Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 May 19:72:102632.
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102632. eCollection 2024 Jun.

Evidence-based surgical procedures to optimize caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews

Celina Gialdini  1   2 , Monica Chamillard  1 , Virginia Diaz  1 , Julia Pasquale  1 , Shakila Thangaratinam  3 , Edgardo Abalos  4 , Maria Regina Torloni  5 , Ana Pilar Betran  6
Affiliations
Review

Evidence-based surgical procedures to optimize caesarean outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews

Celina Gialdini et al. EClinicalMedicine. .

Abstract

Background: Caesarean section (CS) is the most performed major surgery worldwide. Surgical techniques used for CS vary widely and there is no internationally accepted standardization. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SR) of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to summarize the evidence on surgical techniques or procedures related to CS.

Methods: Searches were conducted from database inception to 31 January 2024 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, Lilacs and CINAHL without date or language restrictions. AMSTAR 2 and GRADE were used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and the certainty of evidence at outcome level, respectively. We classified each procedure-outcome pair into one of eight categories according to effect estimates and certainty of evidence. The overview was registered at PROSPERO (CRD 42023208306).

Findings: The analysis included 38 SRs (16 Cochrane and 22 non-Cochrane) published between 2004-2024 involving 628 RCT with a total of 190,349 participants. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality (AMSTAR 2). The SRs presented 345 procedure-outcome comparisons (237 procedure versus procedure, 108 procedure versus no treatment/placebo). There was insufficient or inconclusive evidence for 256 comparisons, clear evidence of benefit for 40, possible benefit for 17, no difference of effect for 13, clear evidence of harm for 14, and possible harm for 5. We found no SRs for 7 pre-defined procedures. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine, Joel-Cohen-based abdominal incision, uterine incision with blunt dissection and cephalad-caudal expansion, cord traction for placental extraction, manual cervical dilatation in pre-labour CS, changing gloves, chromic catgut suture for uterine closure, non-closure of the peritoneum, closure of subcutaneous tissue, and negative pressure wound therapy are procedures associated with benefits for relevant outcomes.

Interpretation: Current evidence suggests that several CS surgical procedures improve outcomes but also reveals a lack of or inconclusive evidence for many commonly used procedures. There is an urgent need for evidence-based guidelines standardizing techniques for CS, and trials to fill existing knowledge gaps.

Funding: UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Keywords: Caesarean section; Maternal health; Public health; Surgery; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of the process of identification and selection of systematic reviews on surgical procedures for caesarean section.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Albarqouni L., Abukmail E., MohammedAli M., et al. Low-value surgical procedures in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic scoping review. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(11) doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.42215. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Betran A.P., Ye J., Moller A.B., Souza J.P., Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6) - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baskett T.F. From maternal birth to maternal choice. Redland green farm, redland, bristol, BS6 7HF. Clinical Press Limited; United Kingdom: 2017. A history of caesarean birth.
    1. Dahlke J.D., Mendez-Figueroa H., Rouse D.J., Berghella V., Baxter J.K., Chauhan S.P. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery: an updated systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(4):294–306. - PubMed
    1. CORONIS Collaborative Group, Abalos E., Addo V., et al. Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9888):234–248. - PubMed