Explore the vast range of titles available.

Variations exist in the surgical techniques used for caesarean section and many have not been rigorously assessed in randomised controlled trials. We aimed to assess whether any surgical techniques were associated with improved outcomes for women and babies. CORONIS was a pragmatic international 2×2×2×2×2 non-regular fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial that examined five elements of the caesarean section technique in intervention pairs. CORONIS was undertaken at 19 sites in Argentina, Chile, Ghana, India, Kenya, Pakistan, and Sudan. Each site was assigned to three of the five intervention pairs: blunt versus sharp abdominal entry; exteriorisation of the uterus for repair versus intra-abdominal repair; single-layer versus double-layer closure of the uterus; closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum (pelvic and parietal); and chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 for uterine repair. Pregnant women were eligible if they were to undergo their first or second caesarean section through a planned transverse abdominal incision. Women were randomly assigned by a secure web-based number allocation system to one intervention from each of the three assigned pairs. All investigators, surgeons, and participants were unmasked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the composite of death, maternal infectious morbidity, further operative procedures, or blood transfusion (>1 unit) up to the 6-week follow-up visit. Women were analysed in the groups into which they were allocated. The CORONIS Trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN31089967. Between May 20, 2007, and Dec 31, 2010, 15 935 women were recruited. There were no statistically significant differences within any of the intervention pairs for the primary outcome: blunt versus sharp entry risk ratio 1·03 (95% CI 0·91–1·17), exterior versus intra-abdominal repair 0·96 (0·84–1·08), single-layer versus double-layer closure 0·96 (0·85–1·08), closure versus non-closure 1·06 (0·94–1·20), and chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 0·90 (0·78–1·04). 144 serious adverse events were reported, of which 26 were possibly related to the intervention. Most of the reported serious adverse events were known complications of surgery or complications of the reasons for the caesarean section. These findings suggest that any of these surgical techniques is acceptable. However, longer-term follow-up is needed to assess whether the absence of evidence of short-term effects will translate into an absence of long-term effects. UK Medical Research Council and WHO.

Background This prospective clinical trial aimed to compare the effects of single-layer versus double-layer uterine closure techniques on cesarean scar healing in women undergoing repeat cesarean delivery. Methods Seventy women aged 18–50 years with a history of at least one prior cesarean delivery were randomized into two groups: single-layer non-locking closure ( n  = 35) and double-layer non-locking closure with surgical refreshing of the incision edges ( n  = 35). The primary outcome was residual myometrial thickness (RMT) measured by transvaginal ultrasonography at six months. Secondary outcomes included RMT at six weeks, healing ratios, presence of niche, operative time, transfusion need, infectious morbidity, and hospital stay duration. Sample size was based on preliminary data indicating a mean RMT of 5 mm (SD 0.6 mm). To detect a 0.5 mm difference with α = 0.05 and β = 0.8, 26 participants per group were required; 35 were enrolled per group. Results At six months, the double-layer group had significantly greater RMT (5.1 ± 0.4 mm vs. 4.1 ± 0.4 mm; p  < 0.001). Similar findings were seen at six weeks. Operative time was shorter in the single-layer group. However, this group required more frequent additional uterine suturing due to suboptimal tissue approximation or bleeding, which did not significantly extend operative duration. Hemoglobin levels and hospital stay were comparable. Transfusion was needed in one patient in the single-layer group and three in the double-layer group. Conclusion Double-layer closure with surgical edge refreshing was associated with improved cesarean scar healing based on RMT. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03644433. Registered on 06 July 2018.

A caesarean section (CS) can be a life-saving intervention when medically indicated, but this procedure can also lead to short-term and long-term health effects for women and children. Given the increasing use of CS, particularly without medical indication, an increased understanding of its health effects on women and children has become crucial, which we discuss in this Series paper. The prevalence of maternal mortality and maternal morbidity is higher after CS than after vaginal birth. CS is associated with an increased risk of uterine rupture, abnormal placentation, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth, and preterm birth, and these risks increase in a dose–response manner. There is emerging evidence that babies born by CS have different hormonal, physical, bacterial, and medical exposures, and that these exposures can subtly alter neonatal physiology. Short-term risks of CS include altered immune development, an increased likelihood of allergy, atopy, and asthma, and reduced intestinal gut microbiome diversity. The persistence of these risks into later life is less well investigated, although an association between CS use and greater incidence of late childhood obesity and asthma are frequently reported. There are few studies that focus on the effects of CS on cognitive and educational outcomes. Understanding potential mechanisms that link CS with childhood outcomes, such as the role of the developing neonatal microbiome, has potential to inform novel strategies and research for optimising CS use and promote optimal physiological processes and development.

In this Series paper, we describe the frequency of, trends in, determinants of, and inequalities in caesarean section (CS) use, globally, regionally, and in selected countries. On the basis of data from 169 countries that include 98·4% of the world's births, we estimate that 29·7 million (21·1%, 95% uncertainty interval 19·9–22·4) births occurred through CS in 2015, which was almost double the number of births by this method in 2000 (16·0 million [12·1%, 10·9–13·3] births). CS use in 2015 was up to ten times more frequent in the Latin America and Caribbean region, where it was used in 44·3% (41·3–47·4) of births, than in the west and central Africa region, where it was used in 4·1% (3·6–4·6) of births. The global and regional increases in CS use were driven both by an increasing proportion of births occurring in health facilities (accounting for 66·5% of the global increase) and increases in CS use within health facilities (33·5%), with considerable variation between regions. Based on the most recent data available for each country, 15% of births in 106 (63%) of 169 countries were by CS, whereas 47 (28%) countries showed CS use in less than 10% of births. National CS use varied from 0·6% in South Sudan to 58·1% in the Dominican Republic. Within-country disparities in CS use were also very large: CS use was almost five times more frequent in births in the richest versus the poorest quintiles in low-income and middle-income countries; markedly high CS use was observed among low obstetric risk births, especially among more educated women in, for example, Brazil and China; and CS use was 1·6 times more frequent in private facilities than in public facilities.

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the effect of maternal active pushing during cesarean section (CS) on postoperative pain, intraoperative discomfort, and the mother’s sense of control and participation. Design A prospective, randomized controlled study. Methods Patients were randomly assigned into two groups. In the Conventional group ( n  = 45), the CS was performed traditionally without maternal pushing. In the Assisted group ( n  = 55), patients were instructed to push during delivery. Outcomes measures included patients’ perceived pressure, pain, and sense of participation. Breastfeeding and postnatal depression were assessed using validated scales, along with maternal and neonatal outcomes, surgeon satisfaction, and operation duration. Results Patients in the Assisted group reported significantly lower fundal pressure intensity (VAS score 3 vs. 5, P  < 0.01) compared to the Conventional group. There was no significant difference in postoperative pain. However, women in the Assisted group reported a greater sense of participation (6 vs. 0, P  < 0.01) and control (4 vs. 0, P  < 0.05) than those in the Conventional group. No significant maternal or neonatal complications were observed. Conclusion Maternal active pushing during CS positively impacted intraoperative experience by reducing perceived pressure and enhancing the sense of control and participation, without adverse effects on maternal or neonatal outcomes. These findings support further research with larger, multi-center studies to validate the potential benefits of this approach. Trial Registration NCT05520580 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05520580 ).

Background Most German hospitals do not offer a trial of labour after two caesarean sections (TOLA2C). TOLA2C is claimed to be associated with too many complications, above all the high risk of uterine rupture. The objective of this study is to review our experience with TOLA2C, with special attention paid to the risk and probability of uterine ruptures. Secondary outcomes include comparing neonatal and maternal outcomes in the group of TOLA2C with the group of elective repeat caesarean section (ERCS) and to assess the success rate for vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC-2). Methods The retrospective cohort study was conducted in a community hospital in North Rhine-Westphalia. Inclusion criteria were all pregnant women with two caesarean sections in their medical history, with a current vertex singleton pregnancy and the absence of morphological abnormalities of the foetus, who gave birth in our facility between January 2015 and June 2021. Descriptive statistics were calculated and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Fishers exact tests, Chi 2 –tests and t-tests for independent samples were performed. Results A total of 91 cases were included in the TOLA2C-group. These were compared to 99 cases that, within the same time frame, had an elective repeat caesarean section (ERCS-group). There was no statistically significant difference found in the neonatal outcome between the two groups (except for the neonatal pH-value: p 0.024). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TOLA2C-group, while maternal complication rates were almost similar (13.2% in the TOLA2C-Group, vs. 16.2% in the ERCS-Group). The success rate for TOLA2C was 55%. No complete uterine rupture was found, but in three cases an incomplete rupture (3.3% rate for incomplete uterine ruptures) occurred, but had no influence on the neonatal outcome. Conclusion TOLA2C is not associated with a worse maternal or neonatal outcome compared to ERCS, and especially the risk of complete uterine ruptures seems to be low. TOLA2C should be more widely offered to suitable patients who are motivated for it.

Background Both a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) and elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD) are reasonable choices after a cesarean delivery, with differing risks and benefits. This study explores the impact of patient health literacy and primary language on the decision to pursue a TOLAC and on decision quality. Methods This is a secondary analysis of the Prior Cesarean Decision (PROCEED) trial, which examined the effect of a patient-centered decision support tool on rates of TOLAC and decision quality. Logistic regression was performed to estimate the association of limited health literacy (Newest Vital Sign score ≤4/6) and non-English primary language (NEPL) with TOLAC. Decision quality was assessed by calculating mean scores for decision-quality scales and using linear regression to estimate adjusted mean differences (aMD) by health literacy and NEPL. Results Among 1455 participants, 44.6% underwent TOLAC, and 71.0% of those with a TOLAC had a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Limited health literacy was associated with lower odds of TOLAC (aOR 0.60, 95% CI [0.38, 0.93]). For decision quality, limited health literacy was associated with similar scores for decisional conflict, shared decision-making, decision self-efficacy and decision satisfaction, but lower knowledge scores (3.9 vs. 5.4; aMD -0.7, 95% CI [-1.0, -0.5]). Compared to participants whose primary language was English ( n =1043), those with NEPL ( n =255) had similar odds of TOLAC (aOR 1.08, 95% CI [0.69, 1.68]), but greater decisional conflict (20.9 vs. 16.7; aMD 3.9, 95% CI [1.4, 6.3]) and lower decision self-efficacy (88.6 vs. 90.9; aMD -3.3, 95% CI [-5.6, -1.1]) and decision satisfaction (4.6 vs. 4.7; aMD −0.1, 95% CI [-0.2, 0.0]). Conclusions In this study of pregnant people with a prior cesarean and no prior VBAC, those with limited health literacy had lower odds of TOLAC and lower knowledge scores about risks and benefits of TOLAC vs. ERCD. While those with NEPL had similar odds of TOLAC, they had lower decision quality scores compared to those with those with English as a primary language. These findings indicate factors that may result in less effective counseling related to delivery options after prior cesarean and may contribute to differences in approach to delivery and decision quality.

Optimising the use of caesarean section (CS) is of global concern. Underuse leads to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Conversely, overuse of CS has not shown benefits and can create harm. Worldwide, the frequency of CS continues to increase, and interventions to reduce unnecessary CSs have shown little success. Identifying the underlying factors for the continuing increase in CS use could improve the efficacy of interventions. In this Series paper, we describe the factors for CS use that are associated with women, families, health professionals, and health-care organisations and systems, and we examine behavioural, psychosocial, health system, and financial factors. We also outline the type and effects of interventions to reduce CS use that have been investigated. Clinical interventions, such as external cephalic version for breech delivery at term, vaginal breech delivery in appropriately selected women, and vaginal birth after CS, could reduce the frequency of CS use. Approaches such as labour companionship and midwife-led care have been associated with higher proportions of physiological births, safer outcomes, and lower health-care costs relative to control groups without these interventions, and with positive maternal experiences, in high-income countries. Such approaches need to be assessed in middle-income and low-income countries. Educational interventions for women should be complemented with meaningful dialogue with health professionals and effective emotional support for women and families. Investing in the training of health professionals, eliminating financial incentives for CS use, and reducing fear of litigation is fundamental. Safe, private, welcoming, and adequately resourced facilities are needed. At the country level, effective medical leadership is essential to ensure CS is used only when indicated. We conclude that interventions to reduce overuse must be multicomponent and locally tailored, addressing women's and health professionals' concerns, as well as health system and financial factors.