title: Caesarean section versus vaginal delivery for preterm birth in singletons.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Planned caesarean delivery for women thought be in preterm labour may be protective for baby, but could also be quite traumatic for both mother and baby. The optimal mode of delivery of preterm babies for both cephalic and breech presentation remains, therefore, controversial.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess the effects of a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth for women in preterm labour.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (5 August 2013).
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomised trials comparing a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery for preterm birth.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We included six studies (involving 122 women) but only four studies (involving only 116 women) contributed data to the analyses. INFANT: There were very little data of relevance to the three main (primary) outcomes considered in this review: There was no significant difference between planned immediate caesarean section and planned vaginal delivery with respect to birth injury to infant (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95%, confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 5.62; one trial, 38 women) or birth asphyxia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.14; one trial, 12 women). The only cases of birth trauma were a laceration of the buttock in a baby who was delivered by caesarean section and mild bruising in another allocated to the group delivered vaginally.The difference between the two groups with regard to perinatal deaths was not significant (0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.14; three trials, 89 women) and there were no data specifically relating to neonatal admission to special care and/or intensive care unit.There was also no difference between the caesarean or vaginal delivery groups in terms of markers of possible birth asphyxia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.14; one trial, 12 women) or Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.60; four trials, 115 women) and no difference in attempts at breastfeeding (RR 1.40, 95% 0.11 to 17.45; one trial, 12 women). There was also no difference in neonatal fitting/seizures (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.32; three trials, 77 women), hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 82.01;one trial, 12 women) or respiratory distress syndrome (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.10; three trials, 103 women). There were no data reported in the trials specifically relating to meconium aspiration. There was also no significant difference between the two groups for abnormal follow-up in childhood (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.22; one trial, 38 women) or delivery less than seven days after entry (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24; two trials, 51 women). MOTHER: There were no data reported on maternal admissions to intensive care. However, there were seven cases of major maternal postpartum complications in the group allocated to planned immediate caesarean section and none in the group randomised to vaginal delivery (RR 7.21, 95% CI 1.37 to 38.08; four trials, 116 women).There were no data reported in the trials specifically relating to maternal satisfaction (postnatal). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to postpartum haemorrhage. A number of non-prespecified secondary outcomes were also considered in the analyses. There was a significant advantage for women in the vaginal delivery group with respect to maternal puerperal pyrexia (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.18 to 7.53; three trials, 89 women) and other maternal infection (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 6.78; three trials, 103 women), but no significant differences in wound infection (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.18 to 7.70; three trials, 103 women), maternal stay more than 10 days (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.65; three trials, 78 women) or the need for blood transfusion (results not estimable).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is not enough evidence to evaluate the use of a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery for preterm babies. Further studies are needed in this area, but recruitment is proving difficult.
authors.affiliation: Department of Women's and Children's Health, The University of Liverpool, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK, L8 7SS.
authors.forename: Zarko
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Alfirevic
authors.forename: Stephen J
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Milan
authors.forename: Stefania
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Livio
mesh_terms: D001720:Birth Injuries / Q000209:etiology; D002585:Cesarean Section / Q000009:adverse effects; D036861:Delivery, Obstetric; D017558:Elective Surgical Procedures; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D007234:Infant, Premature; D007236:Infant, Small for Gestational Age; D007752:Obstetric Labor, Premature; D054238:Perinatal Mortality; D011247:Pregnancy; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000078
references.pmid: 22696314
references.citation: J Reprod Med. 1984 Oct;29(10):736-40
references.pmid: 6512783
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jul 11;(7):CD008968
references.pmid: 22786520
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21;(1):CD004661
references.pmid: 19160238
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000078
references.pmid: 10796117
references.citation: BMJ. 2007 Nov 17;335(7628):1025
references.pmid: 17977819
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Apr;77(4):498-503
references.pmid: 2002969
references.citation: Am J Perinatol. 1993 Jan;10(1):60-3
references.pmid: 8442804
references.citation: Stat Med. 2006 Oct 30;25(20):3443-57
references.pmid: 16345038
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Jun;65(6):818-24
references.pmid: 4000571
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Jul;76(1):16-9
references.pmid: 2359565
references.citation: Birth. 2009 Mar;36(1):26-33
references.pmid: 19278380
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;(3):CD004454
references.pmid: 16856047
references.citation: Asia Oceania J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985 Sep;11(3):349-55
references.pmid: 4084103
references.citation: Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Dec;28(4):763-9
references.pmid: 4075629
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Sep;191(3):864-71
references.pmid: 15467555
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996 Jul;103(7):684-9
references.pmid: 8688396
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(1):CD000078
references.pmid: 11279676
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 1985 Jun;6(2):120-7
references.pmid: 4006485
references.citation: BJOG. 2007 May;114(5):609-13
references.pmid: 17355267
references.citation: BMJ. 2008 Jan 12;336(7635):85-7
references.pmid: 18077440
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(2):CD000078
references.pmid: 11405950
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996 Dec;103(12):1197-200
references.pmid: 8968235
references.citation: JAMA. 2002 Apr 10;287(14):1822-31
references.pmid: 11939868
references.citation: Lancet. 2000 Oct 21;356(9239):1375-83
references.pmid: 11052579
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993 May;100(5):411-5
references.pmid: 8518238
references.citation: BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
references.pmid: 9310563