Next Article in Journal
Treatment of Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation with the TricValve System Implantation—Preliminary Results of a Prospective Registry
Next Article in Special Issue
Maternal Smoking During Pregnancy and Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder in Offspring: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Infective Endocarditis and Excessive Use of B− Blood Type Due to Surgical Treatment—Is It Only a Local Problem? LODZ-ENDO Results (2015–2025)
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Dose GnRH Agonist on the Day of Frozen Embryo Transfer in Artificial Cycles: Preliminary Evidence from Randomized Trials
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 14
Issue 22
10.3390/jcm14228102
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Rising Global Cesarean Section Rates and Their Impact on Maternal and Child Health: A Scoping Review

by
Sofia Thomaidi
1,
Antigoni Sarantaki
2,*,
Maria Tzitiridou Chatzopoulou
1,*,
Eirini Orovou
1,*,
Vaidas Jotautis
3 and
Dimitrios Papoutsis
1
1
Midwifery Department, University of Western Macedonia, 50200 Ptolemaida, Greece
2
Midwifery Department, Faculty of Health and Care Sciences, University of West Attica, Egaleo, 12243 Athens, Greece
3
Faculty of Medicine, Kauno Kolegija Higher Education Institution, Pramonės pr 20, 50468 Kaunas, Lithuania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14(22), 8102; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14228102
Submission received: 20 October 2025 / Revised: 10 November 2025 / Accepted: 13 November 2025 / Published: 15 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Risks and Perinatal Outcomes in Pregnancy and Childbirth: 2nd Edition)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: A cesarean section (CS) is a method of childbirth involving a surgical cut made in the abdominal and uterine wall to deliver the infant. But while it saves the lives of women and infants, it has been implicated in several immediate and long-term complications and adverse consequences as a result of its ineffective use. This study attempts to address the major public health issue of the inappropriate use of CS by exploring its impact on maternal, neonatal, and child health. More specifically, the study aims to investigate the immediate and long-term health impacts on the mother, including her physical and mental health, as well as the immediate and long-term psychosomatic consequences on the neonate’s, infant’s, and child’s health as a result of the inappropriate use of CS. Methods: A scoping review was conducted spanning from 2015 to 2025 according to the PRISMA criteria and checklist. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria comprised original articles with clear exposure and outcome written in English, and studies that did not involve reviews of any kind or letters to the editors. Results: The review identified 42 relevant studies. The results showed several immediate and long-term complications of CS in mothers, neonates, infants, and children, while its ineffective use carries equally high risks, such as high levels of morbidity and mortality. Conclusions: This scoping review presents the problems that arise in the immediate and long-term health of mother and child from the improper use of cesarean section and underlines the need for immediate action and measures to be taken by health policy makers.

1. Introduction

Cesarean section (CS) is a surgical procedure used to deliver the baby through an incision in the mother’s abdomen. It is typically recommended when a vaginal delivery (VD) may pose risks to the health of the mother, baby, or both [1]. While CS is a life-saving procedure in cases of complications, its excessive use without medical indications jeopardizes the physical and mental well-being of women and children [1]. Over the past few decades, there has been a significant global rise in the rate of CS, from around 7% in 1990 to 21% today, and this has emerged as a pressing public health concern [2]. It seems that these trends are expected to continue their upward trajectory during the current decade, with unmet needs and overuse coexisting, leading to a global rate that is projected to reach 29% by 2030 [1]. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that CS rates should ideally range between 10 and 15%, as rates beyond this threshold do not correlate with better maternal or neonatal outcomes [1]. According to this WHO statement, the underuse of CSs may lead to an increase in perinatal maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. On the other hand, their use without medical indication has not shown any benefit and, moreover, can significantly contribute to the waste of human and material resources. At this point, it should be noted that due to health inequalities, some countries face unsafe access to CSs, while others overuse them with adverse effects on maternal and neonatal health. Based on the above, the inappropriate use of CSs is a matter of global concern and a significant challenge for public health.
Regarding CS trends, in 2018, the global CS rate was 21.1%, with an average of 8.2% in developing countries, 24.2% in less developed countries, and 27.2% in developed countries [3]. At the two extremes of CS rates are Sub-Saharan African countries with the lowest rate (5%) and the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean with the highest rate (42.8%). The five countries with the highest cesarean section (CS) rates globally were the Dominican Republic (58.1%), Brazil (55.7%), Cyprus (55.3%), Egypt (51.8%), and Turkey (50.8%), which also recorded the highest rates in the Americas, Asia, and Africa. In Europe, Romania had the highest CS rate at 46.9%. On the other hand, the lowest CS rates in the world were observed in Africa, with Chad (1.4%), Niger (1.4%), Ethiopia (1.9%), Madagascar (2%), and Cameroon (2.4%). In other regions, the lowest rates were recorded in Timor-Leste (3.5%) in Asia, Papua New Guinea (3.0%) in Oceania, the Netherlands (14.9%) in Europe, and Haiti (5.4%) in Latin America [3]. Regarding Greece, official CS rates have not been recorded; however, research indicates very high rates, reaching up to 58% [4]. The continuous increase in CS rates suggests that by 2030, global rates may reach 30%. Sub-Saharan Africa is expected to remain with rates lower than 10%, while in regions such as Eastern and Western Asia and Latin America, CS may become the dominant method of delivery [3].
On the other hand, CSs are not solely conducted for medical reasons, as various other factors can influence the decision to choose this procedure. These reasons include the mother’s desire [5] due to perceived anxiety or fear of vaginal birth pain [6], the preference for a scheduled delivery on a specific date [7], the convenience for the doctor, and financial incentives for doctors or hospitals, which lead to higher CS rates in private hospitals compared to public ones. Additionally, various religious reasons and social beliefs may influence a woman’s decision to deliver via CS [8]. Moreover, the fear of legal repercussions and the potential for litigation, as secondary negative consequences of vaginal delivery, have been identified as significant factors influencing clinicians’ decisions to opt for CS as a precautionary measure, contributing to the increase in CS deliveries [9]. In recent years, ambiguity has emerged regarding what healthcare professionals consider to be clinical indications for CS. Changing risk profiles and maternal characteristics, such as increased maternal age [5], high body mass index (BMI) [10], and infertility treatments [11], are reported to contribute to the rise in CS rates. An additional crucial element influencing CS rates is the presence of midwives. Greater accessibility to midwifery services is linked to CS rates, aligning more closely with the recommended range of 10–15% [12]. Taking into account the international trends of cesarean sections, the recommendations of the WHO, and the consequences of inappropriate or improper use of cesarean sections, it is appropriate to further investigate the issue.
Recent global evidence underscores that while CS is a life-saving procedure, it is also associated with a broad spectrum of short- and long-term complications for both mothers and children. Maternal complications include increased risks of hemorrhage, infection, abnormal placentation (such as placenta previa and accreta), thromboembolic events, chronic pelvic pain, and infertility in subsequent pregnancies [13]. Neonatal and child outcomes related to CS have also been well documented, including respiratory morbidity, alterations in gut microbiota, immune and metabolic disorders, and increased susceptibility to obesity and allergies during childhood [14,15]. Moreover, women undergoing CS report higher rates of postpartum depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms compared to those experiencing vaginal birth. The overall burden of CS-related morbidity contributes substantially to healthcare costs and long-term public health challenges, emphasizing the need for cautious and evidence-based use of this surgical procedure [16,17].
However, a particular long-term complication of CS that has gained increasing attention in recent years is isthmocele, also known as a cesarean scar defect or uterine niche. Isthmocele is a dehiscence or pouch-like defect at the site of the uterine scar, often identified through imaging [18]. It may remain asymptomatic or cause abnormal uterine bleeding, dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, infertility, or secondary infertility due to altered uterine contractility and sperm transport [18,19]. Additionally, isthmocele increases the risk of abnormal placentation, cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy, and uterine rupture in subsequent pregnancies. As global CS rates continue to rise, the clinical recognition and management of isthmocele have become an emerging aspect of reproductive health and obstetric care, highlighting the long-term reproductive implications of surgical delivery [20].
This study attempts to address this major public health issue by exploring the impact of CS on maternal, neonatal, and child health. More specifically, the study aims to investigate the immediate and long-term health impacts on the mother, including her physical and mental health, as well as the immediate and long-term psychosomatic consequences on the neonate’s, infant’s, and child’s health as a result of the Inappropriate Use of CS.

2. Materials and Methods

This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) [21] guidelines to identify the short-term and long-term complications of CS in mothers and newborns, infants, and children, as well as the complications arising from its ineffective use, based on the existing literature. The review protocol was not registered. It was conducted using the methodological steps outlined by Mak and Thomas (2022): (a) the identification of the research question; (b) the identification of the relevant studies; (c) selection of appropriate studies to be included in the review; (d) charting the data; and (e) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results [22]. The PRISMA-ScR checklist is provided in the Supplementary Materials.

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

The process of selecting relevant studies began with the establishment of clear inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quantitative studies published in English from 2010 to the present, which had CS as the exposure and mother–child outcomes as the effect, were included. Therefore, studies that did not have clear exposure and outcome variables, studies written in a language other than English, and studies that involved reviews of any kind or letters to the editors were excluded.

2.2. Search Strategy

We searched published papers with the following databases: PubMed/Medline, Crossref, and Google Scholar, from December 2024 to January 2025. The search terms used were as follows: ((((cesarean section) OR (cesarean delivery)) AND (maternal outcomes)) OR (maternal mortality)) OR (maternal morbidity) OR (inappropriate use) OR, (((cesarean section) OR (cesarean delivery)) AND (neonatal outcomes)) OR (infant outcomes) OR (child outcomes))). The selection process was carried out in accordance with the recommended PRISMA methodology (Figure 1). The initial search yielded a total of 1913 records the following three databases: PubMed (n  =  90), Scopus (n  =  62), and Google Scholar (n  =  110). We removed 67 duplicate papers before screening. Furthermore, we excluded 42 records due to their irrelevance based on their title and subject matter. Also, we removed 26 papers which were not reported in the outcome factor of our study, 70 studies which were not original papers, as well as 5, and another 5 that were not written in English. Finally, 42 original articles were included in our review.

3. Results

3.1. Short-Term and Long-Term Health Effects of CSs on Mothers

Understanding the immediate and long- and short-term effects of CS on women is limited by issues in study design, insufficient statistical power, lack of control for confounding factors, and inappropriate selection of comparison groups. Furthermore, a clear distinction has not been made between elective and emergency CSs or the obstetric and medical parameters leading to the need for CS delivery, which may be associated with increased morbidity and mortality. A review of data on the short and long-term effects on women is provided in Table 1, including increased risks of hysterectomy [23], abnormal placentation [24], uterine rupture [23], stillbirth [25], and preterm birth in future pregnancies [26,27], the need for blood transfusions [23,28], pelvic adhesions [29], intraoperative injuries [23], hysterectomy and cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies [26], which are more common as the number of CS increases. Emergency CSs are associated with a higher incidence of immediate maternal complications compared to elective ones [30], such as infection, fever, urinary tract infections [31], wound dehiscence [32], disseminated intravascular coagulation, and reoperation; this reflects the extent of prenatal complications and the need for immediate intervention [30]. However, a history of risk of maternal mortality during subsequent delivery due to the presence of abdominal adhesions and hemorrhage [33]. Maternal mortality was observed when CS rates were below the percentage recommended by the WHO (5–10%) [34]. On the contrary, CS rates exceeding the WHO threshold are not associated with reduced mortality outcomes [35]. However, direct maternal mortality linked to elective CSs, without adjusting for pre-labor risk factors, varied between 0 and 47 deaths per 100,000 procedures. The relative risk of death with elective CS compared to vaginal delivery was estimated at 0.45 [36].
On the other hand, CS can also affect maternal mental health and well-being, reducing women’s postpartum adjustment and contributing to an increased risk of developing post-traumatic and depressive symptoms [16]. It appears that the frustration of birth expectations [37], the sight of the surgical room [38], increased pain [39], and difficulties with breastfeeding [40], reduce psychological resilience, combined with other factors, such as a psychiatric history and insufficient support from the significant others [37], the likelihood of birth trauma and, consequently, mental illness during the postpartum period increases.
Table 1. Short- and long-term effects of cesarean section on mothers.
Table 1. Short- and long-term effects of cesarean section on mothers.
Author/Year/
Country		Women’s SampleDesignAcute Maternal OutcomesChronic Maternal OutcomesMaternal Well-Being
Lannon et al., 2015 [41], USA10,505Cohort study-Uterine rupture in the subsequent pregnancy-
Bowman et al., 2015 [26], USA260,249Cohort study-Increased risk of cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies-
Aslı Sis Çelik, [42], 2015, Turkey131Comparative and descriptive study--Difficulty recovering and more pain
Butwick et al., 2017 [33], USA819Case–control studyHemorrhage--
Matalliotakis et al., 2017 [43], Greece76Prospective study-Placenta previa-
Gundersen et al., 2018 [31], Denmark45,053Retrospective studyUrinary tract infections--
Kjerulff & Brubaker, 2018 [44], USA3006Cohort study--Feelings of frustration
Guglielminotti et al., 2019 [45], USA466,014Retrospective studyAnesthetic-related complications--
Alshehri et al., 2019 [29], Saudi Arabia394Case–control study-Ιntraoperative bleeding due to adhesions and complete or incomplete rupture of scar-
Schobinger et al., 2020 [38], Switzerland647Prospective study--Unfulfilled expectations and psychological trauma
Orovou et al., 2020 [37], Greece166Prospective study--Unfulfilled expectations and psychological trauma
Kjerulff et al., 2020 [25], USA712Cohort study-Lower conception rate, stillbirth or miscarriages, and sub-fertility-
Kayem et al., 2020 [24], France396Retrospective study-Placenta previa and placenta accreta-
Carbonnel et al., 2021 [32], France1520Retrospective studyWound complications--
Hou et al., 2022 [46], China358Cross-sectional study--Tokophobia
Wei et al., 2022 [47], China1411Retrospective study-Chronic endometritis-
Larsson et al., 2022 [28], Sweden 614,355Retrospective studyCardiac arrest, intubation, and inclusion in ICU--
J. Singh et al., 2022 [40], Canada418Prospective study--Difficulties in breastfeeding
Odada et al., 2024 [48], Nairobi1262Retrospective studySurgical site infections--
de Vries et al., 2024 [23], France5422Retrospective studyMaternal death due to uterine atony, severe hemorrhage, and surgical injury during CS--
Kathpalia et al., [49], 2024,
India		10,296Retrospective study-Abnormal placentation-
Woolner et al., 2024 [27], UK30,253Cohort study-Preterm births, especially if the first CS was performed at full dilation-
Notes: A cute maternal outcomes occur immediately after the CS until the end of the postpartum period. Chronic outcomes may occur immediately after the postpartum period or after months or years [50]. Studies include retrospective, prospective, and case–control designs. Most data originate from high-income countries (USA, France, and UK), with few contributions from middle-income regions (e.g., Greece, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia).

3.2. Short-Term and Long-Term Health Effects of CSs on Neonates, Infants, and Children

Cesarean sections undoubtedly play undeniably save the neonate’s lives and reduce perinatal mortality and severe complications like intrauterine asphyxia. However, scheduling elective CS before 39 weeks of gestation may elevate the risk of respiratory problems and hypoglycemia in neonates [51]. As a result, the risk of NICU admission and respiratory complications is common in neonates following CS, while the long-term effects include frequent respiratory infections and asthma in childhood [51]. Neonates delivered via CS before the onset of spontaneous labor are more likely to be admitted to the NICU [52].
It is well established that interventions during childbirth and the mode of delivery can have both immediate and long-term effects on neonatal health. This impact is thought to be linked to the insufficient transfer of maternal microbiota (gut and skin) to the neonate during CS, a phenomenon whose implications for later life are still under investigation [53]. Abnormal gut colonization may influence the neonate’s immune system, potentially explaining the cardiometabolic and autoimmune disorders [54], allergies [55,56], obesity [57], type 1 diabetes, increased body mass index (BMI) [57,58], liver problems and gastrointestinal disorders [55,59], and chronic immune disorders observed in children born via CS [55]. However, further studies are needed to eliminate confounding factors that may contribute to these outcomes. Another hypothesis involves the intrauterine exposure of the fetus to stress hormones, which are absent in the lack of natural stimuli occurring during vaginal delivery. The impact of maternal hormones, fetal hormone secretion, and the passage through the birth canal prepares the fetus for the transition to extrauterine life. In infants born via elective CS, this smooth transition is absent, suggesting that the initiation of labor before performing an elective CS could be beneficial [60]. Finally, the administration of antibiotics prior to CS and the use of synthetic oxytocin are still under investigation regarding their potential consequences on children’s health [55]. However, further studies are needed to eliminate confounding factors that may contribute to these outcomes.
Studies have also linked CS with behavioral disorders in children [61]. For instance, CS combined with low parental self-efficacy has been shown to predict a higher incidence of behavioral issues during the first months of life [62]. Additionally, CS has been associated with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), with one proposed explanation being the influence of synthetic oxytocin. This hormone may impact behavior, mother–infant bonding, and even sexual behavior later in life. Children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) have been found to exhibit significantly lower plasma oxytocin levels compared to non-autistic children [63]. Furthermore, learning difficulties and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [64] have also been associated with CS, presenting multiple hypotheses, such as the composition of gut microbiota, emergency CS, gestational age, and complications during delivery [65]. Additionally, it should be noted that maternal mental health directly impacts the psychosocial development of the child [61]. Maternal mental health issues affect the development of the mother–infant bond and breastfeeding practices [66,67] and therefore, it should be considered when assessing behavioral disorders in children. Table 2 provides a detailed overview of the immediate and long-term effects of CSs on neonates, infants, and children.

3.3. The Inappropriate and Low Utilization of CSs

On the other hand, in low-resource settings, the implications of CS are particularly significant due to constrained healthcare infrastructure, insufficient access to skilled professionals, and limited resources for adequate post-operative midwifery care [74]. The challenges often encountered pertain to adequate facilities, specialized personnel, availability of financial resources, and specialized care [75]. While global perinatal mortality remains a pressing public health concern, it is especially pronounced in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. These regions were responsible for 86% of the 295,000 maternal deaths in 2017 and 84% of the 2.5 million neonatal deaths and stillbirths that occur annually worldwide [76], since out of a total of 60% of global births, only 3.6% will deliver via CS [77]. For this reason, global attention has focused on the impact of healthcare quality on health outcomes, arguing that poor-quality midwifery and medical care, in addition to the lack of CSs, lead to a significant proportion of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. Furthermore, economic inequalities within these countries significantly affect the mode of delivery, with limited access to emergency CS for the poorest subgroups and excessive use of CS without medical indication among wealthier subgroups [78]. However, some cultural factors may contribute to reduced use of health facilities, such as lack of privacy, shame, and the presence of male health professionals [79,80,81]. The factors influencing the reduced and inappropriate use of CS and their effect on maternal and child morbidity and mortality are presented in Table 3.

4. Discussion/Conclusions

This review aimed to investigate the effects of the global rapid increase in CS, as well as its inappropriate use, on maternal, neonatal, infant, and child health. The results indicated that CS is a contributing factor to maternal morbidity, which consequently increases the rates of long-term complications in subsequent pregnancies. Emergency CS also appears to have a more detrimental impact on maternal mental health and well-being. Immediate and long-term outcomes for the infant, in comparison to vaginal delivery, were also identified. Planned surgical deliveries appear to cause more immediate and long-term complications; however, further cohort studies with control for confounding factors are required, especially regarding the long-term consequences. An important long-term maternal complication that deserves further attention is isthmocele, also known as a cesarean scar defect. Isthmocele represents a pouch-like niche or dehiscence at the site of the uterine scar and is increasingly recognized as a consequence of repeated cesarean deliveries. Although often asymptomatic, it can lead to abnormal uterine bleeding, dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, dyspareunia, infertility, and complications in subsequent pregnancies, such as abnormal placentation and uterine rupture [82]. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique temporal context for evaluating CS practices and outcomes. Studies conducted during this period reported altered obstetric management, with a tendency toward increased rates of elective or emergency CS due to infection control policies, fear of viral transmission, and limited staff availability. A retrospective study by Amadori et al. [83] demonstrated that peripartum outcomes during the lockdown period included changes in delivery timing, increased maternal anxiety, and variations in neonatal outcomes, reflecting the indirect effects of pandemic-related restrictions on obstetric care. These findings highlight the need to interpret CS outcomes within specific social and temporal contexts, as global crises such as COVID-19 may temporarily reshape delivery practices and influence maternal and neonatal health indicators.
On the other side, the low utilization of CS results in maternal and infant morbidity and mortality, reinforcing WHO recommendations for safe CS rates between 5 and 15% [1]. Therefore, policies and programs aimed at preventing unnecessary CS, while ensuring equitable access to facilities providing safe care, are essential.
The analysis of the results highlights that policies and practices regarding CS differ significantly between high- and low-resource countries. In low-income countries, limited access to safe facilities can increase maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, while in high-income countries, excessive use of cesarean section is associated with long-term complications. Strategies are needed that include educational programs for women and health professionals, midwife-assisted delivery rooms, and strict CS use protocols to promote the safe and appropriate use of cesarean sections, depending on the context. More specifically, we recommended (a) educational and support programs for women regarding the benefits of VD, as well as training for midwives and obstetricians; (b) creating structures that support the natural process of birth, such as midwife-assisted delivery rooms; (c) controlled use of CS with implementing protocols and guidelines to reduce unnecessary CS; (d) regularly assessing CS rates and developing policies to prevent their overuse; and (e) awareness and health education campaigns in developing countries, along with investment in access to quality maternal healthcare services.
This scoping review possesses several strengths that enhance the robustness and relevance of its findings. First, it provides a comprehensive synthesis of the most recent global evidence (2015–2025) on the short- and long-term effects of CS on maternal, neonatal, infant, and child health. Second, it systematically maps the literature according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, ensuring methodological transparency and reproducibility, and finally, the inclusion of studies from diverse geographical regions offers a wide perspective on both the overuse and underuse of cesarean sections across different healthcare systems and socioeconomic contexts. However, the review has certain limitations that should be acknowledged. First, despite the comprehensive search strategy applied across multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar), some relevant studies may have been missed, especially those published in languages other than English or in the gray literature sources. Second, the inclusion of heterogeneous study designs and outcome measures limited the ability to synthesize the results quantitatively. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted descriptively rather than as causal associations. Third, most of the included studies originated from high- and middle-income countries, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to low-resource settings where CS utilization patterns and healthcare infrastructures differ significantly. Moreover, the included studies varied considerably in their design (retrospective, prospective, and cross-sectional), which may affect the comparability of the findings and limit the ability to draw causal inferences. This review did not include a formal quality assessment or risk-of-bias evaluation of the included studies, as this step is not mandatory within the PRISMA-ScR framework. Nonetheless, every effort was made to ensure methodological transparency and rigor throughout the review process. Finally, although systematic mapping of the literature provides a comprehensive overview, the absence of meta-analysis and formal quality assessment may introduce potential bias into the results. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted descriptively rather than causally.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm14228102/s1. Table S1: PRISMA-ScR Checklist.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.T. and E.O.; methodology, A.S., D.P. and E.O.; validation, A.S., M.T.C., V.J. and D.P.; investigation, A.S. and E.O.; resources, M.T.C. and V.J.; data curation, S.T. and D.P.; writing—original draft preparation, S.T. and E.O.; writing—review and editing, A.S., M.T.C. and V.J.; visualization, S.T.; supervision, A.S., M.T.C. and D.P.; funding acquisition, V.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Kauno Kolegija Higher Education Institution, Faculty of Medicine, Lithuania.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CSCesarean Section
WHOWorld Health Organization

References

  1. Betran, A.; Torloni, M.; Zhang, J.; Gülmezoglu, A.; Aleem, H.; Althabe, F.; Bergholt, T.; de Bernis, L.; Carroli, G.; Deneux-Tharaux, C.; et al. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. BJOG 2016, 123, 667–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Angolile, C.M.; Max, B.L.; Mushemba, J.; Mashauri, H.L. Global Increased Cesarean Section Rates and Public Health Implications: A Call to Action. Health Sci. Rep. 2023, 6, e1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Betran, A.P.; Ye, J.; Moller, A.-B.; Souza, J.P.; Zhang, J. Trends and Projections of Caesarean Section Rates: Global and Regional Estimates. BMJ Glob. Health 2021, 6, e005671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Antoniou, E.; Orovou, E.; Iliadou, M.; Sarella, A.; Palaska, E.; Sarantaki, A.; Iatrakis, G.; Dagla, M. Factors Associated with the Type of Cesarean Section in Greece and Their Correlation with International Guidelines. Acta Inf. Medica 2021, 29, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Plante, L.A. Public Health Implications of Cesarean on Demand. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2006, 61, 807–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Wigert, H.; Nilsson, C.; Dencker, A.; Begley, C.; Jangsten, E.; Sparud-Lundin, C.; Mollberg, M.; Patel, H. Women’s Experiences of Fear of Childbirth: A Metasynthesis of Qualitative Studies. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Health Well-Being 2019, 15, 1704484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rahnama, P.; Mohammadi, K.; Montazeri, A. Salient Beliefs towards Vaginal Delivery in Pregnant Women: A Qualitative Study from Iran. Reprod. Health 2016, 13, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shirzad, M.; Shakibazadeh, E.; Hajimiri, K.; Betran, A.P.; Jahanfar, S.; Bohren, M.A.; Opiyo, N.; Long, Q.; Kingdon, C.; Colomar, M.; et al. Prevalence of and Reasons for Women’s, Family Members’, and Health Professionals’ Preferences for Cesarean Section in Iran: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review. Reprod. Health 2021, 18, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Panda, S.; Daly, D.; Begley, C.; Karlström, A.; Larsson, B.; Bäck, L.; Hildingsson, I. Factors Influencing Decision-Making for Caesarean Section in Sweden—A Qualitative Study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018, 18, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bjorklund, J.; Wiberg-Itzel, E.; Wallstrom, T. Is There an Increased Risk of Cesarean Section in Obese Women after Induction of Labor? A Retrospective Cohort Study. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0263685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Antoniou, E.; Orovou, E.; Iliadou, M.; Sarella, A.; Palaska, E.; Rigas, N.; Iatrakis, G.; Dagla, M. The Kind of Conception Affects the Kind of Cesarean Delivery in Primiparous Women. Mater. Sociomed. 2021, 33, 188–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nove, A.; Boyce, M.; Neal, S.; Homer, C.S.E.; Lavender, T.; Matthews, Z.; Downe, S. Increasing the Number of Midwives Is Necessary but Not Sufficient: Using Global Data to Support the Case for Investment in Both Midwife Availability and the Enabling Work Environment in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Hum. Resour. Health 2024, 22, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hidalgo, M.J.C.; Blanco-Carnero, J.E.; González, L.C. Complications in Cesarean Sections: A National Survey of Obstetric Protocols and Outcomes in Spain. PLoS ONE 2025, 20, e0330352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Inchingolo, F.; Inchingolo, A.D.; Palumbo, I.; Trilli, I.; Guglielmo, M.; Mancini, A.; Palermo, A.; Inchingolo, A.M.; Dipalma, G. The Impact of Cesarean Section Delivery on Intestinal Microbiota: Mechanisms, Consequences, and Perspectives—A Systematic Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Yeganegi, M.; Bahrami, R.; Azizi, S.; Marzbanrad, Z.; Hajizadeh, N.; Mirjalili, S.R.; Saeida-Ardekani, M.; Lookzadeh, M.H.; Alijanpour, K.; Aghasipour, M.; et al. Caesarean Section and Respiratory System Disorders in Newborns. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. X 2024, 23, 100336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Grisbrook, M.-A.; Dewey, D.; Cuthbert, C.; McDonald, S.; Ntanda, H.; Giesbrecht, G.F.; Letourneau, N. Associations among Caesarean Section Birth, Post-Traumatic Stress, and Postpartum Depression Symptoms. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022, 19, 4900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Beck-Hiestermann, F.M.L.; Hartung, L.K.; Richert, N.; Miethe, S.; Wiegand-Grefe, S. Are 6 More Accurate than 4? The Influence of Different Modes of Delivery on Postpartum Depression and PTSD. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2024, 24, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vidal, A.; Pape, J.; Vinayahalingam, V.; Gulz, M.; Karrer, T.; von Wolff, M. High Risk of Chronic Endometritis in Isthmocele—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 3628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Baldini, G.M.; Lot, D.; Malvasi, A.; Di Nanni, D.; Laganà, A.S.; Angelucci, C.; Tinelli, A.; Baldini, D.; Trojano, G. Isthmocele and Infertility. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alami, M.; Yousofzai, B.S.; Latoui, R.B.; Abbas, A.; Bibi, R.; Subhan, M.; Mensah, S.O.; Espiegle, E.; Singh, A.; Norouzi, T. Prevalence and Clinical Features of Uterine Isthmocele Following Cesarean Sections: An Observational Study at Rabia Balkhi Hospital in Afghanistan. Cureus 2024, 16, e74610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Mak, S.; Thomas, A. Steps for Conducting a Scoping Review. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2022, 14, 565–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. de Vries, P.L.M.; Verspyck, E.; Morau, E.; Saucedo, M.; Deneux-Tharaux, C.; the ENCMM study group. Maternal Mortality Due to Obstetric Hemorrhage by Surgical Injury during Cesarean Section: A Nationwide Study. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2024, 103, 1877–1887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kayem, G.; Lecarpentier, E.; Deruelle, P.; Bretelle, F.; Azria, E.; Blanc, J.; Bohec, C.; Bornes, M.; Ceccaldi, P.-F.; Chalet, Y.; et al. A Snapshot of the Covid-19 Pandemic among Pregnant Women in France. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2020, 49, 101826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kjerulff, K.H.; Paul, I.M.; Weisman, C.S.; Hillemeier, M.M.; Wang, M.; Legro, R.S.; Repke, J.T. Association Between Mode of First Delivery and Subsequent Fecundity and Fertility. JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e203076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bowman, Z.S.; Smith, K.R.; Silver, R.M. Cesarean Delivery and Risk for Subsequent Ectopic Pregnancy. Am. J. Perinatol. 2015, 32, 815–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Woolner, A.M.F.; Raja, E.A.; Bhattacharya, S.; Black, M.E. Risk of Spontaneous Preterm Birth Elevated after First Cesarean Delivery at Full Dilatation: A Retrospective Cohort Study of over 30,000 Women. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2024, 230, 358.e1–358.e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Larsson, C.; Matsson, A.; Mooe, T.; Söderström, L.; Tunón, K.; Nordin, P. Cardiovascular Complications Following Cesarean Section and Vaginal Delivery: A National Population-Based Study. J. Matern.-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022, 35, 8072–8079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alshehri, K.A.; Ammar, A.A.; Aldhubabian, M.A.; Al-Zanbaqi, M.S.; Felimban, A.A.; Alshuaibi, M.K.; Oraif, A. Outcomes and Complications After Repeat Cesarean Sections Among King Abdulaziz University Hospital Patients. Mater. Sociomed. 2019, 31, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yang, X.-J.; Sun, S.-S. Comparison of Maternal and Fetal Complications in Elective and Emergency Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2017, 296, 503–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gundersen, T.D.; Krebs, L.; Loekkegaard, E.C.L.; Rasmussen, S.C.; Glavind, J.; Clausen, T.D. Postpartum Urinary Tract Infection by Mode of Delivery: A Danish Nationwide Cohort Study. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e018479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Carbonnel, M.; Brot, D.; Benedetti, C.; Kennel, T.; Murtada, R.; Revaux, A.; Ayoubi, J.-M. Risks Factors FOR Wound Complications after Cesarean Section. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2021, 50, 101987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Butwick, A.J.; Ramachandran, B.; Hegde, P.; Riley, E.T.; El-Sayed, Y.Y.; Nelson, L.M. Risk Factors for Severe Postpartum Hemorrhage after Cesarean Delivery: Case-Control Studies. Anesth. Analg. 2017, 125, 523–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ye, J.; Zhang, J.; Mikolajczyk, R.; Torloni, M.; Gülmezoglu, A.; Betran, A. Association between Rates of Caesarean Section and Maternal and Neonatal Mortality in the 21st Century: A Worldwide Population-based Ecological Study with Longitudinal Data. BJOG 2016, 123, 745–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Betran, A.P.; Torloni, M.R.; Zhang, J.; Ye, J.; Mikolajczyk, R.; Deneux-Tharaux, C.; Oladapo, O.T.; Souza, J.P.; Tunçalp, Ö.; Vogel, J.P.; et al. What Is the Optimal Rate of Caesarean Section at Population Level? A Systematic Review of Ecologic Studies. Reprod. Health 2015, 12, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Adewale, V.; Varotsis, D.; Iyer, N.; Di Mascio, D.; Dupont, A.; Abramowitz, L.; Steer, P.J.; Gimovsky, M.; Berghella, V. Planned Cesarean Delivery vs. Planned Vaginal Delivery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. MFM 2023, 5, 101186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Orovou, E.; Dagla, M.; Iatrakis, G.; Lykeridou, A.; Tzavara, C.; Antoniou, E. Correlation between Kind of Cesarean Section and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Greek Women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2020, 17, 1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Schobinger, E.; Stuijfzand, S.; Horsch, A. Acute and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms in Mothers and Fathers Following Childbirth: A Prospective Cohort Study. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 562054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Coping with Emotions After a C-Section (Caesarean). Tommy’s. Available online: https://www.tommys.org/pregnancy-information/giving-birth/caesarean-section/coping-emotions-after-c-section (accessed on 3 January 2025).
  40. Singh, J.; Scime, N.V.; Chaput, K.H. Association of Caesarean Delivery and Breastfeeding Difficulties during the Delivery Hospitalization: A Community-Based Cohort of Women and Full-Term Infants in Alberta, Canada. Can. J. Public. Health 2022, 114, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lannon, S.M.R.; Guthrie, K.A.; Vanderhoeven, J.P.; Gammill, H.S. Uterine Rupture Risk After Periviable Cesarean Delivery. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015, 125, 1095–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Çelik, A.S.; Çelik, E.C. Do Delivery Method and Anesthesia Type at Delivery Affect Postnatal Comfort Levels? J. Acad. Res. Nurs. 2020, 6, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Matalliotakis, M.; Velegrakis, A.; Goulielmos, G.; Niraki, E.; Patelarou, A.; Matalliotakis, I. Association of Placenta Previa with a History of Previous Cesarian Deliveries and Indications for a Possible Role of a Genetic Component. Balk. J. Med. Genet. 2017, 20, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  44. Kjerulff, K.H.; Brubaker, L.H. New Mothers’ Feelings of Disappointment and Failure after Cesarean Delivery. Birth 2018, 45, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Guglielminotti, J.; Landau, R.; Li, G. Adverse Events and Factors Associated with Potentially Avoidable Use of General Anesthesia in Cesarean Deliveries. Anesthesiology 2019, 130, 912–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hou, Y.; Zhou, X.; Yao, M.; Liu, S. Fear of Childbirth and Its Predictors in Re-Pregnant Women after Cesarean Section: A Cross-Sectional Multicenter Study in China. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2022, 22, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wei, L.; Xu, C.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, C. Higher Prevalence of Chronic Endometritis in Women with Cesarean Scar Defect: A Retrospective Study Using Propensity Score Matching. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 13, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Odada, D.; Shah, J.; Mbithi, A.; Shah, R. Surgical Site Infections Post Cesarean Section and Associated Risk Factors: A Retrospective Case-Control Study at a Tertiary Hospital in Kenya. Infect. Prev. Pract. 2024, 6, 100333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kathpalia, S.; Kshirsagar, S.; Kulkarni, M.; Pandey, R.; Kulkarni, J. Abnormal Placentation After Caesarean Section: A Retrospective Study. Cureus 2024, 16, e67316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nair, A.D.; Manchanda, S.; Gamanagatti, S.; Kachhawa, G.; Bhatla, N. Post Caesarean Section Complications Conundrum: Role of Imaging. Br. J. Radiol. 2022, 95, 20211344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Thomas, J.; Olukade, T.O.; Naz, A.; Salama, H.; Al-Qubaisi, M.; Rifai, H.A.; Al-Obaidly, S. The Neonatal Respiratory Morbidity Associated with Early Term Caesarean Section—An Emerging Pandemic. J. Perinat. Med. 2021, 49, 767–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Abdelazim, I.; Farghali, M.M.M.; Elbiaa, A.A.M.; Abdelrazak, K.M.; Hussain, M.; Yehia, A.H.; Rashad, M. Impact of Antenatal Oxytocin Infusion on Neonatal Respiratory Morbidity Associated with Elective Cesarean Section. Arch. Med. Sci. 2017, 13, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shaterian, N.; Abdi, F.; Ghavidel, N.; Alidost, F. Role of Cesarean Section in the Development of Neonatal Gut Microbiota: A Systematic Review. Open Med. 2021, 16, 624–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Chua, W.C.; Chen, Y.-L.; Yen, C.-F.; Chen, H.-L. Long-Term Health Outcomes of Children Born by Cesarean Section: A Nationwide Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study in Taiwan. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2024, 124, 1034–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Peters, L.L.; Thornton, C.; de Jonge, A.; Khashan, A.; Tracy, M.; Downe, S.; Jong, E.I.F.; Dahlen, H.G. The Effect of Medical and Operative Birth Interventions on Child Health Outcomes in the First 28 Days and up to 5 Years of Age: A Linked Data Population-based Cohort Study. Birth 2018, 45, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Papathoma, E.; Triga, M.; Fouzas, S.; Dimitriou, G. Cesarean Section Delivery and Development of Food Allergy and Atopic Dermatitis in Early Childhood. Pediatr. Allergy Immunol. 2016, 27, 419–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Martín-Calvo, N.; Martínez-González, M.Á.; Segura, G.; Chavarro, J.E.; Carlos, S.; Gea, A. Cesarean Delivery Is Associated with Higher Risk of Overweight in the Offspring: Within Family Analysis in the SUN Cohort. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2020, 74, 586–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Papadopoulou, S.K.; Mentzelou, M.; Pavlidou, E.; Vasios, G.K.; Spanoudaki, M.; Antasouras, G.; Sampani, A.; Psara, E.; Voulgaridou, G.; Tsourouflis, G.; et al. Caesarean Section Delivery Is Associated with Childhood Overweight and Obesity, Low Childbirth Weight and Postnatal Complications: A Cross-Sectional Study. Medicina 2023, 59, 664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kristensen, K.; Henriksen, L. Cesarean Section and Disease Associated with Immune Function. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2016, 137, 587–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sinha, A.; Bewley, S.; McIntosh, T. Myth: Babies Would Choose Prelabour Caesarean Section. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011, 16, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Grisbrook, M.-A.; Dewey, D.; Cuthbert, C.; McDonald, S.; Ntanda, H.; Letourneau, N. The Association between Cesarean Section Delivery and Child Behavior: Is It Mediated by Maternal Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Maternal Postpartum Depression? Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. O’Neill, S.M.; Curran, E.A.; Dalman, C.; Kenny, L.C.; Kearney, P.M.; Clarke, G.; Cryan, J.F.; Dinan, T.G.; Khashan, A.S. Birth by Caesarean Section and the Risk of Adult Psychosis: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Schizophr. Bull. 2016, 42, 633–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Al-Zalabani, A.H.; Al-Jabree, A.H.; Zeidan, Z.A. Is Cesarean Section Delivery Associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder? Neurosciences 2019, 24, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Makri, M.A.; Chaniotis, D.; Vivilaki, V.G.; Papageorgiou, E.G. Is There an Association Between Cesarean Section Delivery with Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) or/and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)? A Cross-Sectional Study in Greek Population. Children 2024, 11, 1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Curran, E.A.; Cryan, J.F.; Kenny, L.C.; Dinan, T.G.; Kearney, P.M.; Khashan, A.S. Obstetrical Mode of Delivery and Childhood Behavior and Psychological Development in a British Cohort. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2016, 46, 603–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hoff, C.E.; Movva, N.; Rosen Vollmar, A.K.; Pérez-Escamilla, R. Impact of Maternal Anxiety on Breastfeeding Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Adv. Nutr. 2019, 10, 816–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Sanni, S.O.; Adeoye, I.A.; Bella-Awusah, T.T.; Bello, O.O. Influence of Postpartum Depression on Maternal-Infant Bonding and Breastfeeding Practices among Mothers in Abeokuta, Ogun State. Discov. Ment. Health 2024, 4, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Black, M.; Bhattacharya, S.; Philip, S.; Norman, J.E.; McLernon, D.J. Planned Cesarean Delivery at Term and Adverse Outcomes in Childhood Health. JAMA 2015, 314, 2271–2279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Liao, S.-L.; Tsai, M.-H.; Yao, T.-C.; Hua, M.-C.; Yeh, K.-W.; Chiu, C.-Y.; Su, K.-W.; Huang, S.-Y.; Kao, C.-C.; Lai, S.-H.; et al. Caesarean Section Is Associated with Reduced Perinatal Cytokine Response, Increased Risk of Bacterial Colonization in the Airway, and Infantile Wheezing. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 9053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chiș, A.; Vulturar, R.; Andreica, S.; Prodan, A.; Miu, A.C. Behavioral and Cortisol Responses to Stress in Newborn Infants: Effects of Mode of Delivery. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2017, 86, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bancalari, A.; Araneda, H.; Echeverria, P.; Marinovic, A.; Manríquez, C.; Bancalari, A.; Araneda, H.; Echeverria, P.; Marinovic, A.; Manríquez, C. Saturación Arterial de Oxígeno y Frecuencia Cardíaca En Recién Nacidos de Término Sanos Durante La Primera Hora Post Nacimiento. Rev. Chil. Pediatr. 2019, 90, 384–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. van Zadelhoff, A.C.; Poppe, J.A.; Willemsen, S.; Mauff, K.; van Weteringen, W.; Goos, T.G.; Reiss, I.K.M.; Vermeulen, M.J.; de Graaff, J.C. Age-Dependent Changes in Arterial Blood Pressure in Neonates during the First Week of Life: Reference Values and Development of a Model. Br. J. Anaesth. 2023, 130, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ages & Stages. Available online: https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/Pages/default.aspx (accessed on 25 March 2025).
  74. Boatin, A.A.; Ngonzi, J.; Ganyaglo, G.; Mbaye, M.; Wylie, B.J.; Diouf, K. Cesarean Delivery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Review of Quality of Care Metrics and Targets for Improvement. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021, 26, 101199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chirwa, M.D.; Nyasulu, J.; Modiba, L.; Limando, M.G. Challenges Faced by Midwives in the Implementation of Facility-Based Maternal Death Reviews in Malawi. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2023, 23, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. A Neglected Tragedy: The Global Burden of Stillbirths. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/a-neglected-tragedy-the-global-burden-of-stillbirths (accessed on 5 January 2025).
  77. Dankwah, E.; Kirychuk, S.; Zeng, W.; Feng, C.; Farag, M. Socioeconomic Inequalities in the Use of Caesarean Section Delivery in Ghana: A Cross-Sectional Study Using Nationally Representative Data. Int. J. Equity Health 2019, 18, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Boatin, A.A.; Schlotheuber, A.; Betran, A.P.; Moller, A.-B.; Barros, A.J.D.; Boerma, T.; Torloni, M.R.; Victora, C.G.; Hosseinpoor, A.R. Within Country Inequalities in Caesarean Section Rates: Observational Study of 72 Low and Middle Income Countries. BMJ 2018, 360, k55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Ahmed, M.; Demissie, M.; Worku, A.; Abrha, A.; Berhane, Y. Socio-Cultural Factors Favoring Home Delivery in Afar Pastoral Community, Northeast Ethiopia: A Qualitative Study. Reprod. Health 2019, 16, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Etcheverry, C.; Betrán, A.P.; de Loenzien, M.; Robson, M.; Kaboré, C.; Lumbiganon, P.; Carroli, G.; Mac, Q.N.H.; Gialdini, C.; Dumont, A.; et al. How Does Hospital Organisation Influence the Use of Caesarean Sections in Low- and Middle-Income Countries? A Cross-Sectional Survey in Argentina, Burkina Faso, Thailand and Vietnam for the QUALI-DEC Project. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2024, 24, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chou, V.B.; Walker, N.; Kanyangarara, M. Estimating the Global Impact of Poor Quality of Care on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in 81 Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Modeling Study. PLoS Med. 2019, 16, e1002990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rupa, R.; Kushvaha, S.; Venkatesh, K. Uterine Isthmocele—A Frequently Overlooked Complication of Cesarean Sections. Indian J. Radiol. Imaging 2021, 31, 601–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Amadori, R.; Aquino, C.I.; Colagiorgio, S.; Osella, E.; Surico, D.; Remorgida, V. What May Happen If You Are Pregnant during COVID-19 Lockdown? A Retrospective Study about Peripartum Outcomes. Minerva Obstet. Gynecol. 2022, 74, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 14 08102 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart—structure search strategy. * The databases are listed in detail to clarify the search process.
Figure 1. Flow chart—structure search strategy. * The databases are listed in detail to clarify the search process.
Jcm 14 08102 g001
Table 2. Immediate and long-term effects of cesarean section on neonates, infants, and children.
Table 2. Immediate and long-term effects of cesarean section on neonates, infants, and children.
Author/Year
/Country		SampleDesignNeonate OutcomesInfant OutcomesChild Outcomes
Black et al., 2015 [68], UK321,287Cohort study--Asthma and atopic sensitization
Kristensen & Henriksen, 2016 [59], Denmark1,031,424Cohort studylaryngitis, asthma, gastroenteritislaryngitis, asthma, gastroenteritislaryngitis, asthma, gastroenteritis
Papathoma et al., 2016 [56], Greece233Prospective studyFood allergiesFood allergiesFood allergies
O’Neill et al., 2016 [62], Sweden125,766Cohort study--Psychosis (after elective CS)
Liao et al., 2017 [69], Taiwan579Prospective study-Asthma, wheeze-
Chiș et al., 2017 [70], Romania72Prospective studyIncreased stress behaviors--
Peters et al., 2018 [55], Australia1545Cohort studyJaundice, feeding problems, hypothermiaGastrointestinal disorders, eczemaGastrointestinal disorders, increased odds of metabolic disorder, eczema
Bancalari et al., 2019 [71], Chile324Prospective studyIncreased heart rate (2 h after elective CS)--
Al-Zalabani et al., 2018 [63]87Case–control study--Autism spectrum disorders
Thomas et al., 2021 [51], Qatar1466Cohort studyRespiratory problems (mainly in neonates after elective CS)--
Martín-Calvo et al., 2020 [57], Spain599Cohort study--Obesity and overweight
van Zadelhoff et al., 2023 [72], The Netherlands314Cohort studyLower systolic blood pressure on first day of life (in neonates after elective CS)--
Papadopoulou et al., 2023 [58], Greece2946Cohort study--Obesity and overweight
Chua et al., 2024 [54], Taiwan675,718Cohort study--Respiratory tract infections, asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, obesity
Makri et al., 2024 [64], Greece256Case–control study--ADHD, specific learning disabilities
Notes: Neonate: from 0 to 28 days; infant: from 29 days to 1 year; child: from 1 year to 18 years [73]. Studies represent a wide range of geographic regions (Europe, Asia, and North and South America). Differences in study design (prospective vs. cohort vs. case–control) and period of data collection are indicated where available.
Table 3. The inappropriate use of cesarean section.
Table 3. The inappropriate use of cesarean section.
Author/Year
/Country		SampleDesignExposureOutcomes
Boatin et al., 2018 [78], US72 low- and middle-income countriesSecondary analysis of demographic and health surveysEconomic inequalitiesLimited access to emergency CS
Excessive use of CS among wealthier subgroups
Chou et al., 2019 [81], US81 low- and middle-income countriesLinear and deterministic modelLack of healthcare infrastructuresLow quality of maternal and neonatal care
Dankwah et al., 2019 [77], Canada4294 women from GhanaData from the 2014 Ghana Demographic and Health SurveyInappropriate use of CSCS below the WHO threshold for less wealthy societies
CS above the WHO threshold for affluent classes
Ahmed et al., 2019 [79], Ethiopia186 women from EthiopiaQualitative studyCultural and social factors
(preference for natural and fear of complications or doubts about safety of CSs)		Underutilisation of health services
Etcheverry et al., 2024 [80], France504 women from 32 hospitals (8 per country)Cross-sectional studyShortage of specialized personnel, lack of privacy, and inadequate use of resourcesCS overuse
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Thomaidi, S.; Sarantaki, A.; Tzitiridou Chatzopoulou, M.; Orovou, E.; Jotautis, V.; Papoutsis, D. The Rising Global Cesarean Section Rates and Their Impact on Maternal and Child Health: A Scoping Review. J. Clin. Med. 2025, 14, 8102. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14228102

AMA Style

Thomaidi S, Sarantaki A, Tzitiridou Chatzopoulou M, Orovou E, Jotautis V, Papoutsis D. The Rising Global Cesarean Section Rates and Their Impact on Maternal and Child Health: A Scoping Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025; 14(22):8102. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14228102

Chicago/Turabian Style

Thomaidi, Sofia, Antigoni Sarantaki, Maria Tzitiridou Chatzopoulou, Eirini Orovou, Vaidas Jotautis, and Dimitrios Papoutsis. 2025. "The Rising Global Cesarean Section Rates and Their Impact on Maternal and Child Health: A Scoping Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 14, no. 22: 8102. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14228102

APA Style

Thomaidi, S., Sarantaki, A., Tzitiridou Chatzopoulou, M., Orovou, E., Jotautis, V., & Papoutsis, D. (2025). The Rising Global Cesarean Section Rates and Their Impact on Maternal and Child Health: A Scoping Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(22), 8102. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14228102

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop