Comparison of different cesarean delivery techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

<b>Background: </b>The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis study was to compare various caesarean delivery methods.<br /> <b>Methods: </b>A search for available articles published since January 2023 was accomplished in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane literature databases. The search method that encompassed all pertinent publications was developed using terms from the medical subject headings thesaurus and keywords from related literature. We also used the PICO method (where P is population, I is intervention, C is comparator/control, and O is outcome for our study) to establish research question. Whereas Cochrane handbook of “systematic reviews of interventions” was used for risk of bias assessment.<br /> <b>Results: </b>The results showed a significant difference in patient gratification between the gentle/natural/skin-to-skin contact caesarean and the traditional/conventional/standard caesarean. In assessing the satisfaction with delivery mode, the mean variance for these studies similarly revealed a significant difference between the natural caesarean and the conventional one. A skin-to-skin contact caesarean delivery takes less time to start nursing than a conventional delivery, according to the results of the study on the time of breastfeeding initiation after a natural caesarean. There was a low-risk bias among the selected studies.<br /> <b>Conclusions: </b>As a result of greater satisfaction with delivering experience the natural caesarean delivery was most preferred method. The enhanced skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding suggested that natural caesarean is beneficial over the conventional method.