Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2026
Adverse Neonatal Outcomes Following Planned Vaginal Birth Compared to Planned Caesarean Birth: A Population-Based Study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
El Radaf Viktoria, Pettersson Wilma, Brondin Johanna, Savona-Ventura Charles, Mahmood Tahir, Zaigham Mehreen
Аннотация
AIM: To compare adverse outcomes in neonates born by planned vaginal birth to those born by planned caesarean section.
METHOD: This retrospective cohort study analysed data from southern Sweden between 1995 and 2015, using the perinatal revision South Register. Only women with singleton, term (≥ 37 + 0 weeks) and cephalic presentation were included. Planned vaginal birth included all vaginal non-instrumental, instrumental, and emergency caesarean births. Logistic regression was used to study the relationship between neonates born via planned vaginal birth and planned caesarean section to adverse neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS: Of 97,886 included, 91,834 (8.9%) underwent planned vaginal birth, and 6052 (91.1%) underwent planned caesareans. After adjustment, neonates with planned caesarean birth had lower odds for UApH < 7.05 [OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.88, p = 0.006] but higher need for continuous positive airway pressure [OR 2.22; 95% CI, 1.74-2.85, p < 0.001]. No differences were seen for apgar score < 7 at 5 min, seizures, central nervous system disease or hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy.
CONCLUSION: While planned caesarean birth may reduce the risk of neonatal acidemia, it is associated with a higher odds of respiratory support after birth. Overall, both planned birth modes demonstrated comparable risks for other serious neonatal outcomes, indicating that decisions should balance these specific differences alongside individual clinical circumstances.
METHOD: This retrospective cohort study analysed data from southern Sweden between 1995 and 2015, using the perinatal revision South Register. Only women with singleton, term (≥ 37 + 0 weeks) and cephalic presentation were included. Planned vaginal birth included all vaginal non-instrumental, instrumental, and emergency caesarean births. Logistic regression was used to study the relationship between neonates born via planned vaginal birth and planned caesarean section to adverse neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS: Of 97,886 included, 91,834 (8.9%) underwent planned vaginal birth, and 6052 (91.1%) underwent planned caesareans. After adjustment, neonates with planned caesarean birth had lower odds for UApH < 7.05 [OR 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.88, p = 0.006] but higher need for continuous positive airway pressure [OR 2.22; 95% CI, 1.74-2.85, p < 0.001]. No differences were seen for apgar score < 7 at 5 min, seizures, central nervous system disease or hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy.
CONCLUSION: While planned caesarean birth may reduce the risk of neonatal acidemia, it is associated with a higher odds of respiratory support after birth. Overall, both planned birth modes demonstrated comparable risks for other serious neonatal outcomes, indicating that decisions should balance these specific differences alongside individual clinical circumstances.