Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term

Lavender, Tina, Hofmeyr, G Justus, Neilson, James P, Kingdon, Carol orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-5958-9257 and Gyte, Gillian ML (2012) Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. The Cochrane Library, - (-). pp. 1-18. ISSN 1469-493X

[thumbnail of 2012 Review]
PDF (2012 Review) - Published Version
[thumbnail of 2009 Review]
PDF (2009 Review) - Published Version

Official URL:


Caesarean section rates are progressively rising in many parts of the world. One suggested reason is increasing requests by women for caesarean section in the absence of clear medical indications, such as placenta praevia, HIV infection, contracted pelvis and, arguably, breech presentation or previous caesarean section. The reported benefits of planned caesarean section include greater safety for the baby, less pelvic floor trauma for the mother, avoidance of labour pain and convenience. The potential disadvantages, from observational studies, include increased risk of major morbidity or mortality for the mother, adverse psychological sequelae, and problems in subsequent pregnancies, including uterine scar rupture and greater risk of stillbirth and neonatal morbidity. An unbiased assessment of advantages and disadvantages would assist discussion of what has become a contentious issue in modern obstetrics.

To assess, from randomised trials, the effects on perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, and on maternal psychological morbidity, of planned caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth in women with no clear clinical indication for caesarean section.

Search methods:
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (April 2009).

Selection criteria:
All comparisons of intention to perform caesarean section and intention for women to give birth vaginally; random allocation to treatment and control groups; adequate allocation concealment; women at term with single fetuses with cephalic presentations and no clear medical indication for caesarean section.

Data collection and analysis:
We identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.

Main results:
There were no included trials.

Authors' conclusions:
There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials, upon which to base any practice recommendations regarding planned caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. In the absence of trial data, there is an urgent need for a systematic review of observational studies and a synthesis of qualitative data to better assess the short- and long-term effects of caesarean section and vaginal birth.

Repository Staff Only: item control page