Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: Comparing maternal and neonatal outcomes after conventional cesarean section (CS) versus a "natural" or "skin-to-skin" cesarean section (SSCS). METHODS: Retrospective cohort of women who underwent a SSCS (01-2013 until 12-2013) compared to conventional CS (08-2011 to 08-2012). CS before 37 weeks, under general anesthesia and in case of fetal distress were excluded. Main outcome measures were maternal blood loss, post-operative infection and admission; neonatal infection and admission; procedural outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed 285 (44%) women in the SSCS-group and 365 (56%) in the conventional CS-group. There were no significant differences in surgical site infection (2.1% versus 1.6%; RR 1.1; 95%CI 0.64-2.0), or other maternal outcomes. Fewer neonates born after SSCS were admitted to the pediatric ward (9.5% versus 18%; RR 0.58; 95%CI 0.41-0.80) and fewer neonates had a suspected neonatal infection (2.0% versus 7.3%; RR 0.40; 95%CI 0.19-0.83). No differences were observed for other outcomes. Mean operation time was 4m42s longer in the SSCS-group compared to the conventional CS-group (58m versus 53m; 95%CI 2m44s-6m40s). Mean recovery time was 14m46s shorter (114m versus 129m; 95%CI 3m20s-26m). CONCLUSION: Adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were not increased after skin-to-skin cesarean compared to conventional cesarean delivery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Posthuma et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: