiring transfusion, hysterectomy and uterine rupture; intensive care admission; postpartum readmission to hospital;15 problems with subsequent births (e.g., reduced fertility, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, placenta previa); complications of repeat cesarean birth; and increased cumulative costs.16 However, many studies lack relevance to planned cesarean childbirth because of comparisons of outcomes by actual, not planned, routes of delivery and study design limitations that have included inappropriate control groups, inappropriate use of proxies, underpowered (i.e., statistically inadequate) sample sizes and confounding by indication.3 The largest randomized controlled trial of planned cesarean versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation4 found no significant differences in maternal mortality or severe morbidity.

Women contemplating elective planned cesarean birth need to know the potential risks of the procedure, but this information must be considered in the context of perinatal risk. In pregnancies complicated by fetal malpresentation, excessive fetal growth, multiple gestation, fetal structural anomalies, cord prolapse, placental abruption and maternal viral infections (e.g., HIV or active herpes), cesarean delivery can be a life-saving intervention for the fetus. However, planned cesarean birth has also been associated with increased risks of fetal and neonatal mortality and neonatal morbidity, compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery.17,18 Adverse neonatal outcomes reported in association with prelabour cesarean delivery at term have included neonatal respiratory problems, persistent pulmonary hypertension, asphyxia, delayed neurologic adaptation, neonatal intensive care admission, lacerations and delayed establishment of breastfeeding.3,19 Primary cesarean birth has also been associated with increased risks in subsequent pregnancies of preterm delivery, low birth weight, stillbirth and neonatal death.20 These risks have major implications for health care service delivery and cost, and raise important questions about the fetal and neonatal safety of elective cesarean birth.

As more women choose childbirth by cesarean, obstetricians and prenatal care providers must be aware of the maternal and perinatal risks and benefits of this option. Since no randomized trial of planned vaginal versus planned cesarean birth in low-risk women has been conducted, counselling must be informed by well-designed cohort studies such as the one reported in this issue. The unique and profound limitations inherent in knowledge based on indirect evidence from proxies and retrospective observational studies should nevertheless be acknowledged. Given the current uncertainty about the optimal mode of delivery, women who elect to have a planned cesarean birth without any medical indication accept the possibility of adverse consequences for themselves and their babies in order to avoid the uncertainty and potential complications of planned vaginal birth. Fortunately, maternal and perinatal mortality and severe morbidity associated with childbirth in Canada are uncommon.

@ See related article, page 455

Footnotes

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

    Competing interests: None declared.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Belizán JM, Althabe F, Barros FC, et al. Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. BMJ 1999;319:1397-402.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Bailit JL, Love TE, Mercer B. Rising cesarean rates: Are patients sicker? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:800-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Visco AG, Viswanathan M, Lohr KN, et al. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:1517-29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Hannah M, Whyte H, Hannah W, et al; the Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:917-27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Liu S, Rusen ID, Joseph KS, et al; the Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Recent trends in caesarean delivery rates and indications for caesarean delivery in Canada. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2004;26:735-42.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    World Health Organization. WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health. Available: www.who.int/making_pregnancy_safer/health_systems/global_survey/en/index.html (accessed 2007 Jan 11).
  7. 7.↵
    Nair C. Trends in cesarean deliveries in Canada. Health Rep 1991;3:203-19.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Canadian Institute for Health Information. CIHI health indicator reports. Available: www.cihi.ca/hireports/search.jspa (accessed 2007 Jan 11).
  9. 9.↵
    Health Canada. Canadian perinatal health report, 2003. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada; 2003. Available: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cphr-rspc03/pdf/cphr-rspc03_e.pdf (accessed 2007 Jan 11).
  10. 10.↵
    Joseph KS, Young DC, Dodds L, et al. Changes in maternal characteristics and obstetrics practice and recent increases in primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:791-800.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Allen V, O'Connell C, Liston R, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery without labor compared with spontaneous onset of labor at term. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:477-82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Allen VM, O'Connell CM, Baskett TF. Maternal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery without labor compared with induction of labor at term. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:286-94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Baskett TF, O'Connell CM. Severe obstetric maternal morbidity: a 15-year population-based study. J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;25:7-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ 2007;176(4):455-60.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    Liu S, Heaman M. Joseph KS, et al., for the Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Risk of maternal postpartum readmission associated with mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:836-42.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Allen VM, O'Connell CM, Farrell SA, et al. Economic implications of methods of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:192-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, et al; WHO 2005 Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America [published erratum in Lancet 2006;368:580]. Lancet 2006;367:1819-29.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    MacDorman MF, Declercq E, Menacker F, et al. Infant and neonatal mortality for primary cesarean and vaginal births to women with “no indicated risk,” United States, 1998–2001 birth cohorts. Birth 2006;33:175-82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Fogelson NS, Menard KM, Hulsey T, et al. Neonatal impact of elective repeat cesarean delivery at term: a comment on patient choice cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1433-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Hemminki E, Shelley J, Gissler M. Mode of delivery and problems in subsequent births: a register-based study from Finland. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:169-77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 176 (4)
CMAJ
Vol. 176, Issue 4
13 Feb 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Is planned cesarean childbirth a safe alternative?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Is planned cesarean childbirth a safe alternative?
B. Anthony Armson
CMAJ Feb 2007, 176 (4) 475-476; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.061724

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Is planned cesarean childbirth a safe alternative?
B. Anthony Armson
CMAJ Feb 2007, 176 (4) 475-476; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.061724
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • Dans ce numéro
  • Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Implementing digital passports for SARS-CoV-2 immunization in Canada
  • Canada’s provinces and territories should disclose cannabis data to support research
  • Pregnancy, breastfeeding and the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: an ethics-based framework for shared decision-making
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of the resources on this site in an accessible format, please contact us at cmajgroup@cmaj.ca.

Powered by HighWire