Cesarean Delivery Uptake Trends Associated With Patient Features and Threshold for Labor Anomalies

Effect of type III female genital mutilation on obstetric outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Despite the large sample size reported in the pooled analysis, confidence intervals remain wide for some rare outcomes. Publication bias assessment was not produced due to the limited number of studies (less than 10) available for each investigated outcome [ 45 ]. Significant variability in statistical heterogeneity was noticed in the pooled data effect sizes of the outcomes, with I 2 values ranging from 0 % to 98 %.…”

Misgav‐Ladach or modified Misgav‐Ladach versus Pfannenstiel‐Kerr methods for cesarean deliveries: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…This novel approach underscores the critical importance of conducting personalised risk assessments within a continuous framework. 53 Consequently, this prompts contemplation regarding the potential need for tailoring specific interventions in accordance with individual patient characteristics. While the findings of the present meta-analysis remain relevant to the existing cesarean section guidelines, it is conceivable that, in the future, certain surgical methods may find heightened relevance in situations that account for both the short-term and long-term desires of the mother, as well as her unique birthing plan and overall health.…”

Does intrapartum epidural analgesia influence rate of emergency delivery for fetal compromise?

“…Small‐for‐gestational‐age fetuses often exhibit labor‐related CTG abnormalities 16 , possibly due to higher rates of labor induction, higher EDA use and greater propensity to delay pushing efforts in cases receiving EDA, leading to a prolonged second stage of labor and adverse perinatal outcome. A recent framework for assessing the risk of Cesarean section, based on patient characteristics and established labor anomaly thresholds, aims to establish standardized risk definitions 17 . This approach aids appropriate decision‐making, avoiding unnecessary intervention in low‐risk cases and addressing high‐risk cases effectively.…”