Background There is controversy among the literature for electing caesarean section (CS) delivery for infants with gastroschisis in an attempt to reduce mortality and morbidity.
Objective This meta-analysis investigates whether there is enough evidence to support CS delivery over vaginal delivery.
Data sources We conducted our search in April 2017. We searched Cochrane, Medline, Premedline, Embase, CINAHL, GoogleScholar and Web of Science. We also searched conferences for abstracts online. Additional studies were retrieved by reviewing reference lists.
Study selection Observational studies, excluding case series, were eligible if data compared relevant outcomes of infants with gastroschisis in relation to mode of delivery.
Data extraction Relevant information were extracted and assessed the methodological quality of the retrieved records.
Results Thirty-eight studies were included. Evidence suggested that mode of delivery is not significantly associated with overall mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.18), primary repair (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.18), neonatal mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.15), necrotising enterocolitis, secondary repair, sepsis, short gut syndrome, duration until enteral feeding and duration of hospital stay. Furthermore, sensitivity analyses based on economic status and quality of study showed no significant difference between the impact of mode of delivery for all investigated outcomes.
Limitations Due to uncontrolled variables between and within studies, particularly regarding characteristics of delivery and postdelivery care, it is difficult to extract meaningful results from the literature.
Conclusions There is insufficient evidence to advocate the use of CS over vaginal delivery for infants with gastroschisis.
- caesarean section
- vaginal delivery
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors DWK undertook the statistical analysis, drafted the initial manuscript and approved the final manuscript. MEA-L conceived and designed the study, undertook the statistical analysis and led the writing of the final manuscript. All authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement All authors had full access to all of the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.