Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Techniques in Coloproctology
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology 9/2019

01-09-2019 | Fecal Incontinence | Review

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

Authors: R. L. Nelson, C. Go, R. Darwish, J. Gao, R. Parikh, C. Kang, A. Mahajan, L. Habeeb, P. Zalavadiya, M. Patnam

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 9/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Cesarean delivery (CD), is increasingly recommended as a mode of delivery that prevents the anal incontinence (AI) that arises in some women after vaginal delivery (VD). The assessment of the efficacy of CD in this regard was the subject of this systematic review.

Methods

Searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Both randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized trials (NRTs) comparing the risk of sustained fecal and/or flatus incontinence after VD or CD were sought from 1966 to 1 January, 2019. Studies were eligible if they assessed AI more than 6 months after birth, and had statistical adjustment for at least one of the three major confounders for AI: age, maternal weight or parity. In addition, each study was required to contain more than 250 participants, more than 50 CDs and more than 25 cases of AI. Data after screening and selection were abstracted and entered into Revman for meta-analysis. Analyses were done for combined fecal and flatus incontinence (comAI), fecal incontinence (FI), gas incontinence (GI), CD before or during labor, time trend of incontinence after delivery, assessment of both statistical and clinical heterogeneity, parity and late incident AI.

Results

Out of the 2526 titles and abstracts found, 24 eligible studies were analyzed, 23 NRTs and one RCT. These included women with 29,597 VDs and women with 6821 CDs. Among the primary outcomes, VD was found not to be a significant predictor of postpartum comAI compared to CD in 6 studies, incorporating 18,951 deliveries (OR = 0.74; 0.54–1.02). VD was also not a significant predictor of FI in 14 studies, incorporating 29,367 deliveries, (OR = 0.89; 0.76–1.05). VD was not a significant predictor of GI in six studies, incorporating 6724 deliveries (OR = 0.96; 0.79–1.18). The strength of the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations (GRADE) evidence for each of these was low for comAI and moderate for FI and GI (upgrade for lack of expected effect). Time trend FI showed incontinence at 3 months often resolved at 1 year. Other secondary analyses assessing parity, delayed incidence of FI, clinical and statistical heterogeneity, spontaneous VD only, late risk of incidence of AI, and CD in or prior to labor all had similar results as in the primary outcomes.

Conclusions

There are three components of pelvic floor dysfunction that are thought to be caused by VD and hopefully prevented by CD: AI, urinary incontinence and pelvic floor prolapse. Of these, AI was not found to be reliably prevented by CD in this review.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Oberwalder M, Connor J, Wexner SD (2003) Meta-analysis to determine the incidence of obstetric anal sphincter damage. Br J Surg 90:1333–1337PubMed
2.
Nelson RL (2004) Epidemiology of fecal incontinence. Gastroenterol 126:s3–s7
3.
Nelson RL, Furner S, Jesudason V (1998) Fecal incontinence in Wisconsin nursing homes: prevalence and Associations. Dis Colon Rectum 41:1226–1229PubMed
4.
5.
Kepenekci I, Keskinkilic B, Akinsu F, Cakir P, Elhan AH, Erkek AB, Kuzu MA (2011) Prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in the female population and the impact of age, mode of delivery and parity. Dis Colon Rectum 54:85–94PubMed
6.
Jangö H, Langhoff-Roos J, Rosthøj S, Sakse A (2016) Mode of delivery after obstetric anal sphincter injury and the risk of long-term anal incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214(6):733PubMed
7.
8.
Blomquist JL, Muñoz A, Carroll M, Handa VL (2018) Association of delivery mode with pelvic floor disorders after childbirth. JAMA 320(23):2438–2447PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Dolan LM, Hilton P (2010) Obstetric risk factors and pelvic floor dysfunction 20 years after first delivery. Int Urogynecol J 21(5):535–544PubMed
10.
Fritel X, Schaal JP, Fauconnier A, Bertrand V et al (2008) Pelvic floor disorders 4 years after first delivery: a comparative study of restrictive versus systematic episiotomy. BJOG 115(2):247–252PubMed
11.
Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen TF, Milsom I (2018) Faecal incontinence 20 years after one birth: a comparison between vaginal delivery and caesarean section. Int Urogynecol J 25(10):1411–1418
12.
Handa VL, Blomquist JL, Knoepp LR, Hoskey KA, McDermott KC, Munoz A (2011) Pelvic floor disorders 5–10 years after vaginal or cesarean childbirth. Obstet Gynecol 118(4):777–784PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Lucasz ES, Lawrence JM, Contreras R, Nager CW, Luber KM (2006) Parity, mode of delivery and pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol 107:1253–1260
14.
Schei B, Johannessen HH, Rydning A, Sultan A, Mørkved S (2019) Anal incontinence after vaginal delivery or cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 98(1):51–60PubMed
15.
Abramov Y, Sand PK, Botros SM, Goldberg RP et al (2005) Risk factors for female anal incontinence: new insight through the Evanston-Northwestern twin sisters study. Obstet Gynecol 106:726–732PubMed
16.
Altman D, Ekstrom A, Frosgren C, Nordenstam J, Zetterstrom J (2007) Symptoms of anal and urinary incontinence following cesarean section or spontaneous vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:512.e1–e7
17.
Brown SJ, Gartland D, Donath S, MacArthur C (2012) Fecal incontinence during the first 12 months postpartum: complex causal pathways and implications for clinical practice. Obstet Gynecol 119(2 Pt 1):240–249PubMed
18.
Burgio KL, Borello-France D, Richter HE, Fitzgerals MP et al (2007) Risk factors for fecal and urinary incontinence after childbirth: the childbirth and pelvic symptoms study. Am J Gastro 102:1998–2004
19.
Gartland D, MacArthur C, Woolhouse H, McDonald E, Brown SJ (2016) Frequency, severity and risk factors for urinary and faecal incontinence at 4 years postpartum: a prospective cohort. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 123(7):1203–1211
20.
Goldberg RP, Kwon C, Gandhi S, Atkuru LV et al (2003) Prevalence of anal incontinence among mothers of multiples and analysis of risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1627–1631PubMed
21.
Hutton EK, Hannah ME, Willan AR, Ross S, Allen AC, Armson BA et al (2018) Urinary stress incontinence and other maternal outcomes two years after Caesarean or vaginal birth for twin pregnancy: a multicentre randomized trial. BJOG 125(13):1682–1690PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
MacArthur C, Glazener CM, Wilson PD, Herbison GP, Gee H, Lang GD et al (2001) Obstetric practice and faecal incontinence three months after delivery. BJOG 108(7):678–683PubMed
23.
MacArthur C, Glazener CMA, Lancashire R, Herbison P et al (2005) Faecal incontinence and mode of first and subsequent delivery: a six-year longitudinal study. BJOG 112:1075–1082PubMed
24.
MacArthur C, Glazener C, Lancashire R, Herbison P, Wilsond D (2011) Exclusive caesarean section delivery and subsequent urinary and faecal incontinence: a 12-year longitudinal study. BJOG 118(8):1001–1007PubMed
25.
MacLennan AH, Taylor AW, Wilson DH, Wilson D (2000) The prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery. J Obstet Gynecol 107:1460–1470
26.
McKinnie V, Swift S, Wang W, Woodman P, O’Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D, Shaffer J (2005) The effect of pregnancy and mode of delivery on the prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 103(2):512–518
27.
Melville JL, Fan M-Y, Newton K, Fenner D (2005) Fecal incontinence in US women: a population-based study. Obstet Gynecol 193:2071–2076
28.
Rommen K, Schei B, Rydning A, Daltveit AK, Sultan A, Morkved S (2011) Prevalence of fecal incontinence after vaginal deliveries versus caesarean sections. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 17(5):767–768
29.
Varma MG, Brown JS, Creasman JM, Thom DH, van den Eeden SK, Beattie MS, Subak LL (2006) Fecal incontinence in females older than 40 years: who is at risk? Dis Colon Rectum 49(6):841–851PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Volloyhaug I, Morkved S, Salvesen O, Salvesen K (2015) Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence 15–23 years after first delivery: a cross-sectional study. BJOG 122(7):964–971PubMed
31.
Woolhouse H, Perlen S, Gartland D, Brown SJ (2012) Physical health and recovery in the first 18 months postpartum: does cesarean section reduce long-term morbidity? Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) 39(3):221–229
32.
Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hodnett ED et al (2002) Outcomes at 3 months after planned Cesarean vs. planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term. JAMA 287:1822–1831PubMed
33.
Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ, Hewson S, Amankwah K, Cheng M, Gafni A et al (2004) Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized term breech trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:917–927PubMed
34.
Johannessen HH, Wibe A, Stordahl A, Sandvik L, Backe B, Morkved S (2019) Prevalence and predictors of anal incontinence during pregnancy and 1 year after delivery: a prospective cohort study. Neurol Urodyn 38(1):310–319
35.
Goffeng AR, Andersch B, Andersson M, Berndtsson I, Hulten L, Oreslan T (1998) Objective methods cannot predict anal incontinence after primary repair of extensive anal tears. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 77:439–443PubMed
36.
Guttierz AB, Madoff RD, Lowry AC, Parker SC, Buie WD, Baxter NN (2004) Long term results of anterior sphincteroplasty. Dis Colon Rectum 47:727–732
37.
Halverson AN, Hull TL (2002) Long-term outcome of overlapping anal sphincter repair. Dis Colon Rectum 45:345–348PubMed
38.
Karoui S, Leroi AM, Koning E, Menar JF, Michot F, Dens P (2000) Results of sphincteroplasty in 86 patients with anal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 43:813–820PubMed
39.
Malouf AJ, Norton CS, Engel AF, Nicholls RJ, Kamm MA (2000) Long-term results of overlapping anterior anal sphincter repair for obstetrical trauma. Lancet 355:260–265PubMed
40.
Pinta T, Kyaanpaa ML, Salmi T, Jaarvinen HJ, Luukkonen P (2003) Delayed sphincter repair for obstetric ruptures: analysis of failure. Colorectal Dis 5:73–78PubMed
41.
Rothbart J, Bemelman WA, Meijerink WJ (2000) Long term results of anterior anal sphincter repair for rectal incontinence due to obstetric injury. Dig Surg 17:390–394
42.
Vaizey CJ, Norton C, Thornton MJ, Nicholls RJ, Kamm MA (2004) Long term results of repeat anterior anal sphincter repair. Dis Colon Rectum 47:858–863PubMed
43.
Amu O, Rajendran S, Bolaji II (1998) Should doctors perform an elective cesarean section on request? maternal choice alone should not determine method of delivery. BMJ 317:463–465PubMed
44.
Abramatowitz I, Sobhani I, Ganansia R (2000) Are sphincter defects the cause of anal incontinence after vaginal delivery? results of a prospective survey. Dis Colon Rectum 43:590–596
45.
Farrell SA (2002) Cesarean section versus forceps-assisted vaginal birth: it’s time to include pelvic injury in the risk benefit equation. Can Med Assoc J 155:117–118
46.
Faridi FA, Willis S, Schelzig P, Siggelkow W, Schumpelick V, Rath W (2002) Anal sphincter injury during vaginal delivery—an argument for cesarean section on request? Perinat. Med 30:379–387
47.
Guise JM, McDonough MS, Osterwell P, Nygren P, Chan KS, Helfand M (2004) Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous cesarean section. BMJ 329:1–7
48.
Idama TO, Lindow SW (1999) Safest option is still to aim for vaginal delivery. BMJ 318:121PubMed
49.
Zetterstrom J, Lopez A, Anzen B, Dolk A, Norman M, Mellgren A (1999) Anal incontinence after vaginal delivery: a prospective study in primiparous women. Obstete Gynecol 106:324–330
50.
Nygaard IE, Cruickshank FA (2003) Should all women be offered elective cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 102:217–219PubMed
51.
Paterson-Brown S (1998) Should doctors perform an elective caesarean section on request? yes, as long as the woman is fully informed. BMJ 317:462–463PubMed
52.
Lockwood CJ (2004) Cesarean delivery: is it time to embrace elective procedures? Contemp Obstet Gynecol 12:8–10
53.
Minkoff H, Chervenak FA (2003) Elective primary cesarean delivery. N Eng J Med 348:946–950
54.
55.
Declercq E, Menacker F, MacDorman M (2005) Rise on “no indicated risk” primary caesareans in the United States, 1991–2001: cross sectional analysis. BMJ 330:71–73PubMedPubMedCentral
56.
van Roosmalen J (1999) Unnecessary caesarean sections should be avoided. BMJ 318:121PubMed
57.
Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR (2016) The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS One 11(2):e0148343PubMedPubMedCentral
58.
Hsu KH, Liao PJ, Hwang CJ (2008) Factors affecting Taiwanese women’s choice of Cesarean section. Soc Sci Med 66(1):201–209PubMed
59.
Behague DP, Victoria CG, Barros FC (2002) Consumer demand for caesarean sections in Brazil; informed decision making, patient choice or social inequality? a population based birth cohort study linking ethnographic and epidemiological methods. BMJ 321:1–6
60.
Potter JE, Berquo E, Perpetuo IHO, Leal OF, Hopkins K, Souza MR, de Carvalho Formiga MC (2001) Unwanted caesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study. BMJ 323:1155–1158PubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Murray S (2000) Relation between private health insurance and high rates of caesarean section in Chile: qualitative and quantitative study. BMJ 321:1501–1505PubMedPubMedCentral
62.
Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ (2018) Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 15(1):e1002494PubMedPubMedCentral
63.
Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, Gibbons D, Kelly NM, Kennedy HP, Kidanto H, Taylor P, Temmerman M (2018) Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet 392(10155):1349–1357PubMed
64.
65.
Nelson RL, Furner SE, Westercamp M, Farquhar C (2010) Cesarean delivery for the prevention of anal incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD006756
66.
Pretlove SJ, Thompson PJ, Toozs-Hobson PM, Radley S, Khan KS (2008) Does the mode of delivery predispose women to anal incontinence in the first year postpartum? A comparative systematic review. BJOG 115(4):421–434PubMed
67.
Rørtveit G, Hannestad YS (2014) Association between mode of delivery and pelvic floor dysfunction. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 134(19):1848–1852PubMed
68.
Tähtinen RM, Cartwright R, Tsui JF, Aaltonen RL, Aoki Y, Cárdenas JL, El Dib R, Joronen KM, Al Juaid S, Kalantan S, Kochana M, Kopec M, Lopes LC, Mirza E, Oksjoki SM, Pesonen JS, Valpas A, Wang L, Zhang Y, Heels-Ansdell D, Guyatt GH, Tikkinen KAO (2016) Long-term impact of mode of delivery on stress urinary incontinence and urgency urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 70(1):148–158PubMedPubMedCentral
69.
Shorten A (2007) Maternal and neonatal effects of caesarean section; more accurate estimates of benefits and harms are needed to support informed childbirth choices. BMJ 335:1003–1004PubMedPubMedCentral
70.
Tilbrook H (2009) Patients’ preferences within randomized trial: systematic review and patient level meta-analysis. BMJ 338:85–88
71.
Turner CE, Young JM, Solomon MJ, Ludlow Bennes C, Phipps H (2008) Willingness of pregnant women and clinicians to participate in a hypothetical randomized controlled trial comparing vaginal delivery and elective caesarean section. Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynecol 48:542–546
72.
Lavender T, Kingdon C, Hart A, Gyte G, Gabbay M, Neilson JP (2005) Could a randomized trial answer the controversy relating to elective caesarean section? National survey of consultant obstetricians and heads of midwifery. BMJ 331:490–491PubMedPubMedCentral
73.
Kotaska A (2004) Inappropriate us of randomized trials to evaluate complex phenomena: a case study. BMJ 329:1039–1042PubMedPubMedCentral
74.
75.
Whitehead WE, Borrud L, Goode PS, Meikle S, Mueller ER, Tuteja A, Weidner A, Weinstein M, Ye W (2009) Pelvic floor disorders network. Fecal incontinence in US adults: epidemiology and risk factors. Gastroenterology 137(2):512–517PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Cesarean delivery to prevent anal incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
R. L. Nelson
C. Go
R. Darwish
J. Gao
R. Parikh
C. Kang
A. Mahajan
L. Habeeb
P. Zalavadiya
M. Patnam
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 9/2019
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02029-3

Other articles of this Issue 9/2019

Techniques in Coloproctology 9/2019 Go to the issue

The Last Image

Upfront lumen-apposing metal stenting for a high-grade colorectal anastomotic stricture

Correspondence

Comment on ‘Mesopexy and mesoplasty in sigmoid volvulus recurrence’

The Last Image

Pouch–uterine volvulus: a variant of floppy pouch syndrome?

Video Forum

The impact of indocyanine-green fluorescence imaging on intraluminal perfusion of a J-pouch

Original Article

The da Vinci Xi system for robotic total/subtotal colectomy vs. conventional laparoscopy: short-term outcomes

Original Article

The optimal indication for FiLaC® is high trans-sphincteric fistula-in-ano: a prospective cohort of 69 consecutive patients