I think this study is a perfect exemple off how a so called research result can cause more harm then good, only because there is a design flaw with a lot of variables not taken in account. To sustain such affirmation that a vaginal delivery, a type of delivery that is the natural way we evolved to reproduce the species but, because of wrong and harmful interventions to it's fisiology, which has consequences to the women body are not taken in account, is something that is in the best way naive or in the other neglectful when we are talking about cientific research. The way women are put to birth matters, lying down on her back pushing against gravity will strain much more her pelvic floor, not allowing time for the baby to make it's turns to come out and so pulling him and streching the walls of the vagina, or "helping" the push directing it and using the kristeller manouver not to mention what the episiotomy does directly to the pelvic floor…. honestly what do you think you are doing when you compare "vaginal birth" to cesarean section??? Where those variables taken in account to make these conclusions?? I don't see it so better not be so fast in making the assumption that a surgical birth is a better one for the women pelvic floor! Probably the lifesitile that we occidental people have will also have an impact, so you would have to make the same study in another countries with diferent cultures and way of living! All in all you do have to have another study design to be able to affirm something like this.