Planned cesarean delivery vs planned vaginal delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Objective: There are over 145 million births worldwide, with over 30 million cesarean deliveries yearly. There are limited data comparing the perinatal and maternal outcomes between planned cesarean delivery and planned vaginal delivery. This study aimed to evaluate perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality by meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that randomly assigned patients to either planned cesarean delivery or planned vaginal delivery.

Data sources: Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and the World Health Organization clinical trial databases were searched from inception through August 2022.

Study eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials that compared planned cesarean delivery with planned vaginal delivery at any gestational age and for any delivery indication were included.

Methods: Two authors independently extracted data. PRISMA guidelines were used for data extraction and quality assessment. The primary outcome was perinatal mortality. The summary measures were reported as relative risks or as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models for outcomes.

Results: In 15 primary randomized controlled trials, 3265 patients were randomized to planned cesarean delivery and 3353 to planned vaginal delivery. The incidence of perinatal deaths was not different (1.3% vs 1.3%; relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-1.52). Planned cesarean delivery was associated with lower neonatal incidences of low umbilical artery pH (0.3% vs 2.4%; relative risk, 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.67), birth trauma (0.3% vs 0.7%; relative risk, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.96), tube feeding requirement (2.5% vs 7.1%; relative risk, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.66), and hypotonia (0.4% vs 3.5%; relative risk, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.47), compared to planned vaginal delivery. Chorioamnionitis was less frequent in the planned cesarean delivery group (0.3% vs 1.0%; relative risk, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.98). Wound infection was more common in the planned cesarean delivery group (1.9% vs 1.1%; relative risk, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.52). Lower rates were observed in the planned cesarean delivery group for urinary incontinence at both ≤3 months (8.7% vs 12.2%; relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.85) and 1 to 2 years (16.9% vs 22%; relative risk, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.88) and for a painful perineum at 2 years (4% vs 6.2%; relative risk, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.87) compared to planned vaginal delivery. Among singleton pregnancies, planned cesarean delivery was associated with a lower rate of perinatal death (0.69% vs 1.81%; relative risk, 0.45; 95% confident interval, 0.21-0.93).

Conclusion: Planned cesarean delivery and planned vaginal delivery were associated with similar rates of perinatal and maternal mortality in this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Planned cesarean delivery was associated with significant decreases in adverse neonatal outcomes such as low umbilical artery pH, birth trauma, tube feeding requirement, and hypotonia, and significant decreases in chorioamnionitis, urinary incontinence, and painful perineum. Planned vaginal delivery was associated with significant decreases in need for general anesthesia and wound infection. Further randomized trials are needed to assess the risks and benefits of planned cesarean delivery vs planned vaginal delivery in lower-risk patients and in the general population.

Keywords: maternal morbidity; maternal mortality; meta-analysis; mode of delivery; perinatal morbidity; perinatal mortality; planned cesarean delivery; planned vaginal delivery; pregnancy; randomized controlled trials; trial of labor.