<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2 20190208//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.2/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="en">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">IJMABHR</journal-id>
<journal-title-group><journal-title>International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title>IJMABHR</abbrev-journal-title></journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">2582-8940</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Anfo Publication House</publisher-name></publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">279</article-id>
<title-group><article-title>Comparison of Elective Cesarean Section and Vaginal Delivery Outcomes: A Study of 100 Patients at Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences</article-title></title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name><surname>Bachani</surname><given-names>Swati</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Goel</surname><given-names>JK</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"/></contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Tarun</surname><given-names>Mandvi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"/></contrib>
<aff id="aff1"><label>1</label>Post Graduate Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India</aff>
<aff id="aff2"><label>2</label>Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India</aff>
<aff id="aff3"><label>3</label>Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, India</aff>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date publication-format="electronic" date-type="pub"><year>2025</year></pub-date>
<volume>6</volume>
<issue>1</issue>
<fpage>12</fpage>
<lpage>15</lpage>
<history>
<date date-type="received"><day>10</day><month>11</month><year>2024</year></date>
<date date-type="accepted"><day>12</day><month>12</month><year>2024</year></date>
</history>
<permissions><license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/?utm"><license-p>CC BY-NC-SA 4.0</license-p></license></permissions>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://www.allmedicaljournal.com/article/279/comparison-of-elective-cesarean-section-and-vaginal-delivery-outcomes-a-study-of-100-patients-at"/>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="https://www.allmedicaljournal.com/article/279/download"/>
<abstract><p>Background: This study compares maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective cesarean sections (C-sections) and vaginal deliveries among 100 patients at Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Hapur. Of the participants, 40 underwent elective C-sections, and 60 had vaginal deliveries. The study highlights differences in recovery times, complication rates, and neonatal health, emphasizing the need for individualized decision-making in choosing the mode of delivery.

Aims and Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare the maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective cesarean sections and vaginal deliveries to determine the advantages and risks associated with each delivery method. 1. To evaluate maternal outcomes, including complication rates, recovery times, and satisfaction levels, for both elective cesarean sections and vaginal deliveries. 2. To assess neonatal outcomes, such as Apgar scores, respiratory complications, and birth injuries, associated with each mode of delivery. 3. To identify factors influencing maternal satisfaction with the chosen delivery method. 4. To provide evidence-based recommendations for selecting the most appropriate mode of delivery for different clinical scenarios

Methodology: Study Design: Prospective observational study conducted from March 2024 to November 2024. Population: 100 pregnant women admitted for delivery at Saraswathi Institute of Medical Sciences.

Results: 1. Elective C-section (n = 40): Higher rates of surgical complications (10% surgical site infections, 5% postoperative hemorrhage). Longer recovery time (average 4 days hospital stay, 6-8 weeks full recovery). 2. Vaginal Delivery (n = 60): Higher incidence of perineal trauma (25%) and postpartum hemorrhage (8%). Quicker recovery time (average 2 days hospital stay, 2-4 weeks full recovery).

Neonatal Outcomes: 1. Elective C-section: 95% of neonates had Apgar scores ≥7 at 1 minute; 10% experienced transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN). 2. Vaginal Delivery: 92% of neonates had Apgar scores ≥7 at 1 minute; 5% had minor birth injuries (e.g., bruising).

Maternal Satisfaction: 1. Elective C-section: 80% satisfaction due to avoidance of labor pain; 20% dissatisfaction from prolonged recovery. 2. Vaginal Delivery: 85% satisfaction due to quicker recovery; 15% dissatisfaction due to labor pain or trauma.

Conclusion: This study concludes that both elective C-sections and vaginal deliveries have distinct advantages and risks. The choice of delivery mode should be tailored to each patient, taking into account medical indications, maternal preferences, and potential outcomes. Vaginal delivery remains the preferred method for low-risk pregnancies, while elective C-sections are valuable in specific situations.


 </p></abstract>
<kwd-group kwd-group-type="author"><kwd>Elective Cesarean Section</kwd><kwd>Vaginal Delivery</kwd><kwd>Maternal Outcomes</kwd><kwd>Neonatal Outcomes</kwd><kwd>Apgar Score</kwd></kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<back><ref-list><title>References</title>
<ref id="R1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Betrán AP, et al. Global rise in cesarean section rates: An analysis of trends. The Lancet; c2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="R2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>WHO. Mode of delivery and its implications for maternal and neonatal health; c2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="R3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Sandall J, et al. Short- and long-term maternal and neonatal outcomes of cesarean versus vaginal delivery; c2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="R4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Barber EL, et al. Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology; c2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="R5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Molina G, et al. Relationship between cesarean delivery and maternal mortality and morbidity. JAMA; c2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="R6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Cesarean section clinical guideline; c2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="R7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Clark SL, et al. Cesarean delivery rates and maternal and neonatal morbidity. Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology; c2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="R8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Villar J, et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery. BMJ; c2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
</ref-list></back>
</article>