Visco Anthony G, Viswanathan Meera, Lohr Kathleen N, Wechter Mary Ellen, Gartlehner Gerald, Wu Jennifer M, Palmieri Rachel, Funk Michele Jonsson, Lux Linda, Swinson Tammeka, Hartmann Katherine
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA.
Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Dec;108(6):1517-29. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000241092.79282.87.
To review systematically the evidence about maternal and infant outcomes of cesarean delivery on maternal request and planned vaginal delivery.
We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Collaboration resources, and Embase and identified 1,406 articles through dual review using a priori inclusion criteria.
We included English language studies published from 1990 to June 2005 that compared the key reference group (cesarean delivery on maternal request or proxies) and planned vaginal delivery.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We identified 54 articles for maternal and infant outcomes. Virtually no studies exist on cesarean delivery on maternal request, so the knowledge base rests on indirect evidence from proxies with unique and significant limitations. Most studies compared outcomes by actual routes of delivery, resulting in variable relevance to planned routes of delivery. Primary cesarean delivery on maternal request and planned vaginal delivery likely differ with respect to individual outcomes; for instance, risks of urinary incontinence and maternal hemorrhage were lower with planned cesarean, whereas the risk of neonatal respiratory morbidity was higher and maternal length of stay was longer with planned cesarean delivery. However, our comprehensive assessment, across many outcomes, suggests no major differences between primary cesarean delivery on maternal request and planned vaginal delivery, but the evidence is too weak to conclude definitively that differences are completely absent. If a woman chooses to have a cesarean delivery in her first delivery, she is more likely to have subsequent deliveries by cesarean. With increasing numbers of cesarean delivery, risks occur with increasing frequency.
The evidence is significantly limited by its minimal relevance to primary cesarean delivery on maternal request. Future research requires developing consensus about terminology, creating a minimum data set for cesarean delivery on maternal request, improving study design and statistical analyses, attending to major outcomes and their special measurement issues, assessing both short- and long-term outcomes with better measurement strategies, dealing better with confounders, and considering the value or utility of different outcomes.
系统回顾关于产妇要求剖宫产及计划阴道分娩的母婴结局的证据。
我们检索了医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE)、考克兰协作网资源以及荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase),并通过运用预先设定的纳入标准进行双人审核,共识别出1406篇文章。
我们纳入了1990年至2005年6月发表的英文研究,这些研究比较了关键参照组(产妇要求剖宫产或替代情况)与计划阴道分娩。
列表、整合与结果:我们识别出54篇关于母婴结局的文章。实际上几乎没有关于产妇要求剖宫产的研究,因此知识基础依赖于来自替代情况的间接证据,这些证据具有独特且显著的局限性。大多数研究通过实际分娩途径比较结局,这与计划分娩途径的相关性各不相同。产妇要求的初次剖宫产和计划阴道分娩在个体结局方面可能存在差异;例如,计划剖宫产时尿失禁和产妇出血的风险较低,而计划剖宫产时新生儿呼吸疾病的风险较高且产妇住院时间较长。然而,我们对众多结局的综合评估表明,产妇要求的初次剖宫产和计划阴道分娩之间没有重大差异,但证据过于薄弱,无法明确得出完全不存在差异的结论。如果一名女性选择在首次分娩时进行剖宫产,那么她后续分娩更有可能选择剖宫产。随着剖宫产数量的增加,风险出现的频率也在增加。
由于与产妇要求的初次剖宫产相关性极小,证据存在显著局限性。未来的研究需要就术语达成共识,创建产妇要求剖宫产的最小数据集,改进研究设计和统计分析,关注主要结局及其特殊测量问题,采用更好的测量策略评估短期和长期结局,更好地处理混杂因素,并考虑不同结局的价值或效用。