open access

Vol 92, No 1 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-01-29
Get Citation

Risk factors for unsuccessful vaginal birth after caesarean at full dilatation

Julia Zareba-Szczudlik, Aneta Malinowska-Polubiec, Agnieszka Dobrowolska-Redo, Zbigniew Lewandowski, Joanna Kacperczyk-Bartnik, Pawel Bartnik, Ewa Romejko-Wolniewicz
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2020.0140
·
Pubmed: 33576488
·
Ginekol Pol 2021;92(1):24-29.

open access

Vol 92, No 1 (2021)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2021-01-29

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors for caesarean sections in the second stage of labour after a previous caesarean section among women who underwent trial of labour (TOL). Material and methods: From a total of 639 women who experienced one caesarean section, 456 women were qualified for TOL. From this group, 105 women were subjected to a caesarean section in the first stage of labour and another 351 women reached the second stage of labour. From the latter group, 309 women delivered naturally and 42 were subjected to a caesarean section. Results: Risk factors for the necessity of performing a caesarean section in the second stage of labour after a previous caesarean section was the weight gain during pregnancy (OR = 1.07), the height of fundus uteri (OR = 1.25) before delivery, and the estimated foetal weight (OR = 1.01), a past delivery of a child with a birth weight exceeding 4.000 g (OR = 2.14), the presence of pre-gestational diabetes (OR = 15.4) and gestational diabetes (OR = 2.22), necessity of applying a delivery induction (OR = 2.52), stimulation of uterine activity during delivery (OR = 2.43) and application of epidural analgesia (OR = 4.04). A factor reducing the risk of a caesarean section in the second stage was a vaginal delivery in a woman’s history (OR = 0.21). Conclusions: Women should be encouraged to deliver naturally after a previous caesarean section, especially when their history includes a vaginal delivery and if there is no need for labour induction.

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors for caesarean sections in the second stage of labour after a previous caesarean section among women who underwent trial of labour (TOL). Material and methods: From a total of 639 women who experienced one caesarean section, 456 women were qualified for TOL. From this group, 105 women were subjected to a caesarean section in the first stage of labour and another 351 women reached the second stage of labour. From the latter group, 309 women delivered naturally and 42 were subjected to a caesarean section. Results: Risk factors for the necessity of performing a caesarean section in the second stage of labour after a previous caesarean section was the weight gain during pregnancy (OR = 1.07), the height of fundus uteri (OR = 1.25) before delivery, and the estimated foetal weight (OR = 1.01), a past delivery of a child with a birth weight exceeding 4.000 g (OR = 2.14), the presence of pre-gestational diabetes (OR = 15.4) and gestational diabetes (OR = 2.22), necessity of applying a delivery induction (OR = 2.52), stimulation of uterine activity during delivery (OR = 2.43) and application of epidural analgesia (OR = 4.04). A factor reducing the risk of a caesarean section in the second stage was a vaginal delivery in a woman’s history (OR = 0.21). Conclusions: Women should be encouraged to deliver naturally after a previous caesarean section, especially when their history includes a vaginal delivery and if there is no need for labour induction.

Get Citation

Keywords

caesarean section; repeat; trial of labour; vaginal birth after caesarean

About this article
Title

Risk factors for unsuccessful vaginal birth after caesarean at full dilatation

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 92, No 1 (2021)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

24-29

Published online

2021-01-29

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2020.0140

Pubmed

33576488

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2021;92(1):24-29.

Keywords

caesarean section
repeat
trial of labour
vaginal birth after caesarean

Authors

Julia Zareba-Szczudlik
Aneta Malinowska-Polubiec
Agnieszka Dobrowolska-Redo
Zbigniew Lewandowski
Joanna Kacperczyk-Bartnik
Pawel Bartnik
Ewa Romejko-Wolniewicz

References (30)
  1. Henke RM, Wier LM, Marder WD, et al. Geographic variation in cesarean delivery in the United States by payer. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14: 387.
  2. World Health Organization. World health statistics 2010. https://www.aidsdatahub.org/sites/default/files/documents/WHO_2010_World_Health_Statistics_2010.pdf.
  3. Stasiełuk A, Langowicz I, Kosińska-Kaczyńska K, et al. Is the epidemic of cesarean sections the result of more liberal indications? Ginekol Pol. 2012; 83(8): 604–608.
  4. Romejko-Wolniewicz E, Gorsiak A, Zaręba-Szczudlik J, et al. Poród po cięciu cesarskim—kiedy należy się obawiać [Labor after cesarean delivery – when should we be afraid]. Klin Perinatol i Gin. 2007; 43(4): 21–28.
  5. Unterscheider J, McMenamin M, Cullinane F. Rising rates of caesarean deliveries at full cervical dilatation: a concerning trend. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011; 157(2): 141–144.
  6. Lurie S, Raz N, Boaz M, et al. Comparison of maternal outcomes from primary cesarean section during the second compared with first stage of labor by indication for the operation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 182: 43–47.
  7. Inc SI. SAS/STAT® 9.3, User’s Guide, Volume 1, 2, 3. Cary, NC, USA,2011.
  8. Fisher L, Van Be. Biostatistics: a methodology for the Health Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, Inc 1994.
  9. Davis G, Fleming T, Ford K, et al. Caesarean section at full cervical dilatation. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015; 55(6): 565–571.
  10. Thomas J, Paranjothy S. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. RCOG press, London 2001.
  11. Senturk MB, Cakmak Y, Atac H, et al. Factors associated with successful vaginal birth after cesarean section and outcomes in rural area of Anatolia. Int J Womens Health. 2015; 7: 693–697.
  12. Lewkowitz AK, Nakagawa S, Thiet MP, et al. Effect of stage of initial labor dystocia on vaginal birth after cesarean success. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213(6): 861.e1–861.e5.
  13. Son M, Roy A, Grobman WA. Attempted operative vaginal delivery vs repeat cesarean in the second stage among women undergoing a trial of labor after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 216(4): 407.e1–407.e5.
  14. Bujold E, Hammoud AO, Hendler I, et al. Trial of labor in patients with a previous cesarean section: does maternal age influence the outcome? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190(4): 1113–1118.
  15. Micek M, Kosinska-Kaczynska K, Godek B, et al. Birth after a previous cesarean section-what is most important in making a decision. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2014; 35(8): 718–723.
  16. Juhasz G, Gyamfi C, Gyamfi P, et al. Effect of body mass index and excessive weight gain on success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106(4): 741–746.
  17. Durnwald CP, Ehrenberg HM, Mercer BM. The impact of maternal obesity and weight gain on vaginal birth after cesarean section success. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191(3): 954–957.
  18. Blackwell SC, Hassan SS, Wolfe HM, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean in the diabetic gravida. J Reprod Med. 2000; 45(12): 987–990.
  19. Cormier C, Landon M, Lai Y, et al. White’s Classification of Maternal Diabetes and Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery Success in Women Undergoing a Trial of Labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115(1): 60–64.
  20. Nguyen TV, Dinh TV, Suresh MS, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean section at the University of Texas. J Reprod Med. 1992; 37(10): 880–882.
  21. Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, et al. Outcomes of trial of labor following previous cesarean delivery among women with fetuses weighing >4000 g. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 185(4): 903–905.
  22. Phelan JP, Eglinton GS, Horenstein JM, et al. Previous cesarean birth. Trial of labor in women with macrosomic infants. J Reprod Med. 1984; 29(1): 36–40.
  23. Elkousy MA, Sammel M, Stevens E, et al. The effect of birth weight on vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188(3): 824–830.
  24. Kalok A, Zabil SA, Jamil MA, et al. Antenatal scoring system in predicting the success of planned vaginal birth following one previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018; 38(3): 339–343.
  25. Hammoud A, Hendler I, Gauthier RJ, et al. The effect of gestational age on trial of labor after Cesarean section. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004; 15(3): 202–206.
  26. Sakala EP, Kaye S, Murray RD, et al. Oxytocin use after previous cesarean: why a higher rate of failed labor trial? Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 75(3 Pt 1): 356–359.
  27. Antonakou A, Papoutsis D. The Effect of Epidural Analgesia on the Delivery Outcome of Induced Labour: A Retrospective Case Series. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2016; 2016: 5740534.
  28. Agrawal D, Makhija B, Arora M, et al. The effect of epidural analgesia on labour, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome in nullipara of India, 2011-2014. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8(10): OC03–OC06.
  29. Paterson CM, Saunders NS, Wadsworth J. The characteristics of the second stage of labour in 25,069 singleton deliveries in the North West Thames Health Region, 1988. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992; 99(5): 377–380.
  30. Hendler I, Bujold E, Hammoud A, et al. Trial of labor in patients with a previous cesarean section: does maternal age influence the outcome? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190(4): 1113–1118.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl