Comparison of different cesarean delivery techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis
More details
Hide details
Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Kazakh National Medical University, Almaty, KAZAKHSTAN
Online publication date: 2023-08-20
Publication date: 2023-11-01
Electron J Gen Med 2023;20(6):em539
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis study was to compare various caesarean delivery methods.

A search for available articles published since January 2023 was accomplished in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane literature databases. The search method that encompassed all pertinent publications was developed using terms from the medical subject headings thesaurus and keywords from related literature. We also used the PICO method (where P is population, I is intervention, C is comparator/control, and O is outcome for our study) to establish research question. Whereas Cochrane handbook of “systematic reviews of interventions” was used for risk of bias assessment.

The results showed a significant difference in patient gratification between the gentle/natural/skin-to-skin contact caesarean and the traditional/conventional/standard caesarean. In assessing the satisfaction with delivery mode, the mean variance for these studies similarly revealed a significant difference between the natural caesarean and the conventional one. A skin-to-skin contact caesarean delivery takes less time to start nursing than a conventional delivery, according to the results of the study on the time of breastfeeding initiation after a natural caesarean. There was a low-risk bias among the selected studies.

As a result of greater satisfaction with delivering experience the natural caesarean delivery was most preferred method. The enhanced skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding suggested that natural caesarean is beneficial over the conventional method.

de Alba-Romero C, Camaño-Gutiérrez I, López-Hernández P, et al. Postcesarean section skin-to-skin contact of mother and child. J Hum Lact. 2014;30(3):283-6. PMid:24847031.
Magee SR, Battle C, Morton J, Nothnagle M. Promotion of family-centered birth with gentle cesarean delivery. J Am Board Fam Med. 2014;27(5):690-3. PMid:25201938.
Smith J, Plaat F, Fisk NM. The natural caesarean: A woman-centred technique. BJOG. 2008;115(8):1037-42. PMid:18651885 PMCid:PMC2613254.
Armbrust R, Hinkson L, von Weizsäcker K, Henrich W. The Charité cesarean birth: A family orientated approach of cesarean section. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(1): 163-8. PMid:25572878.
Bronsgeest K, Wolters VE, Freeman LM, Te Pas AB, Kreijen-Meinesz JH, Boers KE. Post-operative wound infections after the gentle caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;241:131-2. PMid:30879842.
Zafran N, Abd Elgani S, Garmi G, et al. The impact of “natural” cesarean delivery on peripartum maternal blood loss. A randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(1):S630.
Posthuma S, Korteweg FJ, van der Ploeg JM, de Boer HD, Buiter HD, van der Ham DP. Risks and benefits of the skin-to-skin cesarean section–A retrospective cohort study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(2):159-63. PMid:26955857.
Narayen IC, Mulder EE, Boers KE, et al. Neonatal safety of elective family-centered caesarean sections: A cohort study. Front Pediatr. 2018;6:20. PMid:29484289 PMCid:PMC5816568.
Moran-Peters JA, Zauderer CR, Goldman S, Baierlein J, Smith AE. A quality improvement project focused on women’s perceptions of skin-to-skin contact after cesarean birth. Nurs Womens Health. 2014;18(4):294-303. PMid:25145718.
Barrie A, Nicoll AE. Maternal and neonatal outcomes following “natural” caesarean section. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2012;97:A86.
Moore ER, Bergman N, Anderson GC, Medley N. Early skin-to-skin contact for mothers and their healthy newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11(11):CD003519.
McClellan MS, Cabianca WA. Effects of early mother-infant contact following cesarean birth. Obstet Gynecol. 1980;56(1):52-5.
Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Driscoll AK, Drake P. Births: Final data for 2016. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018;67(1):1-55.
Owens CD, Stoessel K. Surgical site infections: Epidemiology, microbiology and prevention. J Hosp Infect. 2008;70(Suppl 2):3-10. PMid:19022115.
Wloch C, Wilson J, Lamagni T, Harrington P, Charlett A, Sheridan E. Risk factors for surgical site infection following caesarean section in England: Results from a multicentre cohort study. BJOG. 2012;119(11):1324-33. PMid:22857605.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1-9.
Juan J, Zhang X, Wang X, et al. Association between skin-to-skin contact duration after caesarean section and breastfeeding outcomes. Children (Basel). 2022;9(11):1742. PMid:36421190 PMCid:PMC9688907.
Radtke L, Dukatz R, Biele C, et al. Charité caesarean birth improves birth experience in planned and unplanned caesarean sections while maintaining maternal and neonatal safety: A prospective cohort study. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2022;49(6):124.
Zheng Y, Xia Y, Ye W, Zheng C. The effect of skin-to-skin contact on postoperative depression and physical recovery of parturients after cesarean section in obstetrics and gynecology department. Comput Math Methods Med. 2022;2022:9927805. PMid:35103074 PMCid:PMC8800602.
Kram JJ, Montgomery MO, Moreno ACP, Romdenne TA, Forgie MM. Family-centered cesarean delivery: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2021;3(6):100472. PMid:34454161.
Abdelmenem EE, Ahmed MH, Belal GAES. Effect of early maternal and newborn skin to skin contact after birth on the duration of third stage of labor and initiation of breastfeeding. Tanta Sci Nurs J. 2019;17(2):123-47.
Crenshaw JT, Adams ED, Gilder RE, DeButy K, Scheffer KL. Effects of skin-to-skin care during cesareans: A quasiexperimental feasibility/pilot study. Breastfeed Med. 2019;14(10):731-43. PMid:31738574 PMCid:PMC6918851.
Onsea J, Bijnens B, Van Damme S, Van Mieghem T. Exploring parental expectations and experiences around “gentle” and “standard” caesarean section. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2018;83(5):437-42. PMid:29141244.
Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
Schorn MN, Moore E, Spetalnick BM, Morad A. Implementing family-centered cesarean birth. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2015;60(6):682-90. PMid:26618328.
Brady K, Bulpitt D, Chiarelli C. An interprofessional quality improvement project to implement maternal/infant skin-to-skin contact during cesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2014;43(4):488-96. PMid:24981767 PMCid:PMC4491370.
Stevens J, Schmied V, Burns E, Dahlen H. Immediate or early skin-to-skin contact after a Caesarean section: A review of the literature. Matern Child Nutr. 2014;10(4):456-73. PMid:24720501 PMCid:PMC6860199.
Safari K, Saeed AA, Hasan SS, Moghaddam-Banaem L. The effect of mother and newborn early skin-to-skin contact on initiation of breastfeeding, newborn temperature and duration of third stage of labor. Int Breastfeed J. 2018;13(1):1-8. PMid:30026787 PMCid:PMC6048813.
Lau Y, Tha PH, Ho-Lim SST, et al. An analysis of the effects of intrapartum factors, neonatal characteristics, and skin-to-skin contact on early breastfeeding initiation. Matern Child Nutr. 2018;14(1):e12492. PMid:28799193 PMCid:PMC6866048.
Cooijmans KH, Beijers R, Brett BE, de Weerth C. Daily skin-to-skin contact in full-term infants and breastfeeding: Secondary outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Matern Child Nutr. 2022;18(1):e13241. PMid:34236131 PMCid:PMC8710110.
Victora CG, Bahl R, Barros AJ, et al. Breastfeeding in the 21st century: Epidemiology, mechanisms, and lifelong effect. Lancet. 2016;387(10017):475-90. PMid:26869575.
Campbell-Yeo M, Johnston CC, Benoit B, et al. Sustained efficacy of kangaroo care for repeated painful procedures over neonatal intensive care unit hospitalization: A single-blind randomized controlled trial. Pain. 2019;160(11):2580-8. PMid:31356452.
Mazumder S, Taneja S, Dube B, et al. Effect of community-initiated kangaroo mother care on survival of infants with low birthweight: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10210):1724-36. PMid:31590989.
Practice CoO. Committee opinion no. 687: Approaches to limit intervention during labor and birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(2):e20-8.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top