Search

Abstract Background There is worldwide debate about the appropriateness of caesarean sections performed without medical indications. In this analysis, we aim to further investigate the relationship between caesarean section without medical indication and severe maternal outcomes. Methods This is a multicountry, facility-based survey that used a stratified multistage cluster sampling design to obtain a sample of countries and health institutions worldwide. A total of 24 countries and 373 health facilities participated in this study. Data collection took place during 2004 and 2005 in Africa and the Americas and during 2007 and 2008 in Asia. All women giving birth at the facility during the study period were included and had their medical records reviewed before discharge from the hospital. Univariate and multilevel analysis were performed to study the association between each group's mode of delivery and the severe maternal and perinatal outcome. Results A total of 286,565 deliveries were analysed. The overall caesarean section rate was 25.7% and a total of 1.0 percent of all deliveries were caesarean sections without medical indications, either due to maternal request or in the absence of other recorded indications. Compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery, all other modes of delivery presented an association with the increased risk of death, admission to ICU, blood transfusion and hysterectomy, including antepartum caesarean section without medical indications (Adjusted Odds Ratio (Adj OR), 5.93, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI), 3.88 to 9.05) and intrapartum caesarean section without medical indications (Adj OR, 14.29, 95% CI, 10.91 to 18.72). In addition, this association is stronger in Africa, compared to Asia and Latin America. Conclusions Caesarean sections were associated with an intrinsic risk of increased severe maternal outcomes. We conclude that caesarean sections should be performed when a clear benefit is anticipated, a benefit that might compensate for the higher costs and additional risks associated with this operation.

Background: There is worldwide debate about the appropriateness of caesarean sections performed without medical indications. In this analysis, we aim to further investigate the relationship between caesarean section without medical indication and severe maternal outcomes. Methods: This is a multicountry, facility-based survey that used a stratified multistage cluster sampling design to obtain a sample of countries and health institutions worldwide. A total of 24 countries and 373 health facilities participated in this study. Data collection took place during 2004 and 2005 in Africa and the Americas and during 2007 and 2008 in Asia. All women giving birth at the facility during the study period were included and had their medical records reviewed before discharge from the hospital. Univariate and multilevel analysis were performed to study the association between each group's mode of delivery and the severe maternal and perinatal outcome. Results: A total of 286,565 deliveries were analysed. The overall caesarean section rate was 25.7% and a total of 1.0 percent of all deliveries were caesarean sections without medical indications, either due to maternal request or in the absence of other recorded indications. Compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery, all other modes of delivery presented an association with the increased risk of death, admission to ICU, blood transfusion and hysterectomy, including antepartum caesarean section without medical indications (Adjusted Odds Ratio (Adj OR), 5.93, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI), 3.88 to 9.05) and intrapartum caesarean section without medical indications (Adj OR, 14.29, 95% CI, 10.91 to 18.72). In addition, this association is stronger in Africa, compared to Asia and Latin America. Conclusions: Caesarean sections were associated with an intrinsic risk of increased severe maternal outcomes. We conclude that caesarean sections should be performed when a clear benefit is anticipated, a benefit that might compensate for the higher costs and additional risks associated with this operation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is worldwide debate about the appropriateness of caesarean sections performed without medical indications. In this analysis, we aim to further investigate the relationship between caesarean section without medical indication and severe maternal outcomes.Methods: This is a multicountry, facility-based survey that used a stratified multistage cluster sampling design to obtain a sample of countries and health institutions worldwide. A total of 24 countries and 373 health facilities participated in this study. Data collection took place during 2004 and 2005 in Africa and the Americas and during 2007 and 2008 in Asia. All women giving birth at the facility during the study period were included and had their medical records reviewed before discharge from the hospital. Univariate and multilevel analysis were performed to study the association between each group's mode of delivery and the severe maternal and perinatal outcome.Results: A total of 286,565 deliveries were analysed. The overall caesarean section rate was 25.7% and a total of 1.0 percent of all deliveries were caesarean sections without medical indications, either due to maternal request or in the absence of other recorded indications. Compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery, all other modes of delivery presented an association with the increased risk of death, admission to ICU, blood transfusion and hysterectomy, including antepartum caesarean section without medical indications (Adjusted Odds Ratio (Adj OR), 5.93, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI), 3.88 to 9.05) and intrapartum caesarean section without medical indications (Adj OR, 14.29, 95% CI, 10.91 to 18.72). In addition, this association is stronger in Africa, compared to Asia and Latin America.Conclusions: Caesarean sections were associated with an intrinsic risk of increased severe maternal outcomes. We conclude that caesarean sections should be performed when a clear benefit is anticipated, a benefit that might compensate for the higher costs and additional risks associated with this operation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgical options for treating stress urinary incontinence (SUI) are usually explored after conservative interventions have failed. Surgeries fall into two categories: traditional techniques (open surgery) and minimally invasive procedures, such as laparoscopic procedures, midurethral sling and injections with urethral bulking agents. Postsurgery infections, such as infections of the surgical site or urinary tract, are common complications. To minimise the risk of postoperative bacterial infections, prophylactic antibiotics may be given before or during surgery.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotics for preventing infection following continence surgery in women with stress urinary incontinence.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP; and handsearched journals and conference proceedings to 18 March 2021. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing prophylactic antibiotics in women undergoing continence surgery to treat SUI., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors selected potentially eligible trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and as mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We identified one quasi-RCT and two RCTs, involving a total of 390 women. One study performed retropubic urethropexy surgery requiring a transverse suprapubic incision, while the other two studies performed midurethral sling surgery. It should be noted that none of the included studies clearly specified the timing of outcome assessment. We are very uncertain whether prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin) have an effect on surgical site infections (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.03 to 12.35; 2 studies, 85 women; very low-certainty evidence) or urinary tract infections or bacteriuria (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.05 to 13.24; 2 studies, 85 women; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin) on febrile morbidity is also uncertain (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.29; 2 studies, 85 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin) have any effect on mesh exposure (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.61; 1 study, 59 women; very low-certainty evidence). None of the three included studies described the assessment of adverse events from antibiotic use, sepsis or bacteraemia in their reports., Authors' Conclusions: Only limited data are available from the three included studies and, overall, the certainty of evidence was very low. Moreover, the three included studies evaluated different surgical procedures and dosages of antibiotic administration. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection following anti-incontinence surgery. In addition, there were no data regarding adverse effects of prophylactic antibiotics. More RCTs are required., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Associations between anaesthetic techniques and pregnancy outcomes were assessed among 129,742 pregnancies delivered by caesarean section (CS) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) using two WHO databases. Anaesthesia was categorized as general anaesthesia (GA) and neuraxial anaesthesia (NA). Outcomes included maternal death (MD), maternal near miss (MNM), severe maternal outcome (SMO), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, early neonatal death (END), neonatal near miss (NNM), severe neonatal outcome (SNO), Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, and neonatal ICU (NICU) admission. A two-stage approach of individual participant data meta-analysis was used to combine the results. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were presented. Compared to GA, NA were associated with decreased odds of MD (pooled OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.10, 0.78), MNM (pooled OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.21, 0.31), SMO (pooled OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.20,0.28), ICU admission (pooled OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.13, 0.22), NNM (pooled OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.55, 0.73), SNO (pooled OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.48, 0.63), Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes (pooled OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.29, 0.43), and NICU admission (pooled OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.45, 0.62). NA therefore was associated with decreased odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes in LMICs.

Background: As a retained placenta is a potential life-threatening obstetrical complication, effective and timely management is important. The estimated mortality rates from a retained placenta in developing countries range from 3% to 9%. One possible factor contributing to the high mortality rates is a delay in initiating manual removal of the placenta. Effective anaesthesia or analgesia during this procedure will provide adequate uterine relaxation and pain control, enabling it to be carried out effectively., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of general, regional, and local anaesthesia or analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta., Search Methods: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 30 September 2019, and reference lists of retrieved studies., Selection Criteria: We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster-randomised trials that compared different methods of preoperative or intraoperative anaesthetic or analgesic, administered during the manual removal of a retained placenta., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the study reports for inclusion, and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We followed standard Cochrane methodology., Main Results: We identified only one randomised controlled trial (N = 30 women) that evaluated the effect of paracervical block on women undergoing manual removal of a retained placenta compared with intravenous pethidine and diazepam. The study was conducted in a hospital in Papua New Guinea. The study was at high risk of bias of performance bias and detection bias, low risk of attrition bias, and an unclear risk of selection bias, reporting bias, and other bias. The included study did not measure this review's primary outcomes of pain intensity and adverse events. The study reported that there were no women, in either group, who experienced an estimated postpartum blood loss of more than 500 mL. We are uncertain about the providers' satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 3.16, one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). We are also uncertain about the women's satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.37; one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). The included study did not report on any of our other outcomes of interest., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence from one small study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anaesthesia or analgesia during the manual removal of a retained placenta. The quality of the available evidence was very low. We downgraded based on issues of limitations in study design (risk of bias) and imprecision (single study with small sample size, few or no events, and wide confidence intervals). There is a need for well-designed, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of anaesthesia and analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta. These studies could report on the important outcomes outlined in this review., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Many studies have been conducted to examine whether Caesarean Section (CS) or vaginal birth (VB) was optimal for better maternal and neonatal outcomes in preterm births. However, findings remain unclear. Therefore, this secondary analysis of World Health Organization Global Survey (GS) and Multi-country Survey (MCS) databases was conducted to investigate outcomes of preterm birth by mode of delivery. Our sample were women with singleton neonates (15,471 of 237 facilities from 21 countries in GS; and 15,053 of 239 facilities from 21 countries in MCS) delivered between 22 and <37 weeks of gestation. We assessed association between mode of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in singleton preterm births by multilevel logistic regression adjusted for hierarchical data. The prevalences of women with preterm birth delivered by CS were 31.0% and 36.7% in GS and MCS, respectively. Compared with VB, CS was associated with significantly increased odds of maternal intensive care unit admission, maternal near miss, and neonatal intensive care unit admission but significantly decreased odds of fresh stillbirth, and perinatal death. However, since the information on justification for mode of delivery (MOD) were not available, our results of the potential benefits and harms of CS should be carefully considered when deciding MOD in preterm births.

Objective: Antibiotics are commonly prescribed in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) for suspected sepsis because of the nonspecific clinical symptoms of sepsis. The overuse of antibiotic is associated with adverse outcomes. This study aimed to determine the rate of early-onset sepsis (EOS) and antibiotic use in neonates admitted to three NICUs in Northeast Thailand STUDY DESIGN:  This is a descriptive study using the data collected in the South East Asia-Using Research for Change in Hospital-acquired Infection in Neonates project. Neonates admitted within 3 days of life were included. EOS was defined as neonates who presented with three or more clinical signs or laboratory results suggested sepsis and received antibiotics for at least 5 days. Those with positive blood culture were culture-proven EOS. Antibiotic use within 3 days of life and up to 28 days was described., Results: Among 1,897 neonates, 160 cases were classified as EOS (8.4%) with culture-proven EOS in 4 cases (0.2%). The median durations of antibiotic use in culture-proven and culture-negative EOSs were 15 and 8 days, respectively., Conclusion: The rate of culture-proven EOS was low, but there was a high rate of antibiotic use. Antibiotic stewardship should be emphasized., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Secondary analysis of World Health Organization Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health (WHOMCS) was undertaken among 173,124 multiparous women to assess the association between previous caesarean sections (CS) and pregnancy outcomes. Maternal outcomes included maternal near miss (MNM), maternal death (MD), severe maternal outcomes (SMO), abnormal placentation, and uterine rupture. Neonatal outcomes were stillbirth, early neonatal death, perinatal death, neonatal near miss (NNM), neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, and preterm birth. Previous CS was associated with increased risks of uterine rupture (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR); 7.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.48, 10.92); morbidly adherent placenta (aOR 2.60; 95% CI 1.98, 3.40), MNM (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 1.59, 2.28), SMO (aOR 1.80; 95% CI 1.52, 2.13), placenta previa (aOR 1.76; 95% CI 1.49, 2.07). For neonatal outcomes, previous CS was associated with increased risks of NICU admission (aOR 1.31; 95% CI 1.23, 1.39), neonatal near miss (aOR 1.19; 95% CI 1.12, 1.26), preterm birth (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01, 1.14), and decreased risk of macerated stillbirth (aOR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67, 0.95). Previous CS was associated with serious morbidity in future pregnancies. However, these findings should be cautiously interpreted due to lacking data on indications of previous CS.

Background: 2500 g has been used worldwide as the definition of low birthweight (LBW) for almost a century. While previous studies have used statistical approaches to define LBW cutoffs, a LBW definition using an outcome-based approach has not been evaluated. We aimed to identify an outcome-based definition of LBW for live births in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), using data from a WHO cross-sectional survey on maternal and perinatal health outcomes in 23 countries., Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of all singleton live births in the WHO Global Survey (WHOGS) on Maternal and Perinatal Health, conducted in African and Latin American countries (2004-2005) and Asian countries (2007-2008). We used a two-level logistic regression model to assess the risk of early neonatal mortality (ENM) associated with subgroups of birthweight (< 1500 g, 1500-2499 g with 100 g intervals; 2500-3499 g as the reference group). The model adjusted for potential confounders, including maternal complications, gestational age at birth, mode of birth, fetal presentation and facility capacity index (FCI) score. We presented adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A lower CI limit of at least two was used to define a clinically important definition of LBW., Results: We included 205,648 singleton live births at 344 facilities in 23 LMICs. An aOR of at least 2.0 for the ENM outcome was observed at birthweights below 2200 g (aOR 3.8 (95% CI; 2.7, 5.5) of 2100-2199 g) for the total population. For Africa, Asia and Latin America, the 95% CI lower limit aORs of at least 2.0 were observed when birthweight was lower than 2200 g (aOR 3.6 (95% CI; 2.0, 6.5) of 2100-2199 g), 2100 g (aOR 7.4 (95% CI; 5.1, 10.7) of 2000-2099 g) and 2200 g (aOR 6.1 (95% CI; 3.4, 10.9) of 2100-2199 g) respectively., Conclusion: A birthweight of less than 2200 g may be an outcome-based threshold for LBW in LMICs. Regional-specific thresholds of low birthweight (< 2200 g in Africa, < 2100 g in Asia and < 2200 g in Latin America) may also be warranted.

Background: Postpartum mini-laparotomy tubal ligation (PPTL) is a contraceptive method that works by interrupting the patency of the fallopian tubes. Several methods are used for intraoperative pain relief, such as systemic administration of opioids or intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of and adverse effects associated with interventions for pain relief in women undergoing PPTL., Search Methods: We searched for eligible studies published on or before 31 July 2017 in the CENTRAL Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We examined review articles and searched registers of ongoing clinical trials, citation lists of included studies, key textbooks, grey literature, and previous systematic reviews for potentially relevant studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared perioperative pain relief measures during PPTL., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles of potentially relevant studies for inclusion. We extracted the data from the included studies, assessed risk of bias, and calculated and compared results. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author. We computed the inverse variance risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables., Main Results: We found only three RCTs, in which a total of 230 postpartum women participated. Most of our analyses were based on relatively small numbers of patients and studies. Overall, the certainty of evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions was low, due to risk of bias and imprecision. We found very low-certainty evidence regarding the safety of interventions because of risk of bias and imprecision. Two studies had unclear risk of selection bias. One study had unclear risk of reporting bias and a high risk of other bias associated with the study protocol.Women who received an intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine experienced lower intensity intraperitoneal pain than those given a placebo (pooled MD -3.34, 95% CI -4.19 to -2.49, three studies, 190 participants, low-certainty evidence), or an intramuscular injection of morphine (MD -4.8, 95% CI -6.43 to -3.17, one study, 40 participants, low-certainty evidence). We found no clear difference in intraperitoneal pain between women who had an intramuscular injection of morphine added to an intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine and those who had an intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine alone (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.52 to 0.72, one study, 40 participants, low-certainty evidence). An intramuscular injection of morphine alone was not effective for intraperitoneal pain relief compared to placebo (MD 0.50, 95% CI -1.33 to 2.33, one study, 40 women, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported any serious adverse events but the evidence was very low-certainty. Intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine may reduce the number of women requiring additional pain control when compared to placebo (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.44, three studies, 190 women, low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: An intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine during postpartum mini-laparotomy tubal ligation before fallopian tubes were tied may offer better intraperitoneal pain control, although the evidence regarding adverse effects is uncertain. We found no clear difference in intraperitoneal pain between women who received a combination of an injection of morphine, and intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine and those who received an intraperitoneal instillation of lidocaine alone. These results must be interpreted with caution, since the evidence overall was low to very low-certainty.