Search

Objective: There are no globally agreed on strategies on early detection and first response management of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) during and after caesarean birth. Our study aimed to develop an international expert's consensus on evidence-based approaches for early detection and obstetric first response management of PPH intraoperatively and postoperatively in caesarean birth., Design: Systematic review and three-stage modified Delphi expert consensus., Setting: International., Population: Panel of 22 global experts in PPH with diverse backgrounds, and gender, professional and geographic balance., Outcome Measures: Agreement or disagreement on strategies for early detection and first response management of PPH at caesarean birth., Results: Experts agreed that the same PPH definition should apply to both vaginal and caesarean birth. For the intraoperative phase, the experts agreed that early detection should be accomplished via quantitative blood loss measurement, complemented by monitoring the woman's haemodynamic status; and that first response should be triggered once the woman loses at least 500 mL of blood with continued bleeding or when she exhibits clinical signs of haemodynamic instability, whichever occurs first. For the first response, experts agreed on immediate administration of uterotonics and tranexamic acid, examination to determine aetiology and rapid initiation of cause-specific responses. In the postoperative phase, the experts agreed that caesarean birth-related PPH should be detected primarily via frequently monitoring the woman's haemodynamic status and clinical signs and symptoms of internal bleeding, supplemented by cumulative blood loss assessment performed quantitatively or by visual estimation. Postoperative first response was determined to require an individualised approach., Conclusion: These agreed on proposed approaches could help improve the detection of PPH in the intraoperative and postoperative phases of caesarean birth and the first response management of intraoperative PPH. Determining how best to implement these strategies is a critical next step., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article., (© World Health Organization 2024. Licensee BMJ.)

Background: The optimal relationship of the fetus to the mother's birth canal is when the fetus is in the longitudinal lie, cephalic presentation with well-flexed head (vertex presentation), and in the occipito-anterior position. Fetal malposition is described as occipito-posterior (OP) when the back of the fetal head lies posteriorly in the mother's pelvis, and occipito-transverse (OT) when the back of the fetal head lies transversely in the mother's pelvis. The fetal head will often be deflexed and may extend further to a mento-anterior or mento-transverse position, where the chin is anterior or transverse to the maternal pelvis. Fetal malposition is associated with both maternal and fetal complications, including prolonged labour, fetal distress, maternal exhaustion, need for caesarean section, operative vaginal birth, and increased risk of perineal trauma and anal sphincter injuries. This review considered positional interventions in late pregnancy to correct fetal malposition. A separate Cochrane review addresses maternal postural position for fetal malposition during labour., Objectives: To assess the effects of maternal posture for fetal malposition in women in late pregnancy., Search Methods: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (24 October 2022), and reference lists of retrieved studies., Selection Criteria: Our selection criteria were randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised controlled trials that included women in late pregnancy with a malposition of the fetus including OP and OT, mento-anterior and mento-transverse, or with uncertain fetal position, randomly allocated to use of specified maternal positioning in late pregnancy, compared with usual care., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed potential studies for inclusion in the review. We used standardised methodology for assessment of risk of bias and trustworthiness developed by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group., Main Results: We reviewed three full-text reports; we excluded one due to lack of a comparison group and listed two as awaiting classification. We needed further information from the report authors for both potentially suitable studies to account for substantial imbalances between the numbers allocated to each group in one, or identical numbers for all groups in the other. The failure to resolve these issues may have been due to the long interval since publication of the studies (2004 and 1983)., Authors' Conclusions: We did not identify evidence for guiding practice with respect to positional interventions for fetal malposition in late pregnancy. More studies are needed to understand the effect of positional interventions in late pregnancy. Future research on positional interventions for fetal malposition in late pregnancy should include follow-up to determine whether short-term correction of fetal position translates to improved pregnancy outcomes. This might include interventions commenced in late pregnancy and repeated as needed until the onset of labour. The latter would be included in the review on maternal positions during labour., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Cesarean section rates worldwide are rising, driven by medically unnecessary cesarean use. The new World Health Organization Labour Care Guide (LCG) aims to improve the quality of care for women during labor and childbirth. Using the LCG might reduce overuse of cesarean; however, its effects have not been evaluated in randomized trials. We conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized pilot trial in four hospitals in India to evaluate the implementation of an LCG strategy intervention, compared with routine care. We performed this trial to pilot the intervention and obtain preliminary effectiveness data, informing future research. Eligible clusters were four hospitals with >4,000 births annually and cesarean rates ≥30%. Eligible women were those giving birth at ≥20 weeks' gestation. One hospital transitioned to intervention every 2 months, according to a random sequence. The primary outcome was the cesarean rate among women in Robson Group 1 (that is, those who were nulliparous and gave birth to a singleton, term pregnancy in cephalic presentation and in spontaneous labor). A total of 26,331 participants gave birth. A 5.5% crude absolute reduction in the primary outcome was observed (45.2% versus 39.7%; relative risk 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.54-1.33). Maternal process-of-care outcomes were not significantly different, though labor augmentation with oxytocin was 18.0% lower with the LCG strategy. No differences were observed for other health outcomes or women's birth experiences. These findings can guide future definitive effectiveness trials, particularly in settings where urgent reversal of rising cesarean section rates is needed. Clinical Trials Registry India number: CTRI/2021/01/030695 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To introduce the concept of extended or prolonged mechanical balloon labour induction as opposed to pharmacological methods and amniotomy after single balloon expulsion, by the novel use of side-by-side Foley catheter balloons. This method is of particular relevance when there is prior uterine surgery, fetal reserve is uncertain, the risk of vertical infection is high, or facilities for labour monitoring are limited., Study Design: We conducted simulation studies to compare balloon circumferences and resistance to passage through a simulation cervix between different gauge, fluid distension volume and number of Foley catheters. We describe an illustrative clinical case., Results: In simulation studies we found modest increases in Foley catheter balloon circumference with increased catheter gauge and with increasing volume of distending fluid. We found that retention of Foley balloon(s) by a flexible simulated cervix was increased with the gauge, distending volume and number of balloons used side-by-side. We describe the case of a mother with pre-eclampsia with severe features and compromised fetal reserve in whom the side-by-side balloon method achieved spontaneous delivery after a single balloon had been expelled without labour commencing., Conclusions: Institutional protocols for Balloon labour inductions should take into account the characteristics of locally-available balloon catheters. Further research is justified to determine the usefulness of extended mechanical labour induction with side-by-side balloon catheters, particularly with prior caesarean section, uncertain fetal reserve and settings with limited fetal monitoring capacity., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To identify an inexpensive catheter suitable for uterine suction tamponade (UST) for postpartum hemorrhage and assess its functionality., Methods: Randomized, single-center, double-blind feasibility study in East London, South Africa, among 45 women undergoing cesarean delivery between October and November 2018. A search of medical supply websites for catheters with predefined characteristics (inexpensive, flexible, wide-bore, circumferentially-arranged side apertures, rounded tip) identified the FG36 Levin stomach tube. During cesarean, the tube was placed in the uterus and connected transvaginally to a suction unit. Participants were randomized via a computer-generated random sequence to early (after uterine closure; n=24) or delayed (after skin closure; n=21) UST., Results: The tube functioned well with respect to stability in the uterus and aspirating blood from the uterine cavity without blockage. Blood loss was similar between the groups (mean difference, 7.3 mL; 95% confidence interval, -61 to 75; P=0.433), as were secondary outcomes. There were no complications. Absolute effectiveness was not tested because there was no non-suction group., Conclusion: The FG36 Levin tube was found to be a suitable device for "suction-tube uterine tamponade". There was no difference in functionality between early and late UST. Future trials should assess the effectiveness of this approach for postpartum hemorrhage., Clinical Trial Registration: Registered in the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry as PACTR201809584199573., (© 2019 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Background: Twin pregnancies are associated with increased perinatal mortality, mainly related to prematurity, but complications during birth may contribute to perinatal loss or morbidity. The option of planned caesarean section to avoid such complications must therefore be considered. On the other hand, randomised trials of other clinical interventions in the birth process to avoid problems related to labour and birth (planned caesarean section for breech, and continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring), have shown an unexpected discordance between short-term perinatal morbidity and long-term neurological outcome. The risks of caesarean section for the mother in the current and subsequent pregnancies must also be taken into account., Objectives: To determine the short- and long-term effects on mothers and their babies, of planned caesarean section for twin pregnancy., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 November 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing a policy of caesarean section with planned vaginal birth for women with twin pregnancy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. For important outcomes the quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We included two trials comparing planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for twin pregnancies.Most of the data included in the review were from a multicentre trial where 2804 women were randomised in 106 centres in 25 countries. All centres had facilities to perform emergency caesarean section and had anaesthetic, obstetrical, and nursing staff available in the hospital at the time of planned vaginal delivery. In the second trial carried out in Israel, 60 women were randomised. We judged the risk of bias to be low for all categories except performance (high) and outcome assessment bias (unclear).There was no clear evidence of differences between women randomised to planned caesarean section or planned vaginal birth for maternal death or serious morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.11; 2844 women; two studies; moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference between groups for perinatal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.67; data for 5565 babies, one study, moderate quality evidence). No studies reported childhood disability.For secondary outcomes there was no clear evidence of differences between groups for perinatal or neonatal mortality (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.62; 5685 babies; two studies, moderate quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.64; 5644 babies; two studies, moderate quality evidence) or any of the other neonatal outcomes reported.The number of women undergoing caesarean section was reported in both trials. Most women in the planned caesarean group had treatment as planned (90.9% underwent caesarean section), whereas in the planned vaginal birth group 42.9% had caesarean section for at least one twin. For maternal mortality; no events were reported in one trial and two deaths (one in each group) in the other. There were no significant differences between groups for serious maternal morbidity overall (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.11; 2844 women; two studies) or for different types of short-term morbidity. There were no significant differences between groups for failure to breastfeed (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38; 2570 women, one study; moderate quality evidence) or the number of women with scores greater than 12 on the Edinbugh postnatal depression scale (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 2570 women, one study; moderate quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Data mainly from one large, multicentre study found no clear evidence of benefit from planned caesarean section for term twin pregnancies with leading cephalic presentation. Data on long-term infant outcomes are awaited. Women should be informed of possible risks and benefits of labour and vaginal birth pertinent to their specific clinical presentation and the current and long-term effects of caesarean section for both mother and babies. There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of planned caesarean section for term twin pregnancy with leading cephalic presentation, except in the context of further randomised trials.

Background: Poor outcomes after breech birth might be the result of underlying conditions causing breech presentation or due to factors associated with the delivery., Objectives: To assess the effects of planned caesarean section for singleton breech presentation at term on measures of pregnancy outcome., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2015)., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing planned caesarean section for singleton breech presentation at term with planned vaginal birth., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy., Main Results: Three trials (2396 participants) were included in the review. Caesarean delivery occurred in 550/1227 (45%) of those women allocated to a vaginal delivery protocol and 1060/1169 (91%) of those women allocated to planned caesarean section (average risk ratio (RR) random-effects, 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60 to 2.20; three studies, 2396 women, evidence graded low quality). Perinatal or neonatal death (excluding fatal anomalies) or severe neonatal morbidity was reduced with a policy of planned caesarean section in settings with a low national perinatal mortality rate (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.29, one study, 1025 women, evidence graded moderate quality), but not in settings with a high national perinatal mortality rate (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.24, one study, 1053 women, evidence graded low quality). The difference between subgroups was significant (Test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 8.01, df = 1 (P = 0.005), I² = 87.5%). Due to this significant heterogeneity, a random-effects analysis was performed. The average overall effect was not statistically significant (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.44, one study, 2078 infants). Perinatal or neonatal death (excluding fatal anomalies) was reduced with planned caesarean section (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.86, three studies, 2388 women). The proportional reductions were similar for countries with low and high national perinatal mortality rates.The numbers studied were too small to satisfactorily address reductions in birth trauma and brachial plexus injury with planned caesarean section. Neither of these outcomes reached statistical significance (birth trauma: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.10, one study, 2062 infants (20 events),evidence graded low quality; brachial plexus injury: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.47, three studies, 2375 infants (nine events)).Planned caesarean section was associated with modestly increased short-term maternal morbidity (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.61, three studies, 2396 women,low quality evidence). At three months after delivery, women allocated to the planned caesarean section group reported less urinary incontinence (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.93, one study, 1595 women); no difference in 'any pain' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29, one study, 1593 women,low quality evidence); more abdominal pain (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.79, one study, 1593 women); and less perineal pain (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.58, one study, 1593 women).At two years, there were no differences in the combined outcome 'death or neurodevelopmental delay' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.30, one study, 920 children,evidence graded low quality); more infants who had been allocated to planned caesarean delivery had medical problems at two years (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.89, one study, 843 children). Maternal outcomes at two years were also similar. In countries with low perinatal mortality rates, the protocol of planned caesarean section was associated with lower healthcare costs, expressed in 2002 Canadian dollars (mean difference -$877.00, 95% CI -894.89 to -859.11, one study, 1027 women).All of the trials included in this review had design limitations, and the GRADE level of evidence was mostly low. No studies attempted to blind the intervention, and the process of random allocation was suboptimal in two studies. Two of the three trials had serious design limitations, however these studies contributed to fewer outcomes than the large multi-centre trial with lower risk of bias., Authors' Conclusions: Planned caesarean section compared with planned vaginal birth reduced perinatal or neonatal death as well as the composite outcome death or serious neonatal morbidity, at the expense of somewhat increased maternal morbidity. In a subset with 2-year follow up, infant medical problems were increased following planned caesarean section and no difference in long-term neurodevelopmental delay or the outcome "death or neurodevelopmental delay" was found, though the numbers were too small to exclude the possibility of an important difference in either direction.The benefits need to be weighed against factors such as the mother's preference for vaginal birth and risks such as future pregnancy complications in the woman's specific healthcare setting. The option of external cephalic version is dealt with in separate reviews. The data from this review cannot be generalised to settings where caesarean section is not readily available, or to methods of breech delivery that differ materially from the clinical delivery protocols used in the trials reviewed. The review will help to inform individualised decision-making regarding breech delivery. Research on strategies to improve the safety of breech delivery and to further investigate the possible association of caesarean section with infant medical problems is needed.

Background: Caesarean section is a very common surgical procedure worldwide. Suturing the peritoneal layers at caesarean section may or may not confer benefit, hence the need to evaluate whether this step should be omitted or routinely performed., Objectives: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of non-closure as an alternative to closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section on intraoperative and immediate- and long-term postoperative outcomes., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 November 2013)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing leaving the visceral or parietal peritoneum, or both, unsutured at caesarean section with a technique which involves suturing the peritoneum in women undergoing elective or emergency caesarean section., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked it for accuracy., Main Results: A total of 29 trials were included in this review and 21 trials (17,276 women) provided data that could be included in an analysis. The quality of the trials was variable. 1. Non-closure of visceral and parietal peritoneum versus closure of both parietal layersSixteen trials involving 15,480 women, were included and analysed, when both parietal peritoneum was left unclosed versus when both peritoneal surfaces were closed. Postoperative adhesion formation was assessed in only four trials with 282 women, and no difference was found between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.29). There was significant reduction in the operative time (mean difference (MD) -5.81 minutes, 95% CI -7.68 to -3.93). The duration of hospital stay in a total of 13 trials involving 14,906 women, was also reduced (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.05) days. In a trial involving 112 women, reduced chronic pelvic pain was found in the peritoneal non-closure group. 2. Non-closure of visceral peritoneum only versus closure of both peritoneal surfacesThree trials involving 889 women were analysed. There was an increase in adhesion formation (two trials involving 157 women, RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.49 to 4.16) which was limited to one trial with high risk of bias.There was reduction in operative time, postoperative days in hospital and wound infection. There was no significant reduction in postoperative pyrexia. 3. Non-closure of parietal peritoneum only versus closure of both peritoneal layersThe two identified trials involved 573 women. Neither study reported on postoperative adhesion formation. There was reduction in operative time and postoperative pain with no difference in the incidence of postoperative pyrexia, endometritis, postoperative duration of hospital stay and wound infection. In only one study, postoperative day one wound pain assessed by the numerical rating scale, (MD -1.60, 95% CI -1.97 to -1.23) and chronic abdominal pain d by the visual analogue score (MD -1.10, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.81) was reduced in the non-closure group. 4. Non-closure versus closure of visceral peritoneum when parietal peritoneum is closed.There was reduction in all the major urinary symptoms of frequency, urgency and stress incontinence when the visceral peritoneum is left unsutured., Authors' Conclusions: There was a reduction in operative time across all the subgroups. There was also a reduction in the period of hospitalisation post-caesarean section except in the subgroup where parietal peritoneum only was not sutured where there was no difference in the period of hospitalisation. The evidence on adhesion formation was limited and inconsistent. There is currently insufficient evidence of benefit to justify the additional time and use of suture material necessary for peritoneal closure. More robust evidence on long-term pain, adhesion formation and infertility is needed.

Background: Caesarean section is the commonest major operation performed on women worldwide. Operative techniques, including abdominal incisions, vary. Some of these techniques have been evaluated through randomised trials., Objectives: To determine the benefits and risks of alternative methods of abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 February 2013)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of intention to perform caesarean section using different abdominal incisions., Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted data from the sources, checked them for accuracy and analysed the data., Main Results: Four studies (666 women) were included in this review.Two studies (411 women) compared the Joel-Cohen incision with the Pfannenstiel incision. Overall, there was a 65% reduction in reported postoperative febrile morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.87) with the Joel-Cohen incision. One of the trials reported reduced postoperative analgesic requirements (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.76); operating time (mean difference (MD) -11.40, 95% CI -16.55 to -6.25 minutes); delivery time (MD -1.90, 95% CI -2.53 to -1.27 minutes); total dose of analgesia in the first 24 hours (MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.19 to -0.59); estimated blood loss (MD -58.00, 95% CI -108.51 to -7.49 mL); postoperative hospital stay for the mother (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.16 to -0.84 days); and increased time to the first dose of analgesia (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.48 hours) compared with the Pfannenstiel group. No other significant differences were found in either trial.Two studies compared muscle cutting incisions with Pfannenstiel incision. One study (68 women) comparing Mouchel incision with Pfannenstiel incision did not contribute data to this review. The other study (97 women) comparing the Maylard muscle-cutting incision with the Pfannenstiel incision, reported no difference in febrile morbidity (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 19.50); need for blood transfusion (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.02 to 9.98); wound infection (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.27 to 5.91); physical tests on muscle strength at three months postoperative and postoperative hospital stay (MD 0.40 days, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.14)., Authors' Conclusions: The Joel-Cohen incision has advantages compared with the Pfannenstiel incision. These are: less fever, pain and analgesic requirements; less blood loss; shorter duration of surgery and hospital stay. These advantages for the mother could be extrapolated to savings for the health system. However, these trials do not provide information on severe or long-term morbidity and mortality.

Background: During caesarean section mothers can be in different positions. Theatre tables could be tilted laterally, upwards, downwards or flexed and wedges or cushions could be used. There is no consensus on the best positioning at present., Objectives: We assessed all available data on positioning of the mother to determine if there is an ideal position during caesarean section that would improve outcomes., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 August 2012), PubMed (1966 to 20 August 2012) and manually searched the references of retrieved articles., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials of woman undergoing caesarean section comparing different positions., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors assessed eligibility, trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: We identified 22 studies with a total of 857 women included. We included 11 studies and excluded 11. Included trials were of variably quality with small sample sizes. Most comparisons had data from single trials. This is a shortcoming and applicability of results is limited.The incidence of air embolism was not affected by head up versus horizontal position (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 2.57; Tau² = 0.50; I² = 74%).We found no change in hypotensive episodes when comparing left lateral tilt (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.94), right lateral tilt (RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.39 to 3.99), a right lumbar pelvic wedge (RR 0.85; CI 0.53 to1.37) and head down tilt (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.42) with horizontal positions. We found no change in hypotensive episodes when comparing full lateral tilt with 15-degree tilt (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.79). Hypotensive episodes were decreased with manual displacers (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.45), and increased with a right lumbar wedge compared with a right pelvic wedge (RR 1.64; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.53) and increased with a right lateral tilt compared with a left lateral tilt (RR 3.30; 95% CI 1.20 to 9.08).Position did not affect systolic blood pressure when comparing left lateral tilt (MD 2.70; 95% CI -1.47 to 6.87) or head down tilt (MD -3.00; 95% CI -8.38 to 2.38) with horizontal positions, or full lateral tilt with 15-degree tilt (MD -5.00; 95% CI -11.45 to 1.45). Manual displacers showed decreased fall in mean systolic blood pressure compared with left lateral tilt (MD -8.80; 95% CI -13.08 to -4.52).Position did not affect diastolic blood pressures when comparing left lateral tilt versus horizontal positions (MD-1.90; 95% CI -5.28 to 1.48). The mean diastolic pressure was lower in head down tilt (MD -7.00; 95% CI -12.05 to -1.95) when compared with horizontal positions.There were no statistically significant changes in maternal pulse rate, five-minute Apgars, maternal blood pH or cord blood pH when comparing different positions., Authors' Conclusions: There is limited evidence to support or clearly disprove the value of the use of tilting or flexing the table, the use of wedges and cushions or the use of mechanical displacers. A left lateral tilt may be better than a right lateral tilt and manual displacers may be better than a left lateral tilt but larger studies with more robust data are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: Caesarean section rates are progressively rising in many parts of the world. One suggested reason is increasing requests by women for caesarean section in the absence of clear medical indications, such as placenta praevia, HIV infection, contracted pelvis and, arguably, breech presentation or previous caesarean section. The reported benefits of planned caesarean section include greater safety for the baby, less pelvic floor trauma for the mother, avoidance of labour pain and convenience. The potential disadvantages, from observational studies, include increased risk of major morbidity or mortality for the mother, adverse psychological sequelae, and problems in subsequent pregnancies, including uterine scar rupture and a greater risk of stillbirth and neonatal morbidity. The differences in neonatal physiology following vaginal and caesarean births are thought to have implications for the infant, with caesarean section potentially increasing the risk of compromised health in both the short and the long term. An unbiased assessment of advantages and disadvantages would assist discussion of what has become a contentious issue in modern obstetrics., Objectives: To assess, from randomised trials, the effects on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, and on maternal psychological morbidity, of planned caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth in women with no clear clinical indication for caesarean section., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2012) and reference lists of relevant studies., Selection Criteria: All comparisons of intention to perform caesarean section and intention for women to give birth vaginally; random allocation to treatment and control groups; adequate allocation concealment; women at term with single fetuses with cephalic presentations and no clear medical indication for caesarean section., Data Collection and Analysis: We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria., Main Results: There were no included trials., Authors' Conclusions: There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials, upon which to base any practice recommendations regarding planned caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. In the absence of trial data, there is an urgent need for a systematic review of observational studies and a synthesis of qualitative data to better assess the short- and long-term effects of caesarean section and vaginal birth.

Background: Twin pregnancies are associated with increased perinatal mortality, mainly related to prematurity, but complications during birth may contribute to perinatal loss or morbidity. The option of planned caesarean section to avoid such complications must therefore be considered. On the other hand, randomised trials of other clinical interventions in the birth process to avoid problems related to labour and birth (planned caesarean section for breech, and continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring), have shown an unexpected discordance between short-term perinatal morbidity and long-term neurological outcome. The risks of caesarean section for the mother in the current and subsequent pregnancies must also be taken into account., Objectives: To determine the short- and long-term effects on mothers and their babies, of planned caesarean section for twin pregnancy., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2011)., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials comparing a policy of caesarean section with planned vaginal birth for women with twin pregnancy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two researchers independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy., Main Results: One small trial with unconfirmed allocation concealment compared caesarean section with planned vaginal birth in 60 women with vertex/non-vertex twin pregnancies. There were no differences in perinatal outcome. The trial was too small to exclude the possibility of clinically meaningful benefits of either approach. There is one additional trial currently ongoing., Authors' Conclusions: There is a lack of robust evidence to guide clinical advice regarding the method of birth for twin pregnancies. Women should be informed of possible benefits and risks of either approach, including short-term and long-term consequences for both mother and babies. Future research should aim to provide unbiased evidence, including long-term outcomes.

Background: During caesarean section mothers can be in different positions. Theatre tables could be tilted laterally, upwards, downwards or flexed and wedges or cushions could be used. There is no consensus on the best positioning at present., Objectives: We assessed all available data on positioning of the mother to determine if there is an ideal position during caesarean section that would improve outcomes., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (September 2009), PubMed (1966 to 14 September 2009) and manually searched the references of retrieved articles., Selection Criteria: Randomised trials of woman undergoing caesarean section comparing different positions., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors assessed eligibility, trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: We identified 17 studies with a total of 683 woman included. We included nine studies and excluded eight studies. Included trials were of variably quality with small sample sizes. Most comparisons had data from single trials. This is a shortcoming and applicability of results is limited.The incidence of air embolism was not affected by head up versus horizontal position (risk ratio (RR) 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.26). We found no change in hypotensive episodes when comparing left lateral tilt (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.94), right lateral tilt (RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.39 to 3.99) and head down tilt (mean difference (MD) -3.00; 95% CI -8.38 to 2.38) with horizontal positions or full lateral tilt with 15-degree tilt (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.79). Hypotensive episodes were decreased with manual displacers (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.45), a right lumbar wedge compared to a right pelvic wedge (RR 1.64; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.53) and increased in right lateral tilt (RR 3.30; 95% CI 1.20 to 9.08) versus left lateral tilt.Position did not affect systolic blood pressure when comparing left lateral tilt (MD 2.70; 95% CI -1.47 to 6.87) or head down tilt (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.42) to horizontal positions, or full lateral tilt with 15-degree tilt (MD -5.00; 95% CI -11.45 to 1.45). Manual displacers showed decreased fall in mean systolic blood pressure compared to left lateral tilt (MD -8.80; 95% CI -13.08 to -4.52).Position did not affect diastolic blood pressures when comparing left lateral tilt versus horizontal positions. (MD-1.90; 95% CI -5.28 to 1.48). The mean diastolic pressure was lower in head down tilt (MD -7.00; 95% CI -12.05 to -1.95) when compared to horizontal positions.There were no statistically significant changes in maternal pulse rate, five-minute Apgars, maternal blood pH or cord blood pH when comparing different positions., Authors' Conclusions: There is limited evidence to support or clearly disprove the value of the use of tilting or flexing the table, the use of wedges and cushions or the use of mechanical displacers. Larger studies are needed.

Background: The single most important risk factor for postpartum maternal infection is cesarean delivery., Objectives: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotic treatment on infectious complications in women undergoing cesarean delivery., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (January 2002) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2001)., Selection Criteria: Randomized trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis or no treatment for both elective and non-elective cesarean section., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data., Main Results: Eighty-one trials were included. Use of prophylactic antibiotics in women undergoing cesarean section substantially reduced the incidence of episodes of fever, endometritis, wound infection, urinary tract infection and serious infection after cesarean section. The reduction in the risk of endometritis with antibiotics was similar across different patient groups: the relative risk (RR) for endometritis for elective cesarean section (number of women = 2037) was 0.38 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.64); the RR for non-elective cesarean section (n = 2132) was 0.39 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.46); and the RR for all patients (n = 11,937) was 0.39 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.43). Wound infections were also reduced: for elective cesarean section (n = 2015) RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.99); for non-elective cesarean section (n = 2780) RR 0.36 95% CI 0.26 to 0.51]; and for all patients (n = 11,142) RR 0.41 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.43)., Authors' Conclusions: The reduction of endometritis by two thirds to three quarters and a decrease in wound infections justifies a policy of recommending prophylactic antibiotics to women undergoing elective or non-elective cesarean section.

Background: Caesarean section delivery is becoming more frequent. Childbirth is an emotion-filled event and the mother needs to bond with her newborn baby as early as possible. Any intervention that leads to improvement in pain relief is worthy of investigation. Local anaesthetics, either on their own or in combination with opioids or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, have been employed as an adjunct to other postoperative pain relief strategies. Conflicting reports were noted., Objectives: To assess the effects of local anaesthetic agent wound infiltration/irrIgation and/or abdominal nerve blocks on post-caesarean section pain and the mother's well being and interaction with her baby., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2009)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of pre-emptive local analgesia during caesarean section., Data Collection and Analysis: One author extracted data. The second author checked the data., Main Results: Twenty studies (1150 women) were included. Women who had caesarean section performed under regional analgesia and had wound infiltration had a decrease in morphine consumption at 24 hours (SMD -1.70mg; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.75 to -0.94) compared to placebo.In women under general anaesthesia, with caesarean section wound infiltration and peritoneal spraying with local anaesthetic (one study, 100 participants), the need for opioid rescue was reduced (risk ratio (RR) 0.51; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.69). The numerical pain score (0 to10) within the first hour was also reduced (mean difference (MD) -1.46; 95% CI -2.60 to -0.32).Women with regional analgesia who had local anaesthetic and non-steriodal anti-inflammatory cocktail wound infiltration consumed less morphine (one study, 60 participants; MD -7.40 mg; 95% CI -9.58 to -5.22) compared to local anaesthetic control.Women who had regional analgesia with abdominal nerves blocked had decreased opioid consumption (four studies, 175 participants; MD -25.80 mg; 95% CI -50.39 to -5.37).For the outcome of visual analogue scale 0 to 10 over 24 hours, no advantage was demonstrated in the single study of 50 participants who had wound infiltrated with a mixture of local analgesia and narcotics versus local analgesia.Addition of ketamine to the local analgesia in women who had regional analgesia does not confer any advantage., Authors' Conclusions: Local analgesia infiltration and abdominal nerve blocks as adjuncts to regional analgesia and general anaesthesia are of benefit in caesarean section by reducing opioid consumption. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as an adjuvant may confer additional pain relief.

Background: Worldwide, caesarean section is the most common major operation performed on women. Some of the reported short-term morbidities include haemorrhage, postoperative fever and endometritis. The method of delivering the placenta is one procedure that may contribute to an increase or decrease in the morbidity of caesarean section. Two common methods used to deliver the placenta at caesarean section are cord traction and manual removal., Objectives: To compare the effects of manual removal of the placenta with cord traction at caesarean section., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2007)., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials comparing manual removal and cord traction or spontaneous of delivery of the placenta., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed studies and extracted data., Main Results: We included 15 studies (4694 women). There was significant heterogeneity for the duration of surgery, blood loss and haematological outcomes. The only possible contributing factor found was greater protection from blood loss in two trials in which cord traction was combined with uterine massage. A random-effects model meta-analysis was used for these outcomes. Manual removal of the placenta was associated with more endometritis (relative risk (RR) 1.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 1.90; 4134 women, 13 trials); more blood loss (ml) (weighted mean difference (WMD) 94.42 ml, 95% CI 17.19 to 171.64; 2001 women, eight trials); more blood loss > 1000 ml (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.28; 872 women, two trials); lower haematocrit after delivery (%) (WMD -1.55, 95% CI -3.09 to -0.01; 384 women, two trials); greater haematocrit fall after delivery (%) (WMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.78; 1777 women, five trials); longer duration of hospital stay (days) (WMD 0.39 days, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.61; 546 women, three trials). The duration of surgery was shorter in one trial but not overall. There were no significant differences in feto-maternal haemorrhage, blood transfusion, puerperal fever (numbers studied for these outcomes were small)., Authors' Conclusions: Delivery of the placenta with cord traction at caesarean section has more advantages compared to manual removal. These are less endometritis; less blood loss; less decrease in haematocrit levels postoperatively; and shorter duration of hospital stay. Future trials should provide information on interval between the delivery of the infant and of the placenta, change in lochia, blood splashing during placental removal and uterine pain after operation, as well as the effects of delayed cord clamping.

Background: Caesarean section (CS) is a very common surgical procedure worldwide. Suturing the peritoneal layers at CS may or may not confer benefit, hence the need to evaluate whether this step should be omitted or not., Objectives: To assess the effects of non-closure as an alternative to closure of the peritoneum at CS on intraoperative, immediate and later postoperative, and long-term outcomes., Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (November 2002) and the Cochrane Central Controlled Trials Register (October 2003)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials that compared leaving the visceral and/or parietal peritoneum unsutured at CS with suturing the peritoneum, in women undergoing elective or emergency CS., Data Collection and Analysis: Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted by two reviewers., Main Results: Nine trials involving 1811 women were included and analysed. The methodological quality of the trials was variable. Non-closure of the peritoneum reduced operating time when both layers or one layer was not sutured. For both layers, the operating time was reduced by 7.33 minutes (95% confidence interval (CI): -8.43 - -6.24). There was significantly less postoperative fever and reduced postoperative stay in hospital for non-closure of the visceral peritoneum and non-closure of both layers. There were no other statistically significant differences. The trend for analgesia requirement and wound infection tended to favour non-closure, while endometritis results were variable. Long-term follow-up in 1 trial showed no significant differences. The power of the latter study to show differences was low., Conclusions: There was improved short-term postoperative outcome if the peritoneum was not closed. Long-term studies following CS are limited, but data from other surgical procedures are reassuring. At present there is no evidence to justify the time taken and cost of peritoneal closure.

The International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics recommend digital insertion of the copper intrauterine device (IUD) during caesarean delivery and note the risk of thread inclusion in the uterotomy closure and nonvisibility of threads at follow-up. We describe a novel method of inserting the IUD with the insertion straw and directing the lower end of the straw through the cervix for retrieval after the operation, to protect and ensure alignment of the threads. We also describe a simple method of lengthening one thread with part of the other thread, to avoid risks associated with braided suture extensions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of tranexamic acid for postpartum hemorrhage has entered obstetric practice globally with the evidence-based expectation of saving lives. This improvement in the care of women with postpartum hemorrhage has come at a price. For the anesthetist, having tranexamic acid ampoules close at hand would seem an obvious strategy to facilitate its use during caesarean delivery, an important setting for severe hemorrhage. Tragically, we have identified a number of recent instances of inadvertent intrathecal administration of tranexamic acid instead of local anesthetic for spinal anesthesia. Reported cases of this catastrophic error appear to be increasing. The profound neurotoxicity of tranexamic acid causes rapid-onset convulsions, with mortality of 50%. How can these tragic errors be averted? Drug safety alerts have been issued by the US Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization, but that is not enough. We recommend extensive dissemination of information to raise awareness of this potential hazard; and local hospital protocols to ensure that tranexamic acid is stored separately from anesthetic drugs, preferably outside the operating room and with an auxiliary warning label. Implementation of safety strategies on a very large scale will be needed to ensure that the life-saving potential of tranexamic acid is not eclipsed by drug error mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine the prevalence of uterine rupture worldwide. Systematic review of all available data since 1990. Community-based and facility-based reports from urban and rural studies worldwide. Eighty-three reports of uterine rupture rates are included in the systematic review. Most are facility based using cross-sectional study designs. Following a pre-defined protocol an extensive search was conducted of 10 electronic databases as well as other sources. Articles were evaluated according to specified inclusion criteria. Uterine rupture data were collected along with information on the quality of reporting including definitions and identification of cases. Data were entered into a database and tabulated using SAS software. Prevalence of uterine rupture by country, period, study design, setting, participants, facility type and data source. Prevalence figures for uterine rupture were available for 86 groups of women. For unselected pregnant women, the prevalence of uterine rupture reported was considerably lower for community-based (median 0.053, range 0.016–0.30%) than for facility-based studies (0.31, 0.012–2.9%). The prevalence tended to be lower for countries defined by the United Nations as developed than the less or least developed countries. For women with previous caesarean section, the prevalence of uterine rupture reported was in the region of 1%. Only one report gave a prevalence for women without previous caesarean section, from a developed country, and this was extremely low (0.006%). In less and least developed countries, uterine rupture is more prevalent than in developed countries. In developed countries most uterine ruptures follow caesarean section. Future research on the prevalence of uterine rupture should differentiate between uterine rupture with and without previous caesarean section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of tranexamic acid for postpartum hemorrhage has entered obstetrical practice globally with the evidence-based expectation of saving lives. This improvement in the care of women with postpartum hemorrhage has come at a price. For the anesthetist, having tranexamic acid ampoules close at hand would seem an obvious strategy to facilitate its use during cesarean delivery, an important setting for severe hemorrhage. Tragically, we have identified a number of recent instances of inadvertent intrathecal administration of tranexamic acid instead of local anesthetic for spinal anesthesia. Reported cases of this catastrophic error seem to be increasing. The profound neurotoxicity of tranexamic acid causes rapid-onset convulsions, with mortality of 50%. How can these tragic errors be averted? Drug safety alerts have been issued by the US Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization, but that is not enough. We recommend extensive dissemination of information to raise awareness of this potential hazard, and local hospital protocols to ensure that tranexamic acid is stored separately from anesthetic drugs, preferably outside the operating room and with an auxiliary warning label. Implementation of safety strategies on a very large scale will be needed to ensure that the life-saving potential of tranexamic acid is not eclipsed by drug-error mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Each year, approximately 2million babies die because of complications of childbirth, primarily in settings where effective care at birth, particularly prompt cesarean delivery, is unavailable. Objective: We reviewed the content, impact, risk-benefit, and feasibility of interventions for obstetric complications with high population attributable risk of intrapartum-related hypoxic injury, as well as human resource, skill development, and technological innovations to improve obstetric care quality and availability. Results: Despite ecological associations of obstetric care with improved perinatal outcomes, there is limited evidence that intrapartum interventions reduce intrapartum-related neonatal mortality or morbidity. No interventions had high-quality evidence of impact on intrapartum-related outcomes in low-resource settings. While data from high-resource settings support planned cesarean for breech presentation and post-term induction, these interventions may be unavailable or less safe in low-resource settings and require risk-benefit assessment. Promising interventions include use of the partograph, symphysiotomy, amnioinfusion, therapeutic maneuvers for shoulder dystocia, improved management of intra-amniotic infections, and continuous labor support. Obstetric drills, checklists, and innovative low-cost devices could improve care quality. Task-shifting to alternative cadres may increase coverage of care. Conclusions: While intrapartum care aims to avert intrapartum-related hypoxic injury, rigorous evidence is lacking, especially in the settings where most deaths occur. Effective care at birth could save hundreds of thousands of lives a year, with investment in health infrastructure, personnel, and research—both for innovation and to improve implementation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]