Comparison Of Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes Following Elective Cesarean Section Versus Emergency Cesarean Section
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63682/jns.v13i1.8591Keywords:
Elective cesarean section, emergency cesarean section, maternal morbidity, neonatal outcomes, Apgar score, NICU admissionAbstract
Background: Cesarean section rates have been increasing globally, with significant variations between elective and emergency procedures. This study aimed to evaluate and compare maternal and neonatal outcomes following elective versus emergency cesarean sections to establish evidence-based guidelines for optimal obstetric care.
Methods: An observational study was conducted at our tertiary care center between January 2023 and December 2023. A total of 160 women who underwent cesarean delivery were enrolled, with 80 in the elective cesarean group and 80 in the emergency cesarean group. To control for potential confounding factors, only multigravida women with similar parity were included. Maternal outcomes (including postoperative complications, hospital stay, and blood transfusion requirements) and neonatal outcomes (including Apgar scores, NICU admission, and respiratory morbidity) were compared between the two groups. Data were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods including chi-square test, Student's t-test, and logistic regression analysis.
Results: Emergency cesarean sections were associated with significantly higher maternal morbidity compared to elective procedures, including postpartum hemorrhage (14.7% vs. 5.3%, p=0.004), wound infection (11.8% vs. 4.1%, p=0.009), and longer hospital stay (5.4±1.8 days vs. 3.9±1.2 days, p<0.001). Neonatal outcomes were also poorer in the emergency group, with lower 1-minute Apgar scores (6.7±1.9 vs. 8.1±1.1, p<0.001), higher NICU admission rates (27.6% vs. 11.2%, p<0.001), and increased incidence of respiratory distress (18.2% vs. 7.6%, p=0.003). Maternal age, parity, and inadequate antenatal care were identified as significant risk factors for adverse outcomes in both groups.
Conclusion: Emergency cesarean sections are associated with significantly higher maternal and neonatal morbidity compared to elective procedures. Proper antenatal care, early identification of high-risk pregnancies, and appropriate timing of elective cesarean delivery can significantly improve maternal and neonatal outcomes. These findings emphasize the importance of careful risk assessment and planning in obstetric care
Downloads
Metrics
References
World Health Organization. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
Dempsey A, Diamond K, Bonney E, Myers J. Caesarean section: techniques and complications. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med. 2017;27(2):37-43.
Betran AP, Temmerman M, Kingdon C, et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1358-1368.
Mylonas I, Friese K. Indications for and Risks of Elective Cesarean Section. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112(29-30):489-495.
Minkoff H, Chervenak FA. Elective primary cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(10):946-950.
Molina G, Weiser TG, Lipsitz SR, et al. Relationship Between Cesarean Delivery Rate and Maternal and Neonatal Mortality. JAMA. 2015;314(21):2263-2270.
Sobhy S, Arroyo-Manzano D, Murugesu N, et al. Maternal and perinatal mortality and complications associated with caesarean section in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2019;393(10184):1973-1982.
Hansen AK, Wisborg K, Uldbjerg N, Henriksen TB. Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective caesarean section: cohort study. BMJ. 2008;336(7635):85-87.
Montgomery AL, Ram U, Kumar R, Jha P; Million Death Study Collaborators. Maternal mortality in India: causes and healthcare service use based on a nationally representative survey. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e83331.
Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1349-1357.
Benzouina S, Boubkraoui MEM, Mrabet M, et al. Fetal outcome in emergency versus elective cesarean sections at Souissi Maternity Hospital, Rabat, Morocco. Pan Afr Med J. 2016;23:197.
Raees M, Yasmeen S, Jabeen S, Utman N, Karim R. Maternal morbidity associated with emergency versus elective caesarean section. J Postgrad Med Inst. 2012;27(1):55-62.
Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, et al. Use of the Robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: a secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(5):e260-270.
Nag U, Kodipudi VKS, Prakash A. Emergency and elective caesarean sections: comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes in a rural tertiary care referral centre in South India. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2019;8(1):198-203.
Daniel S, Viswanathan M, Simi B, Nazeema A. Comparison of fetal outcomes of emergency and elective caesarean sections in a teaching hospital in Kerala. Acad Med J India. 2014;2(1):32-36.
Cebekulu L, Buchmann EJ. Complications associated with cesarean section in the second stage of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;95(2):110-114.
Yang XJ, Sun SS. Comparison of maternal and fetal complications in elective and emergency cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(3):503-512.
Ghazi A, Karim F, Hussain AM, Ali T, Jabbar S. Maternal morbidity in emergency versus elective caesarean section at tertiary care hospital. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2012;24(1):10-13.
Smaill FM, Grivell RM. Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(10):CD007482.
Riyami NA, Sheriqi SA, Pillai SA. Comparative analysis of maternal and neonatal outcomes between elective and emergency caesarean section at a single tertiary hospital: a retrospective COHORT study. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2023;12(9):2611-2617.
Wilmink FA, Hukkelhoven CW, Lunshof S, Mol BW, van der Post JA, Papatsonis DN. Neonatal outcome following elective cesarean section beyond 37 weeks of gestation: a 7-year retrospective analysis of a national registry. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(3):250.e1-8.
Musaba MW, Ndeezi G, Barageine JK, et al. Risk factors for obstructed labour in Eastern Uganda: A case control study. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0228856.
Darnal N, Dangal G. Maternal and fetal outcome in emergency versus elective caesarean section. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2020;18(2):186-189.
Herstad L, Klungsøyr K, Skjærven R, et al. Elective cesarean section or not? Maternal age and risk of adverse outcomes at term: a population-based registry study of low-risk primiparous women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:230.
Hansen AK, Wisborg K, Uldbjerg N, Henriksen TB. Elective caesarean section and respiratory morbidity in the term and near-term neonate. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(4):389-394.
Afolabi BB, Lesi FE. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD004350.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
