2019
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-019-02029-3
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cesarean delivery to prevent anal incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
1
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
0
2
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the literature addresses more the in uence of types of delivery on the occurrence of AI [24][25], in the present study the number of vaginal and cesarean deliveries had no signi cant difference between the groups of elderly women with and without AI. However, another factor associated with AI in elderly women in this study was the number of pregnancies.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 66%
“…Although the literature addresses more the in uence of types of delivery on the occurrence of AI [24][25], in the present study the number of vaginal and cesarean deliveries had no signi cant difference between the groups of elderly women with and without AI. However, another factor associated with AI in elderly women in this study was the number of pregnancies.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 66%
“…We sought to identify the presence of SUI or POP as measured by validated questionnaires and/or pelvic exam. Anal incontinence was excluded from the model, as rates of this condition are very low after both modes of delivery, and have not been found to be significantly lower after cesarean delivery 20–22 . Cohort studies that provided prevalence to allow for attributable risk calculations for specific mode of delivery were summarized and the results were averaged.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Anal incontinence was excluded from the model, as rates of this condition are very low after both modes of delivery, and have not been found to be significantly lower after cesarean delivery. [20][21][22] Cohort studies that provided prevalence to allow for attributable risk calculations for specific mode of delivery were summarized and the results were averaged. As the true prevalence of PFDs can overestimate rates of surgery for PFDs, we also found estimated rates of surgery for PFDs following each mode of delivery.…”
Section: Risk Of Future Pfds and Surgerymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ebenso konnten sie eine erhöhte Rate einer Analinkontinenz bei vaginal-operativen Entbindungen im Vergleich zur Spontanentbindung nachweisen (OR 1,47; KI 1,22-1,78, wobei eine statistisch signifikante Aussage nur zur Forceps-Ent-bindung gezeigt werden konnte (OR 1,5; KI 1,19-1,89), während dies für die Vakuum-Entbindung (OR 1,31; KI 0,97-1,77) nicht gelang. In anderen Untersuchungen und Metaanalysen zeigte sich keine Reduktion der Inzidenz der Analinkontinenz nach Kaiserschnittentbindung im Vergleich zur vaginalen Entbindung [8,11].…”
Section: Analinkontinenzunclassified