Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of demographic data among Cesarean delivery and three groups of vaginal delivery

From: Effect of different delivery modes on the short-term strength of the pelvic floor muscle in Chinese primipara

 

Cesarean delivery Group

Vaginal delivery Group

t or X2

p value

Perineal laceration Group

Episiotomy Group

Forceps assisted Group

F or X2

p value

(2020)

(2749)

  

(398)

(2279)

(72)

  

Age(y) [mean ± sd]

28.3 ± 3.0

27.7 ± 2.9

7.017

0.000

27.7 ± 2.8

27.7 ± 2.9

28.1 ± 2.8

0.639

0.528

BMI of delivery (kg/m2) [mean ± sd]

27.3 ± 2.6

27.5 ± 2.7

−1.658

0.098

27.5 ± 2.8

27.4 ± 2.7

27. 8 ± 2.6

0.656

0.519

Birth weight(g) [mean ± sd]

3322.0 ± 550.0

3252.6 ± 476.1

4.554

0.000

3226.3 ± 334.2

3254.8 ± 499.1

3329.2 ± 385.0

1.563

0.210

Gestational weight gain(kg)[mean ± sd]

15.9 ± 7.0

15.6 ± 7.2

1.470

0.142

15.6 ± 6.7

15.6 ± 7.3

14.6 ± 6.2

0.639

0.528

Gestational age at birth(w) [mean ± sd]

39.2 ± 1.4

39.3 ± 1.4

−0.638

0.523

39.2 ± 1.3

39.3 ± 1.4

39.7 ± 1.1

2.135

0.094

Rate of GDM (%)

30.0 (605/2020)

26.0 (714/2749)

9.009

0.003

24.1 (96/398)

26.0 (593/2279)

25 (18/72)

0.660

0.719

Duration of 2nd sta(m) [median(95%CI)]

/

26(7–110)

/

/

29(6–77)

25(7112)

28(11–129)

4.258

0.119

  1. Student’s test, One-Way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis H test and Chi-square analysis are performed; GDM: gestational diabetes mellitus