Download PDF
Am J Perinatol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2542-9318
SMFM Fellowship Series Article

Reoperation following Cesarean Birth: An Analysis of Incidence, Indications, and Procedures Using a National Surgical Database

Luke P. Burns
1   The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
,
Jourdan E. Triebwasser
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Christopher X. Hong
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to determine the incidence of reoperation after uncomplicated cesarean birth, describe the types of procedures and indications for reoperation, and identify risk factors associated with reoperation using a national surgical database.

Study Design

A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, encompassing data from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. A total of 43,492 patients who underwent cesarean birth were included. Patients who underwent concurrent nongynecologic procedures or hysterectomies were excluded. The primary outcomes measured were the incidence of unplanned reoperation within 30 days of cesarean birth, types of reoperative procedures, indications for reoperation, and associated risk factors. Statistical analyses included Student's t-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, chi-squared test, and multivariable logistic regression.

Results

Out of 43,492 cesarean deliveries, 397 (0.9%) required unplanned reoperation. Significant risk factors for reoperation included smoking (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.49–1.56), hypertension (aOR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.27–2.62), bleeding disorders (aOR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.15–3.89), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class > 3 (aOR: 2.23, 95% CI: 1.29–3.84), and concurrent myomectomy (aOR: 4.39, 95% CI: 1.06–18.2). The most common indications for reoperation were postpartum hemorrhage (47%), wound disruption or infection (18%), and hematoma or hemoperitoneum (14%). The most frequently performed reoperative procedures were exploratory laparotomy without hysterectomy (27%), uterine curettage (23%), and wound debridement or drainage (22%).

Conclusion

Reoperation following cesarean birth is a relatively uncommon but significant event, occurring in 0.9% of cases. Key risk factors include smoking, hypertension, bleeding disorders, ASA class > 3, and concurrent myomectomy. This study provides comprehensive data on the clinical characteristics and indications for reoperation following cesarean birth in a diverse, multi-institutional US cohort. The findings highlight the need for enhanced perioperative monitoring and targeted interventions for high-risk patients to improve maternal outcomes.

Key Points

  • In this retrospective cross-sectional study of 43,492 cesarean deliveries, the incidence of unplanned reoperation was found to be 0.9%.

  • Significant risk factors for reoperation included smoking, hypertension, bleeding disorders, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class > 3, and concurrent myomectomy at the time of cesarean birth.

  • The most common indications for reoperation were postpartum hemorrhage, wound disruption or infection, and hematoma or hemoperitoneum.

  • The most common reoperative procedures were exploratory laparotomy without hysterectomy, uterine curettage, and wound debridement or drainage.

Keywords

cesarean birth - current procedural terminology (CPT) - dilation and curettage - hysterectomy - international classification of diseases (ICD) - laparotomy - NSQIP - postoperative complications - postpartum hemorrhage - reoperation - relaparotomy

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 07 October 2024

Accepted: 19 February 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
20 February 2025

Article published online:
18 March 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Births: Provisional Data for 2023. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed 2024 at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr035.pdf
    PubMed
  • 2 Creanga AA, Bateman BT, Butwick AJ. et al. Morbidity associated with cesarean delivery in the United States: is placenta accreta an increasingly important contributor?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213 (03) 384.e1-384.e11
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Mackeen AD, Sullivan MV, Berghella V. Evidence-based cesarean delivery: preoperative management (part 7). Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2024; 6 (05) 101362
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Corbetta-Rastelli CM, Friedman AM, Sobhani NC, Arditi B, Goffman D, Wen T. Postpartum hemorrhage trends and outcomes in the United States, 2000-2019. Obstet Gynecol 2023; 141 (01) 152-161
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Hammad IA, Chauhan SP, Magann EF, Abuhamad AZ. Peripartum complications with cesarean delivery: a review of maternal-fetal medicine units network publications. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27 (05) 463-474
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Carter EB, Temming LA, Fowler S. et al. Evidence-based bundles and cesarean delivery surgical site infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (04) 735-746
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Temming LA, Raghuraman N, Carter EB. et al. Impact of evidence-based interventions on wound complications after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217 (04) 449.e1-449.e9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Belfort MA, Clark SL, Saade GR. et al. Hospital readmission after delivery: evidence for an increased incidence of nonurogenital infection in the immediate postpartum period. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202 (01) 35.e1-35.e7
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Batra P, Fridman M, Leng M, Gregory KD. Emergency department care in the postpartum period: California births, 2009-2011. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (05) 1073-1081
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Akkurt MO, Coşkun B, Güçlü T, Çift T, Korkmazer E. Risk factors for relaparotomy after cesarean delivery and related maternal near-miss event due to bleeding. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2020; 33 (10) 1695-1699
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Ashwal E, Yogev Y, Melamed N. et al. Characterizing the need for re-laparotomy during puerperium after cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 290 (01) 35-39
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Gedikbasi A, Akyol A, Asar E. et al. Re-laparotomy after cesarean section: operative complications in surgical delivery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008; 278 (05) 419-425
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Huras H, Radon-Pokracka M, Nowak M. Relaparotomy following cesarean section - a single center study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 225: 185-188
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Kessous R, Danor D, Weintraub YA. et al. Risk factors for relaparotomy after cesarean section. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25 (11) 2167-2170
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Levin I, Rapaport AS, Salzer L, Maslovitz S, Lessing JB, Almog B. Risk factors for relaparotomy after cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012; 119 (02) 163-165
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Levitt L, Sapir H, Kabiri D, Ein-Mor E, Hochner-Celnikier D, Amsalem H. Re-laparotomy following cesarean delivery - risk factors and outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29 (04) 607-609
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Lurie S, Sadan O, Golan A. Re-laparotomy after cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007; 134 (02) 184-187
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Raagab AE, Mesbah YH, Brakat RI, Zayed AA, Alsaammani MA. Re-laparotomy after cesarean section: risk, indications and management options. Med Arh 2014; 68 (01) 41-43
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Seal SL, Kamilya G, Bhattacharyya SK, Mukherji J, Bhattacharyya AR. Relaparotomy after cesarean delivery: experience from an Indian teaching hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2007; 33 (06) 804-809
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Seffah JD. Re-laparotomy after cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 88 (03) 253-257
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Shinar S, Hareuveni M, Ben-Tal O, Many A. Relaparotomies after cesarean sections: risk factors, indications, and management. J Perinat Med 2013; 41 (05) 567-572
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Vázquez-Rodríguez JG, Serrano-Rodríguez J, Arredondo-Andrade SA, Chable-Chan FG, García-Bello JA, Nájera-Coutiño CM. Prevalencia, causas y curso clínico de pacientes con reintervención quirúrgica debido a complicaciones durante la cesárea. Cir Cir 2023; 91 (04) 446-450
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Amikam U, Botkovsky Y, Hochberg A. et al. Risk factors for relaparotomy after a cesarean delivery: a case-control study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2024; 24 (01) 284
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Pencole L, Peyronnet V, Mandelbrot L, Lepercq J. Risk factors of relaparotomy for intra-abdominal hemorrhage after cesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2021; 260: 118-123
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Wen T, Liao L, Kern-Goldberger A. et al. Risk for and temporal trends in cesarean surgical complications. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022; 35 (25) 6489-6497
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Pergialiotis V, Sinanidis I, Louloudis I-E, Vichos T, Perrea DN, Doumouchtsis SK. Perioperative complications of cesarean delivery myomectomy: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 130 (06) 1295-1303
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Mandelbaum RS, Matsuzaki S, Sangara RN. et al. Paradigm shift from tubal ligation to opportunistic salpingectomy at cesarean delivery in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 225 (04) 399.e1-399.e32
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Roeckner JT, Sawangkum P, Sanchez-Ramos L, Duncan JR. Salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135 (03) 550-557
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Jaffer D, Singh PM, Aslam A, Cahill AG, Palanisamy A, Monks DT. Preventing postpartum hemorrhage after cesarean delivery: a network meta-analysis of available pharmacologic agents. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 226 (03) 347-365
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Al-Zirqi I, Vangen S, Forsén L, Stray-Pedersen B. Effects of onset of labor and mode of delivery on severe postpartum hemorrhage. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201 (03) 273.e1-273.e9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar