Pelvic floor: vaginal or caesarean delivery? A review of systematic reviews

Introduction and hypothesis In recent years the number of caesarean sections has increased worldwide for different reasons. to review the scientific evidence relating to the impact of the type of delivery on pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) such as urinary and faecal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Methods A review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, drawn from the following databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus,Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and LILACS (Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud/ Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) prior to January 2019. The directives of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used in assessing article quality. Results Eleven systematic reviews were evaluated, 6 of which found a significantly decreased risk of urinary incontinence associated with caesarean section and 3 meta-analyses showed a significant reduction in POP for caesarean section, compared with vaginal delivery. Of 5 reviews that examined delivery type and faecal incontinence, only one indicated a lower incidence of faecal incontinence associated with caesarean delivery. However, most of the studies included in these reviews were not adjusted for important confounding factors and the risk of PFDs was not analysed by category of caesarean delivery (elective or urgent). Conclusion When compared with vaginal delivery, caesarean is associated with a reduced risk of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. These results should be interpreted with caution and do not help to address the question of whether elective caesareans are protective of the maternal pelvic floo