Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2022
Seeking the Truth About Primary Elective Cesarean Delivery and Pelvic Floor Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Tholemeier Lauren, Souders Colby P, Bresee Catherine, Nik-Ahd Farnoosh, Caron Ashley, Eilber Karyn S, Anger Jennifer T
Аннотация
IMPORTANCE: A better understanding of the effect of elective cesarean delivery (CD) on the development of pelvic floor disorders can help obstetricians counsel pregnant women.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating whether primary elective CD is protective against pelvic floor disorders.
STUDY DESIGN: Using the MOOSE criteria, electronic databases were searched for studies that compared the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders among primiparous women. Outcomes of interest were urinary incontinence (UI), fecal incontinence (FI), anal incontinence (AI), and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Comparisons were made between CD before the onset of labor ("Elective CD"), CD after trial of labor ("Labor CD"), and vaginal delivery (VD). Risk ratios (RRs) were computed using STATA. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed via Cochrane's homogeneity test and review of the I2 statistic.
RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included. The overall prevalence of UI for Elective CD was estimated at 7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3%-13%), Labor CD at 14% (95% CI, 8%-21%), and VD at 26% (95% CI, 20%-32%). Meta-analysis demonstrated a decreased risk of UI after Elective CD compared with Labor CD (RR, 0.75; P = 0.011) or VD (RR, 0.43; P < 0.001). There was a decreased risk of FI or AI after Elective CD compared with VD, but not when compared with Labor CD. Only 2 studies examined POP, precluding meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Among primiparous women, Elective CD may be protective against UI when compared with Labor CD. There was not a protective effect of Elective CD against FI and AI when compared with Labor CD. More data on the effect of elective CD on POP are needed.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating whether primary elective CD is protective against pelvic floor disorders.
STUDY DESIGN: Using the MOOSE criteria, electronic databases were searched for studies that compared the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders among primiparous women. Outcomes of interest were urinary incontinence (UI), fecal incontinence (FI), anal incontinence (AI), and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Comparisons were made between CD before the onset of labor ("Elective CD"), CD after trial of labor ("Labor CD"), and vaginal delivery (VD). Risk ratios (RRs) were computed using STATA. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed via Cochrane's homogeneity test and review of the I2 statistic.
RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included. The overall prevalence of UI for Elective CD was estimated at 7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3%-13%), Labor CD at 14% (95% CI, 8%-21%), and VD at 26% (95% CI, 20%-32%). Meta-analysis demonstrated a decreased risk of UI after Elective CD compared with Labor CD (RR, 0.75; P = 0.011) or VD (RR, 0.43; P < 0.001). There was a decreased risk of FI or AI after Elective CD compared with VD, but not when compared with Labor CD. Only 2 studies examined POP, precluding meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Among primiparous women, Elective CD may be protective against UI when compared with Labor CD. There was not a protective effect of Elective CD against FI and AI when compared with Labor CD. More data on the effect of elective CD on POP are needed.