Personal Preference of Mode of Delivery. What do Urogynaecologists choose? Preliminary Results of the DECISION Study

Abstract

Introduction Currently, almost every third child in Germany is delivered by caesarean section. Apart from straightforward and clear indications for caesarean section which account for approx. 10%, the large proportion of relative indications in particular needs to be critically reviewed if the current C-section rate is to be effectively lowered. It is more than doubtful, however, whether this can be a realistic goal in Germany, especially in the context of international developments. All studies on this topic demonstrate that the personal attitude of the obstetric team has a considerable influence on the pregnant womanʼs personally preferred mode of delivery. Therefore, in the first part of the DECISION study, the personal preferences of urogynaecologists were evaluated regarding the best suitable mode of delivery.

Material and Methods All 432 delegates at the 9th German Urogynaecology Congress in Stuttgart in April 2017 were invited to participate in an online questionnaire study. The questionnaire was developed especially for this study.

Results Of the 432 registered delegates, 189 (43.8%) participated in the survey. 84.7% (n = 160) of the study participants would prefer a vaginal delivery, in an otherwise uncomplicated pregnancy. Only 12.2% (n = 23) opted for an elective caesarean section. The main reasons stated for this decision were concerns about incontinence (87.5%) and pelvic floor trauma (79.2%). Amongst the study participants, 83.6% would like to be part of a risk stratification system presented in the questionnaire which, with the aid of specific parameters, is intended to allow early identification of a population with a high risk of developing pelvic floor disorders. There was also great interest in postpartum pelvic floor recovery (97.8%) and an associated optional pessary therapy (64.4%). The type of delivery already experienced (vaginal delivery vs. primary caesarean section) and parity also reveals to have a significant influence on the personal preferred mode of delivery as well.

Conclusions Urogynaecologists prefer vaginal delivery for themselves. There is a great interest to participate in a risk stratification process in order to approach childbirth in an individualized and risk-adapted manner.

Key words

mode of delivery - elective caesarean section - risk stratification - postpartum recovery - pessary therapy

• References/Literatur

• 1 Fritzen F. Mit der Gondel zum Geburtserlebnis – Geburt per Kaiserschnitt (2015). Online: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/gesundheit/geburt-per-kaiserschnitt-mit-der-gondel-zum-geburtserlebnis-13584730.html last access: 14.07.2017
• 2 Die Deutsche Bundesregierung. Steigende Rate an Kaiserschnittentbindungen – Antwort der Bunderegierung auf die kleine Anfrage der Abgeordneten Birgitt Bender, Katrin Göring-Eckardt, Britta Haßelmann, weiterer Abgeordneter und der Fraktion BÜNDNIS90/DIE GRÜNEN – Drucksache 17/8862.
• 3 Statistisches Bundesamt. Statistisches Jahrbuch 2016.
• 4 Kolip P, Nolting H-D, Zich K. Faktencheck Gesundheit – Kaiserschnittgeburten – Entwicklung und regionale Verteilung. 2012 Online: http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/ last access: 15.06.2017
• 5 Iwen J. Versorgungsbericht der TK. Online: https://www.tk.de/tk/themen/versorgung/geburtenreport-2017/951934 last access: 01.08.2017
• 6 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG). Absolute und relative Indikationen zur Sectio caesarea, AWMF 015/054 (S1) – zur Zeit in Überarbeitung. Online: http://www.awmf.de/ last access: 14.07.2017
• 7 Al-Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM. Obstetriciansʼ personal choice and mode of delivery. Lancet 1996; 347: 544
• 8 Wilson D, Dornan J, Milsom I. et al. UR-CHOICE: can we provide mothers-to-be with information about the risk of future pelvic floor dysfunction?. Int Urogynecol J 2014; 25: 1449-1452
• 9 Hübner M, Jacob S. Sectio caesarea auf mütterlichen Wunsch. Gynäkologe 2006; 39: 648-655
• 10 Hübner M, Reisenauer C, Abele H. Welchen Stellenwert hat die primäre Sectio caesarea?. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2010; 70: 911-913
• 11 Husslein P, Langer A. Elektive Sektio vs. vaginale Geburt – ein Paradigmenwechsel in der Geburtshilfe?. Gynäkologe 2000; 33: 849-856
• 12 Wu JM, Hundley AF, Visco AG. Elective primary cesarean delivery: attitudes of urogynecology and maternal-fetal medicine specialists. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105: 301-306
• 13 Bergholt T, Østberg B, Legarth J. et al. Danish obstetriciansʼ personal preference and general attitude to elective cesarean section on maternal request: a nation-wide postal survey. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83: 262-266
• 14 Lightly K, Shaw E, Dailami N. et al. Personal birth preferences and actual mode of delivery outcomes of obstetricians and gynaecologists in South West England; with comparison to regional and national birth statistics. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 181: 95-98
• 15 Gonen R, Tamir A, Degani S. Obstetriciansʼ opinions regarding patient choice in cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99: 577-580
• 16 Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL. et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA 2008; 300: 1311-1316
• 17 Rortveit G, Daltveit AK, Hannestad YS. et al. Urinary incontinence after vaginal delivery or cesarean section. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 900-907
• 18 Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hodnett ED. et al. Outcomes at 3 months after planned cesarean vs. planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. JAMA 2002; 287: 1822-1831
• 19 Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ. et al. 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 2004; 191: 917-927
• 20 Huebner M, Antolic A, Tunn R. The impact of pregnancy and vaginal delivery on urinary incontinence. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010; 110: 249-251
• 21 Kearney R, Miller JM, Ashton-Miller JA. et al. Obstetric factors associated with levator ani muscle injury after vaginal birth. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 144-149
• 22 Margulies RU, Hsu Y, Kearney R. et al. Appearance of the levator ani muscle subdivisions in magnetic resonance images. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 1064-1069
• 23 Tunn R. Morphologie des Stressharninkontinenz-Kontrollsystems und seine pathomorphologischen Veränderungen bei Stressharninkontinenz. Habilitationsschrift. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; 2002: 81
• 24 DeLancey JO, Morgan DM, Fenner DE. et al. Comparison of levator ani muscle defects and function in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 295-302
• 25 Glazener C, Elders A, Macarthur C. et al. Childbirth and prolapse: long-term associations with the symptoms and objective measurement of pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG 2013; 120: 161-168
• 26 Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen TF. et al. Prevalence and risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse 20 years after childbirth: a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery. BJOG 2013; 120: 152-160
• 27 Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen TF. et al. The prevalence of urinary incontinence 20 years after childbirth: a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery. BJOG 2013; 120: 144-151
• 28 Huebner M, Brucker SY, Tunn R. et al. Intrapartal pelvic floor protection: a pragmatic and interdisciplinary approach between obstetrics and urogynecology. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 295: 795-798