Multimedialna platforma wiedzy medycznej Internetowa Księgarnia Medyczna Kalendarium Konferencji
Ginekologia Polska
MENU
Shortcuts Submit an article Author Guidelines Ahead Of Print Reviewers 2023

open access

Vol 94, No 9 (2023)
Research paper
Published online: 2023-04-05
View PDF Download PDF file View HTML
Get Citation

Retrospective evaluation of outcomes of vaginal birth after caesarean section in a tertiary center: a single-center study from Türkiye

Aytaj Jafarzade1, Sveta Aghayeva1, İpek Ulu1, Osman Ufuk Ekiz2, Tamer Mungan1, Aydan Biri1
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2023.0032
·
Pubmed: 37042325
·
Ginekol Pol 2023;94(9):721-726.
Affiliations
  1. Koru Ankara Hospital, Ankara, Türkiye
  2. Gazi University, Emniyet Mah, Gazi Üniversitesi Rektörlüğü, Ankara, Türkiye

open access

Vol 94, No 9 (2023)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Obstetrics
Published online: 2023-04-05

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the trial of labor after caesarean (TOLAC) outcomes and determine its reliability by comparing it with elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) and vaginal delivery. Material and methods: For this purpose, the outcomes of patients aged 18–40 years who had 57 TOLACs, 72 vaginal deliveries, and 60 elective caesarean sections in Ankara Koru Hospital between January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2022 were compared. Results: Gestational age was lower in the normal vaginal delivery (NVD) group than in the elective caesarean section and vaginal birth after caesarean delivery (VBAC) groups (p < 0.0005). The birth weight was statistically significantly lower in the NVD group than in the elective caesarean section and VBAC groups (p < 0.0002). No statistically significant correlation was found between the BMI values in all three groups (p < 0.586). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of pre- and post-natal haemoglobin and APGAR scores (p < 0.575) (p < 0.690) (p < 0.747). The rate of epidural and oxytocin use was higher in the NVD group than in the VBAC group (p < 0.001) (p < 0.037). There was no statistically significant correlation between the birth weights of the infants in the TOLAC group and failed VBAC (p < 0.078). No statistically significant correlation was observed between the use of oxytocin for induction and failed VBAC (p < 0.842). There was no statistically significant correlation between epidural anaesthesia and failed VBAC (p < 0.586). A statistically significant correlation was found between gestational age and caesarean section as a result of a failed VBAC (p < 0.020). Conclusions: The main reason for not preferring TOLAC continues to be uterine rupture. It can be recommended to eligible patients in tertiary centers. Because even when the factors increasing the success of VBAC were excluded, the rate of successful VBAC remained high.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the trial of labor after caesarean (TOLAC) outcomes and determine its reliability by comparing it with elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) and vaginal delivery. Material and methods: For this purpose, the outcomes of patients aged 18–40 years who had 57 TOLACs, 72 vaginal deliveries, and 60 elective caesarean sections in Ankara Koru Hospital between January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2022 were compared. Results: Gestational age was lower in the normal vaginal delivery (NVD) group than in the elective caesarean section and vaginal birth after caesarean delivery (VBAC) groups (p < 0.0005). The birth weight was statistically significantly lower in the NVD group than in the elective caesarean section and VBAC groups (p < 0.0002). No statistically significant correlation was found between the BMI values in all three groups (p < 0.586). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of pre- and post-natal haemoglobin and APGAR scores (p < 0.575) (p < 0.690) (p < 0.747). The rate of epidural and oxytocin use was higher in the NVD group than in the VBAC group (p < 0.001) (p < 0.037). There was no statistically significant correlation between the birth weights of the infants in the TOLAC group and failed VBAC (p < 0.078). No statistically significant correlation was observed between the use of oxytocin for induction and failed VBAC (p < 0.842). There was no statistically significant correlation between epidural anaesthesia and failed VBAC (p < 0.586). A statistically significant correlation was found between gestational age and caesarean section as a result of a failed VBAC (p < 0.020). Conclusions: The main reason for not preferring TOLAC continues to be uterine rupture. It can be recommended to eligible patients in tertiary centers. Because even when the factors increasing the success of VBAC were excluded, the rate of successful VBAC remained high.

Full Text:

View PDF Download PDF file View HTML
Get Citation

Keywords

TOLAC; VBAC; vaginal birth after caesarean delivery; caesarean section

About this article
Title

Retrospective evaluation of outcomes of vaginal birth after caesarean section in a tertiary center: a single-center study from Türkiye

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 94, No 9 (2023)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

721-726

Published online

2023-04-05

Page views

419

Article views/downloads

347

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2023.0032

Pubmed

37042325

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2023;94(9):721-726.

Keywords

TOLAC
VBAC
vaginal birth after caesarean delivery
caesarean section

Authors

Aytaj Jafarzade
Sveta Aghayeva
İpek Ulu
Osman Ufuk Ekiz
Tamer Mungan
Aydan Biri

References (41)
  1. Vaginal delivery after previous cesarean birth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004; 52(1): 90–98.
    CrossRef
  2. Uddin SFG, Simon AE. Rates and success rates of trial of labor after cesarean delivery in the United States, 1990–2009. Matern Child Health J. 2013; 17: 1309–1314.
  3. Gross MM, Matterne A, Berlage S, et al. Interinstitutional variations in mode of birth after a previous caesarean section: a cross-sectional study in six German hospitals. J Perinat Med. 2015; 43(2): 177–184.
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. Wells CE. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: views from the private practitioner. Semin Perinatol. 2010; 34(5): 345–350.
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. Tanos V, Toney ZA. Uterine scar rupture - Prediction, prevention, diagnosis, and management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 59: 115–131.
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. Li YX, Bai Z, Long DJ, et al. Predicting the success of vaginal birth after caesarean delivery: a retrospective cohort study in China. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(5): e027807.
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. Dy J, DeMeester S, Lipworth H, et al. No. 382-Trial of Labour After Caesarean. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019; 41(7): 992–1011.
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. Sentilhes L, Vayssière C, Beucher G, et al. Delivery for women with a previous cesarean: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013; 170(1): 25–32.
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. Reif P, Brezinka C, Fischer T, et al. Labour and Childbirth After Previous Caesarean Section: Recommendations of the Austrian Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (OEGGG). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2016; 76(12): 1279–1286.
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 205: vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 133(2): e110–27.
  11. Gupta JK, Smith GCS, Chodankar RR. RCOG Green-top guideline no. 45: Birth after previous caesarean birth. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 2015.
  12. Guise JM, Denman MA, Emeis C, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115(6): 1267–1278.
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. Gibbins KJ, Weber T, Holmgren CM, et al. Maternal and fetal morbidity associated with uterine rupture of the unscarred uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213(3): 382.e1–382.e6.
    CrossRefPubMed
  14. Bujold E, Mehta SH, Bujold C, et al. Interdelivery interval and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187(5): 1199–1202.
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU). Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109(4): 806–812.
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. Metz TD, Stoddard GJ, Henry E, et al. Simple, validated vaginal birth after cesarean delivery prediction model for use at the time of admission. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122(3): 571–578.
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, et al. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345(1): 3–8.
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. 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.
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. Kok N, Wiersma IC, Opmeer BC, et al. Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 42(2): 132–139.
    CrossRefPubMed
  20. The Ministry of Health of Turkey. Turkey Demographic and Health Survey p. 109, 2018.
  21. Akçay T, Göl K, Şahin İ, et al. The safety of vaginal birth after cesarean. Turkiye Klinikleri J Gynecol Obst. 2001; 11(4): 224–227.
  22. 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.
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. Takmaz T, Dural HR, Gorchıyeva I, et al. The Obstetrics Outcomes of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Section in a Cohort with High Induction of Labor Rate. J Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 30(4): 146–152.
  24. Sahin S, Ozkaya E, Eroglu M, et al. Predictors of successful vaginal birth after a caesarean in women with a previous single caesarean delivery. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2022; 26(5): 1594–1600.
  25. Brick A, Layte R, Farren M, et al. Recent Trends in Vaginal Birth After Caesarean Section. Ir Med J. 2016; 109(10): 482.
    PubMed
  26. Kwee A, Cohlen BJ, Kanhai HHH, et al. Caesarean section on request: a survey in The Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004; 113(2): 186–190.
    CrossRefPubMed
  27. Appleton B, Targett C, Rasmussen M, et al. Knowledge and attitudes about vaginal birth after Caesarean section in Australian hospitals. VBAC Study Group. Vaginal Birth After Caesarean. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000; 40(2): 195–199.
    CrossRefPubMed
  28. Lazarou A, Oestergaard M, Netzl J, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC): fear it or dare it? An evaluation of potential risk factors. J Perinat Med. 2021; 49(7): 773–782.
    CrossRefPubMed
  29. Macones GA, Peipert J, Nelson DB, et al. Maternal complications with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193(5): 1656–1662.
    CrossRefPubMed
  30. Cahill AG, Tuuli M, Odibo AO, et al. Is vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) or elective repeat cesarean safer in women with a prior vaginal delivery? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195(4): 1143–1147.
    CrossRefPubMed
  31. Practice Bulletin No. 184: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 130(5): e217–e233.
    CrossRefPubMed
  32. Martel MJ, MacKinnon CJ. No. 155-Guidelines for Vaginal Birth After Previous Caesarean Birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018; 40(3): e195–e207.
    CrossRefPubMed
  33. Haas J, Barzilay E, Chayen B, et al. Safety of low-dose prostaglandin E2 induction in grandmultiparous women with previous cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014; 27(5): 445–448.
    CrossRefPubMed
  34. López-Jiménez N, García-Sánchez F, Pailos RH, et al. Induction of Labor with Vaginal Dinoprostone (PGE) in Patients with a Previous Cesarean Section: Obstetric and Neonatal Outcomes. J Clin Med. 2021; 10(22).
    CrossRefPubMed
  35. Cieminski A. Induction and augmentation of labor after prior cesarean delivery. Ginekologia i Poloznictwo. 2012; 23(1): 18–24.
  36. Sakala EP, Kaye S, Murray RD, et al. Epidural analgesia. Effect on the likelihood of a successful trial of labor after cesarean section. J Reprod Med. 1990; 35(9): 886–890.
    PubMed
  37. Mizrachi Y, Barber E, Kovo M, et al. Prediction of vaginal birth after one ceasarean delivery for non-progressive labor. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018; 297(1): 85–91.
    CrossRefPubMed
  38. Kyvernitakis I, Reichelt J, Kyvernitakis A, et al. Trends of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in Germany from 1990 to 2012: a population-based study. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2014; 218(5): 203–209.
    CrossRefPubMed
  39. Tahseen S, Griffiths M. Vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC-2)-a systematic review with meta-analysis of success rate and adverse outcomes of VBAC-2 versus VBAC-1 and repeat (third) caesarean sections. BJOG. 2010; 117(1): 5–19.
    CrossRefPubMed
  40. Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115(6): 1267–1278.
    CrossRefPubMed
  41. Takeya A, Adachi E, Takahashi Y, et al. Trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) in Japan: rates and complications. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020; 301(4): 995–1001.
    CrossRefPubMed

Regulations

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 VM Media Group sp. z o.o., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl