| Literature DB >> 35885738 |
Effrosyni Nikolaidou1, Evangelia Antoniou1, Angeliki Sarella1, Maria Iliadou1, Eirini Orovou1, Maria Dagla1.
Abstract
Female sexual function could be considered as multifactorial. Specific physiological structures and hormonal fluctuations postpartum, along with the psychological adjustment of women, could result in altered sexual function. The primary aim of this review was to systematically appraise the existing data on the effect of mode of delivery on female sexual function. This review was designed based on the PRISMA statement guidelines. An extensive literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Scopus, and PsycInfo databases, using prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria, between the 20 September and 10 October 2021. Studies' quality assessment was conducted using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The initial search involved 1592 studies. The last step of the screening procedure yielded 16 studies, including 41,441 subjects with a mean age of 29.9 years. Studies included groups with spontaneous and assisted vaginal and C-section delivery modes. No statistically significant difference between groups was found. The type of delivery appears to be irrelevant regarding this relationship. Moderating factors seemed to indirectly influence this relationship. Health professionals should educate expectant mothers and be aware of the possibility that delivery method could affect sexual function.Entities:
Keywords: C-section delivery; FSFI; sexual function; type of delivery; vaginal delivery
Year: 2022 PMID: 35885738 PMCID: PMC9322469 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10071212
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1Flow diagram of the included studies.
Basic characteristics of the included studies of this systematic review.
| Author, | Sample Size (n) | Mean | Type of Delivery Comparison (n of Group) | Measurements of Outcome of Interest | Main Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 376 | 30.8 ± 4.2 | CD (elective and emergency) (92), VD (spontaneous and instrumental) (284) | CPQ, ISS, SFQ-MIS | No direct effect of delivery mode on sexual function was found. Indirect effect of delivery mode was found for sexual functioning experience [B = −0.26, |
|
| 203 | 24.91 ± 4.9 | CD (113), VD (90) | FSFI | No statistically significant difference was discovered between the groups of comparison. |
|
| 177 | 31.81 ± 6.31 | CD (54), SVD (123) | FSFI | No statistically significant difference was discovered between the groups of comparison ( |
|
| 82 | 18–45 | Vaginal without episiotomy (16), vaginal with an episiotomy (14), instrumental delivery (16), | FSFI | Total scores of FSFI did not show significant difference at 6, 12 or 24 weeks postpartum. |
|
| 131 | 30.70 | CD (28), SVD (77), OVD (26) | FSFI | In total or subscale scores of FSFI, no significant difference was found between groups at antenatal and 12 months postpartum assessments. |
|
| 361 | 28.21 ± 4.22 | CD (181), VD (180) | FSFI | No significant difference was found between groups of comparison ( |
|
| 49 | 31.45 ± 4.35 | CD (15), VD (16), Nulliparous (18) | Laser Doppler imaging was used to assess genital response while participants watched a neutral and erotic film, FSFI | Genital response and subjective sexual arousal/response was not significantly related to mode of delivery. VD group had significantly lower flux units compared to CD group ( |
|
| 435 | 33.2 ± 4.4 | SVD (282), OVD (21), planned CD (23), emergency CD (27) | SFQ28 | Only the partner subscale of the instrument revealed significant difference between groups. |
|
| 37,417 | 18–45 | SVD (25,646), OVD (5460), CD (6311) | Structured inquiry on sexual health, adapted from the Danish National Health Survey | Significantly fewer sexual problems only for the VD group following a C-section delivery. |
|
| 684 | 29.0 ± 6.2 | CD (364), VD (320) | FSFI | Women with a history of CS had statistically significant higher FSFI total score compared to VD (31.3 ± 3.8 vs. 30.23 ± 3.6, respectively; |
|
| 269 | 32.4 ± 4.9 | SVD (132), CD (92), OVD (45) | FSFI | OVD showed significantly lower FSFI total scores and subscales (arousal, lubrication, orgasm) compared to CD, and stat. sign. lower score in orgasm with SVD. The mode of delivery did not affect the resumption of sexual intercourse. |
|
| 403 | 18–45 | CD (138), VD and episiotomy (265) | FSFI | Significant within groups differences in specific subscales of FSFI at 3-month assessment. No significant difference between groups at 6-, 12-, or 24-month assessments. |
|
| 150 | 27.87 + 5.64 | CD (69), VD (81) | FSFI | No significant differences between mode of delivery and sexual functioning in total scores or subscales |
|
| 200 | 29.1 ± 3.11 | CD (110), VD (90) | FSFI | The mode of delivery had insignificant effect on the FSFI at 12 weeks postpartum. |
|
| 142 | 18–45 | CD (77), VD (65) | FSFI | No difference was found between CD and VD groups. |
|
| 196 | 26–36 | OVD(131), SVD(65) | FSFI | Significantly lower FSFI total score for the OVD group (21.3 ± 8.6 vs. 24.9 ± 7.9, |
* Age is presented in mean ± standard deviation or minimum–maximum. ABBREVIATIONS: CD = cesarean delivery; VD = vaginal delivery (when not clarified if spontaneous or operative); OVD = operative vaginal delivery; SVD = spontaneous vaginal delivery; CPQ = Childbirth Perception Questionnaire; ISS = Index of Sexual Satisfaction; SFQ-MIS = Sexual Function Questionnaire’s Medical Impact Scale; FSFI = Female Sexual Function Index; SFQ28 = Female Sexual Function Questionnaire.
Quality assessment of the included studies based on the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.
| Study | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Handelzalts, 2018 | Amiri, 2017 | Ghorat, 2017 | Lurie, 2013 | De Souza, 2015 | Banaei, 2018 | Cappell, 2020 | Song, 2014 | Hjorth, 2019 | Saleh, 2019 | Barbara, 2016 | Kahramanoglu, 2017 | Dabiri | Eid, 2015 | Saydam, 2019 | De Sousa, 2021 |
| 1. Clear research question | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 2. Population clearly defined | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 3. Participation rate > 50% | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 4. Prespecified eligibility criteria | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 5. Sample size justification | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| 6. Exposure of interest measured before the outcome | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 7. Sufficient timeframe between exposure and outcome | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 8. Different levels of exposure examination related to the outcome | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 9. Exposure measures clearly defined | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 10. Exposure assessed more than once over time | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 11. Outcome measures clearly defined | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 12. Outcome assessors blinded to the exposure | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 13. Loss to follow-up after baseline < 20% | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 14. Confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | N | Y |
ABBREVIATIONS: Y = yes; N = no; NA = not applicable.