Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11000/30531
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLópez-López, Ana Isabel-
dc.contributor.authorSanz Valero, Javier-
dc.contributor.authorGómez-Pérez, Luis-
dc.contributor.authorPastor-Valero, Maria-
dc.contributor.otherDepartamentos de la UMH::Salud Pública, Historia de la Ciencia y Ginecologíaes_ES
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-17T17:41:32Z-
dc.date.available2024-01-17T17:41:32Z-
dc.date.created2020-09-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Urogynecology Journal Volume 32 (2021)es_ES
dc.identifier.issn1433-3023-
dc.identifier.issn0937-3462-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11000/30531-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction 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 floores_ES
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_ES
dc.format.extent11es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherSpringeres_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectPelvic floores_ES
dc.subjectParturitiones_ES
dc.subjectDeliveryes_ES
dc.subjectObstetrices_ES
dc.subjectCesarean sectiones_ES
dc.subjectUrinary incontinencees_ES
dc.subjectFecal incontinencees_ES
dc.subject.otherCDU::6 - Ciencias aplicadas::61 - Medicinaes_ES
dc.titlePelvic floor: vaginal or caesarean delivery? A review of systematic reviewses_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04550-8es_ES
Appears in Collections:
Artículos Salud Pública, Historia de la Ciencia y Ginecología


Thumbnail

View/Open:
 12-López-López2020_Article_PelvicFloorVaginalOrCaesareanD.pdf

388,82 kB
Adobe PDF
Share:


Creative Commons ???jsp.display-item.text9???