Comparison of Infant Complication between Emergency and Caesarean Sections: A Meta-Analysis

Rahmi Padlilah, Ika Yulianti


Background:  The World Health Organization (WHO) calls for all regions in the world not to have a caesarean section (SC) rate of more than 15%. Globally, since 2003-2018, Emer­­gency Ca­esarean Section (EmCS) and Elec­tive Cae­sarean Section (ElCS) actions have con­tinued to in­crease by 4% each year to 21%. Previous studies report that EmCS increases the risk of com­pli­cations in the fetus compared to ElCS. Based on the problem above, this study aims to analyze and compare complications ex­p­erienced by the fe­tus in the process of Emer­gency Caesarean Section (EmCS) and Elective Caesarean Section (ElCS).

Subjects and Method: This was sys­tem­atic review and meta-analysis study, which was con­ducted from July-August 2019. The data were obtained from Pub­Med, Sci­ence Direct, Web of Science, Springer Link, and Cochrane Data­base. The keywords were "elective cesa­rean sec­tion (ElCS) AND emergency cesarean section (Em­CS)" AND "emer­gency cesarean section (Em­CS) and fetal complication" AND "elective ce­sa­re­an sec­­tion (ECS) and fetal complication" AND "elec­­tive cesarean section (EmCS) AND fetal compli­cation" (ElCS) AND emergency ce­sa­rean section (EmCS) AND fetal complication.

Results: Emergency cesarean section incre­a­ses the likelihood of neonatal death 4 times high­er than the elective cesarean section and is statistically significant (RR= 4.02; 95% CI= 2.41 to 6.72). Emergency cesarean section can in­­crease the likelihood of apgar score dec­rease 2 times higher than elective cesarean sec­tion and statistically significant (RR= 2.07; 95% CI= 1.03 to 4.15). Emergency cesarean section is 1.62 times higher than elective cesa­rean section and statistically significant (OR= 1.62; 95% CI= 1.19 to 2.20).

Conclusion: Emergency cesarean section can increase the likelihood of death, decrease Apgar score <6, and hypoxia in the fetus compared to elective cesarean section.

Keywords: emergency cesarean section, elec­tive cesarean section, meta-analysis

Correspondence: Ika Yulianti. Faculty of Health Science, Univer­sitas Borneo Tarakan, North Kaliman­tan, Indo­nesia. Email: ikatama­evan@g­mail.c­om. Mobile: +628115440036

Journal of Maternal and Child Health (2020), 5(2): 200-205

Full Text:



Benzouina S, Boubkraoui MelM, Mrabet M, Chahid N, Kharbach A, El-Hassani A, Barkat A (2016). Fetal outcome in emergency versus elective cesarean sections at Souissi Maternity Hospital, Rabat, Morocco. The Pan African medical journal, 23: 197. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2016.23.197.7401 [Crossref] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Biondi-Zoccai G, Lotrionte M, Landoni G, Modena MG (2011). The rough guide to systematic reviews and meta analysis. HSR proceedings in intensive care cardiovascular anesthesia. 3(3): 161-73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Govind L, Rajesh KV (2018). Obstetric outcome in elective vs emergency caesarean section. Indian Journal of Research. 7(3): 5-6. [Google Scholar]

Chongsuvivatwong V, Bachtiar H, Chowdhury ME, Fernando S, Suwanrath C, KorAnantakul O, Tuan le A, Lim A, et al. (2010). Maternal and fetal mortality and complications associated with cesarean section deliveries in teaching hospitals in Asia. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 36(1): 45–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2009.01100.x [Crossref] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Diana V, Tipandjan A (2016). Emergency and elective caesarean sections: comparison of maternal and fetal outcomes in a suburban tertiary care hospital in Puducherry. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 5(9): 3060–3065. doi: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20162985 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

Gasparovic, KlepacPulanić T, Peter B (2006). Maternal and fetal outcome in elective versus emergency caesarean section in a developing country. Coll. Antropol. 30(30): 113–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Lucas DN, Yentis SM, Kinsella SM, Holdcroft A, May AE, Wee M, Robinson PN (2000). Urgency of caesarean section: a new classification. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 93(7): 346–50. doi: 10.1177/014107680009300703 [Crossref] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Najam R, Sharma R (2013). Maternal and fetal outcomes in elective and emergency caesarean sections at a teaching hospital in North India. A retrospective study. J Adv Res Biolo Sci 5:5–9. [PubMed]

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] (2011). Caesarean section. (Quality standard [QS32]). [Website]

Onankpa B, Ekele B (2009). Fetal outcome following cesarean section in a University Teaching Hospital. Journal of the National Medical Association. Elsevier Masson SAS, 101(6): 578–581. doi: 10.1016/S00279684(15): 309433. doi: 10.1016/s0027-9684(15)30943-3 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

Sowmya M, Shashidhar S, Vijayalakshmi S (2015). A comparative study of outcome of caesarean delivery in rural obstetric referrals with elective caesarean delivery. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. [Google Scholar]

Thakur V, Chiheriya H, Thakur A et al (2015) Study of maternal and fetal outcome in elective and emergency caesarean section. Int J Med Res Rev. 3: 1300–1305. doi: 10.17511/ijmrr.2015.i11.236 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

Vogel JP, Betrán AP, Vindevoghel N, Souza JP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Tunçalp Ö, Mori R, et al. (2015). Use of the robson classification to assess caesarean section trends in 21 countries: A secondary analysis of two WHO multicountry surveys. The Lancet Global Health. doi: 10.1016/s2214-109x(15)70094-x [Crossref][Google Scholar]

World Health Organization (2015) WHO recommendations on health promotion interventions for maternal and newborn health, World Health Organization Offset Publication.

Yang XJ, Sun SS (2017). Comparison of maternal and fetal complications in elective and emergency cesarean section: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 296(3): 503–512. doi: 10.1007/s00404-017-4445-2 [Crossref] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]


  • There are currently no refbacks.