Vaginal birth after Caesarean versus elective repeat Caesarean for women with a single prior Caesarean birth: a systematic review of the literature

AIMS: To assess the benefits and harms of planned elective repeat Caesarean section with planned vaginal birth after Caesarean section (VBAC). METHODS: The Cochrane controlled trials register and MEDLINE (1966-current) were searched using the following terms: vaginal birth after C(a)esare(i)an; trial of labo(u)r; elective C(a)esare(i)an; C(a)esare(i)an section, repeat; randomis(z)ed controlled trial; randomis(z)ed trial; clinical trial; and prospective cohort study, to identify all published randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies. Primary outcomes related to success of trial of labour, need for Caesarean section, maternal and neonatal mortality, and morbidity. RESULTS: There were no randomised controlled trials identified that compared planned elective repeat Caesarean birth with planned vaginal birth. Two prospective cohort studies were identified where all 449 women compared had a single prior Caesarean section in their immediately preceding pregnancy and were suitable for an attempted VBAC in their next pregnancy. For all outcomes, data were available from a single study only. Reported outcome data were available for maternal deaths (0/137 women), in utero fetal deaths (2/312 fetuses), neonatal deaths (0/137 infants), uterine scar dehiscence (2/137 women), uterine scar rupture (1/312 women), and infant Apgar score of less than seven at 5 min of age (9/312 infants). There were no statistically significant differences between planned elective repeat Caesarean section and planned VBAC. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of quality information available to assist women and their caregivers regarding optimal mode of birth for women with a single prior Caesarean section in their next pregnancy.     

Vaginal Delivery After Caesarean Section

In a prospective study of 318 consecutive pregnancies complicated by previous Caesarean section, 193 (61%) had an elective repeat Caesarean section, 125 (39%) had a trial of labour and 80 (64%) of these women achieved a vaginal delivery. The incidence of uterine rupture was 0.8% (1 of 125). The vaginal delivery rate was not influenced by the indication for the first Caesarean section (including cephalopelvic disproportion), birth-weight, health insurance status, use of epidural analgesia or oxytocin in labour. Perinatal morbidity was unaffected by the mode of delivery and maternal morbidity was comparable following elective and emergency repeat Caesarean section. Patients having a vaginal deliver spent significantly less time in hospital. We conclude that vaginal delivery after lower segment Caesarean section is safe and should be considered in most patients after a critical review of the indication for the first Caesarean section.     

Mechanical Methods for the Induction of Labour After Previous Caesarean Section – An Updated,Evidence-based Review

There are currently no up-to-date evidence-based recommendations on the preferred method to induce labour after previous Caesarean section, especially for patients with unripe cervix, as randomised controlled studies are lacking. Intravenous oxytocin and misoprostol are contraindicated in these women because of the high risk of uterine rupture. In women with ripe cervix (Bishop Score > 6), intravenous administration of oxytocin is an effective procedure with comparable rates of uterine rupture to those with spontaneous onset of labour. Vaginal prostaglandin E ₂ (PGE ₂ ) and mechanical methods (balloon catheters, hygroscopic cervical dilators) are effective methods to induce labour in pregnant women with unripe cervix and previous Caesarean section. According to current guidelines, the administration of PGE ₂ is associated with a higher rate of uterine rupture compared to balloon catheters. Balloon catheters are therefore a suitable alternative to PGE ₂ to induce labour after previous Caesarean section, even though this is an off-label use. In addition to two meta-analyses published in 2016, 12 mostly retrospective cohort/observational studies with low to moderate levels of evidence have been published on mechanical methods of cervical ripening after previous Caesarean section. But because of the significant heterogeneity of the studies, substantial differences in study design, and insufficient numbers of pregnant women included in the studies, it is not possible to make any evidence-based recommendations based on these studies. According to a recent meta-analysis, the average rate using balloon catheters is approximately 53% and the average rate after spontaneous onset of labour is 72%. The uterine rupture rate was 0.2–0.9% for vaginal PGE ₂ and 0.56–0.94% for balloon catheters and is therefore comparable to the uterine rupture rate associated with spontaneous onset of labour. According to the product informations, hygroscopic cervical dilators (Dilapan-S) are currently the only method which is not contraindicated for cervical ripening/induction of labour in women with previous Caesarean section, although data are insufficient. Well-designed, randomised, controlled studies with sufficient case numbers comparing balloon catheters and hygroscopic cervical dilators with mechanical methods and vaginal prostaglandin E ₂ /oral misoprostol are therefore necessary to allow proper decision-making.     

Misoprostol versus dinoprostone for cervical priming prior to induction of labour in term pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial

A prospective randomised controlled trial was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol to that of intravaginal dinoprostone when used for cervical priming prior to the induction of labour; 126 women were recruited to the study and randomised to receive either intravaginal dinoprostone (n = 63) or misoprostol (n = 63) for cervical priming prior to induction of labour. The mean time from insertion of the priming agent to vaginal delivery was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group (925.8 versus 1577.6 minutes), the mean duration of the active length of labour was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group (353.7 versus 496.8 minutes) and more women in the misoprostol group delivered in less than 12 hours (92% versus 76.5%). Women in the misoprostol group were less likely to require a repeated dose of prostaglandin for cervical priming and less likely to require oxytocin for augmentation of labour. There was no difference in the number of women who were delivered vaginally or by Ceasarean section between the two groups. More women developed hyperstimulation during labour in the misoprostol group; however there was no difference between the groups in neonatal outcome in respect to low cord pH or Apgar score at delivery or admission to the neonatal special care nursery.     

Induction of labour with an unfavourable cervix

Labour induction is undertaken when the advantages for the mother and/or the baby are considered to outweigh the disadvantages. When the uterine cervix is unfavourable, oxytocin, with or without amniotomy, is frequently ineffective. Vaginal prostaglandin E(2) is most commonly used if it is affordable. Evidence regarding many alternative methods is discussed in this chapter. Of particular interest are misoprostol and extra-amniotic saline infusion.Misoprostol, an orally active prostaglandin E(1) analogue, has been used widely by the vaginal and oral routes for labour induction at or near term. Several recent trials have confirmed that it is highly effective. Overall Caesarean section rates appear to be reduced, despite a relative increase in Caesarean sections for fetal heart rate abnormalities. Concern remains regarding increased rates of uterine hyperstimulation and meconium-stained amniotic fluid, although data on perinatal outcome have been reassuring. Postpartum haemorrhage may be increased following labour induction with misoprostol, and isolated reports of uterine rupture, with or without previous Caesarean section, have appeared. Using small dosages appears to reduce adverse outcomes. Very large trials are needed to evaluate rare adverse outcomes.Extra-amniotic saline infusion is an effective method which appears to reduce the risk of uterine hyperstimulation that occurs with the use of exogenous uterotonics.     

Labour and perinatal outcome in women at term with one previous lower-segment Caesarean: a review of 1000 consecutive cases

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome in 1000 women at term with one lower transverse Caesarean that was suitable for a trial of labour. METHODS: One thousand consecutive women with one previous scar suitable for a trial of labour delivering in our centre from June 2002 to December 2005 were identified from the labour ward register. Data were retrieved from patients' charts, and neonatal admissions were determined. RESULTS: In the study, 76.8% of women underwent a trial of labour, with a 71.2% vaginal birth rate. Hospital stay was shorter with a trial of labour. The three perinatal deaths (0.4%; P = 1.0) occurred in the trial of labour group. Compared to elective repeat Caesareans, successful vaginal births after trial of labour were associated with less neonatal admission, reduced blood transfusion requirement and shorter hospital stay; emergency Caesarean deliveries after a trial of labour were associated with more neonatal admissions and operative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Trial of labour was associated with a shorter hospital stay. A successful trial of labour after one Caesarean was associated with the best outcome underscoring the importance of patient selection for a trial of labour.     

Misoprostol versus cervagem for the induction of labour to terminate pregnancy in the second and third trimester: a systematic review

AIMS: to compare the benefits and harms of misoprostol to induce labour in the second and third trimester of pregnancy with cervagem. METHODS: MEDLINE was searched using the terms abortion, induced; abortifacient agents; pregnancy, second trimester; pregnancy, third trimester; misoprostol; cervagem; and gemeprost to identify randomised controlled trials in which misoprostol was compared with cervagem, for induction of labour to terminate pregnancy in the second or third trimester. Outcomes included vaginal birth not achieved within 24h; induction to delivery interval; analgesia requirements; blood loss; blood transfusion; surgical evacuation of the uterus; maternal death or serious maternal morbidity; side effects. RESULTS: Six randomised trials were included. Five compared vaginal misoprostol with cervagem [el Refaey H, Hinshaw K, Templeton A. The abortifacient effect of misoprostol in the second trimester: a randomized comparison with gemeprost in patients pre-treated with mifepristone (RU486). Hum Reprod 1993;8(10):1744-6; Ho PC, Chan YF, Lau W. Misoprostol is as effective as gemeprost in termination of second trimester pregnancy when combined with mifepristone: a randomised comparative trial. Contraception 1996;53(5):281-3; Nuutila M, Toivonen J, Ylikorkala O, Halmesmaki E. A comparison between two doses of intravaginal misoprostol and gemeprost for induction of second trimester abortion. Obstetr Gynecol 1997;90(6):896-900; Wong KS, Ngai CS, Wong AY, Tang LC, Ho PC. Vaginal misoprostol compared with vaginal gemeprost in termination of pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception 1998;58(4):207-10; Dickinson JE, Godfrey M, Evans SF. Efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol in second trimester termination of pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. J Mater Fetal Med 1999;7(3):115-9], and one oral misoprostol with gemeprost [Bartley J, Baird DT. A randomised study of misoprostol and gemeprost in combination with mifepristone for induction of abortion in the second trimester of pregnancy. Br J Obstetr Gynaecol 2002;109(11):1290-4]. Vaginal misoprostol compared with cervagem was associated with reduced narcotic analgesia (3 studies, 169 women, RR 0.64 95% CI 0.49-0.84), and surgical evacuation of the uterus (5 studies, 319 women, RR 0.71 95% CI 0.53-0.95). No other statistically significant differences were observed for other outcomes with reported data. In the single trial comparing oral misoprostol with gemeprost, reported outcomes were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal misoprostol for the termination of second and third trimester of pregnancy appears as effective as cervagem, but information about maternal safety is limited.     

The routine use of oxytocin after oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with an unfavourable cervix is not of benefit

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour with misoprostol is often augmented with oxytocin with the possible consequence of uterine hypercontractility. It is important to determine whether the use of oxytocin in this circumstance has benefit as well as risk. AIM: To compare two regimens for labour induction in women with an unfavourable cervix: oral misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol routinely followed by oxytocin. METHODS: A prospective randomised trial in which 200 women with an unfavourable cervix received either oral misoprostol 25 microg every 3 h (group 1, n = 100) or two such doses routinely followed by oxytocin (group 2, n = 100). Outcomes included change in Bishop score, induction delivery interval, oxytocin requirement, contraction abnormalities, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome. RESULT: The improvement in Bishop score with two misoprostol doses in all 200 women was highly significant (2.9 +/- 1.5 to 6.6 +/- 1.9, P < 0.0001). The induction delivery interval, Caesarean delivery rate, vaginal delivery rate within 24 h, contraction abnormalities and neonatal outcome were similar in both groups. Contraction abnormalities were remarkably low with either regimen (1%). Routine addition of oxytocin 3 h after the second misoprostol dose (group 2) resulted in the maximum oxytocin dose (64 mU/min) being given to more women (66% in group 2; 36% in group 1). CONCLUSION: There was no benefit of routine addition of oxytocin after two doses of misoprostol. Reduced oxytocin requirement was observed when it was added only if needed. Both regimens achieved 85-87% vaginal deliveries with low incidence of hypercontractility.     

Trial of Labour Compared to Elective Caesarean in Twin Gestations with a Previous Caesarian Delivery

Objective: To compare maternal and neonatal outcomes in twin gestations with a vertex presenting first twin undergoing either an elective repeat Caesarean section or a trial of labour subsequent to having had a Caesarean delivery in a prior pregnancy.Methods: Maternal and newborn data from 1980 to 1999 in twin gestations, having I or more previous lower-segment Caesarean section(s) and a vertex presentation of the first twin, were analyzed from the Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database. Categorical data were compared using chi-square or Fisher exact tests and continuous data by the Student t test. Logistic regression was used to control for covariates.Results: Of the 121 women eligible for the data analysis, 38 chose to have a trial of labour, and 28 delivered vaginally with no uterine ruptures, scar dehiscences, maternal deaths, or increase in neonatal morbidity or mortality reported. Two Caesareans in the trial-of-labour group were for the delivery of the second twin. Women choosing elective Caesarean section had a higher incidence of infectious morbidity (p = 0.04).Conclusion: In twin pregnancies with twin A presenting as a vertex, a cautious trial of labour may be an effective and safe alternative to elective repeat Caesarean section. Further research on a trial of labour after previous Caesarean section in twin gestations is warranted, as the studies published to date do not have sufficiently large numbers to detect adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.     

A randomised controlled trial of early versus delayed oxytocin augmentation to treat primary dysfunctional labour in nulliparous women

Background  Oxytocin is widely used to speed up slow labour, especially in nulliparous women, but randomised trials, apart from one reported only in abstract, have been too small to exclude important effects.
Objective  To test the hypothesis that early use of oxytocin reduces the need for caesarean delivery.
Design  A randomised controlled trial.
Setting  Twelve obstetric units within the Northern and Yorkshire regions in the North East of England.
Participants  A total of 412 low-risk nulliparous women in spontaneous labour at term, who had been diagnosed with primary dysfunctional labour were recruited from January 1999 to December 2001.
Intervention  Immediate oxytocin administration (active group) or oxytocin withheld for up to 8 hours (conservative group).
Main outcome measures  Caesarean section and operative vaginal delivery rates. The length of labour measured from the time of randomisation to delivery. The rate of maternal Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) greater than 12 (major depression) within 48 hours of delivery.
Results  The caesarean section rates were 13.5% active versus 13.7% controls (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.6–1.7). Operative delivery, 24.5% versus 30.9% (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.5–1.1). The median (interquartile range) randomisation to delivery interval in the active group was 5 hours 52 minutes (3:57–8:28) and in the conservative group 9 hours 8 minutes (5:06–13:16) ( P < 0.001). The rate of EPDS >12 was 20% in the active arm versus 15% among controls (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.7–2.2). There was one perinatal death in each group and no major differences in perinatal outcomes.
Conclusions  Among nulliparous women with primary dysfunctional labour, early use of oxytocin does not reduce caesarean section or short-term postnatal depression. However, it shortens labour considerably and may reduce operative vaginal deliveries.     

Active management of the third stage at Caesarean section: a randomised controlled trial of misoprostol versus Syntocinon

The objective of this trial was to investigate whether 500 microg oral misoprostol given immediately after delivery of the neonate at Caesarean section is as effective as a bolus intravenous injection of 10 iu Syntocinon in stimulating uterine contractions and thereby reducing blood loss. Forty women undergoing elective or emergency Caesarean section were included in a placebo-controlled randomised trial. Group 1 received oral misoprostol and a placebo intravenous bolus and Group 2 received intravenous Syntocinon and oral placebo tablets. The main outcome measures were estimated blood loss at Caesarean section, drop in serum haemoglobin, and the need for additional uterotonic agents. We found that there was no significant difference (p = 0.75) in estimated blood loss between the two groups. No differences were observed in the decrease in haemoglobin, requirement for additional oxytocics, the need for blood transfusion or the degree of shivering in each group (p > 0.05 in each case). We concluded that oral misoprostol could be used as an alternative oxytocic agent for the third stage at Caesarean section. However, there is an obvious need for a larger randomised controlled trial to be undertaken. Previous published studies have concentrated on vaginal births and further studies should be extended to Caesarean deliveries.     

Misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine, from the best available evidence, the effectiveness and safety of misoprostol administered vaginally or orally for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour. METHODS: Clinical trials of misoprostol used for cervical ripening or labour induction in the third trimester were identified from the register of randomised trials maintained by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. All identified trials were considered for inclusion in the review according to a prespecified protocol. Primary outcomes were chosen to address clinical effectiveness (delivery within 24 hours) and safety (uterine hyperstimulation, caesarean section, serious maternal and neonatal morbidity) and were determined a priori. All meta-analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. In the absence of heterogeneity the summary statistics have been expressed as typical relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Vaginal misoprostol: one small study showed that the use of misoprostol results in more effective cervical ripening and reduced need for oxytocin when compared with placebo. When compared with oxytocin, vaginal misoprostol was more effective for labour induction. The relative risk of failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours was 0.48 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.66). However, the relative risks for uterine hyperstimulation with and without fetal heart rate abnormalities were 2.54 (95% CI 1.12 to 5.77) and 2.96 (95% CI 2.11 to 4.14), respectively. In three out of four trials which studied women with intact membranes and unfavourable cervices, failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours was reduced with misoprostol when compared with other prostaglandins (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81). Vaginal misoprostol was associated with increased uterine hyperstimulation both without fetal heart rate changes (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.14) and with associated fetal heart rate changes (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.04). There was also an increase in meconium stained amniotic fluid following vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.79). Oral misoprostol: one small trial suggests that, when compared with placebo, oral misoprostol reduces the need for oxytocin and shortens the time between induction and delivery. Compared with other prostaglandins one small trial showed a reduced need for oxytocin with oral misoprostol. Two trials compared oral with vaginal misoprostol using different doses. No significant differences were evident. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, misoprostol appears to be more effective than conventional methods of cervical ripening and labour induction. Although no differences in perinatal outcome were shown, the studies were not sufficiently large to exclude the possibility of uncommon serious adverse effects. In particular the increase in uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes following misoprostol is a matter for concern. It is possible that, if sufficient numbers are studied, an unacceptably high number of serious adverse events including uterine rupture and asphyxial fetal deaths may occur. The data at present are not robust enough to address the issue of safety. Thus, though misoprostol shows promise as a highly effective, inexpensive and convenient agent for labour induction, it cannot be recommended for routine use at this stage. Lower dose misoprostol regimens should be investigated further.     

A randomised comparison of oral misoprostol and vaginal prostaglandin E2 tablets in labour induction at term

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of 100 microg of oral misoprostol with 3 mg prostaglandin E2 vaginal tablets in term labour induction. DESIGN: A non-blinded, randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: A tertiary level, teaching Scottish Hospital. POPULATION: Two hundred women at term with indications for labour induction and modified Bishop's cervical score of less than 8. METHODS: The women were randomly allocated to receive either 100 microg of misoprostol orally (which could be repeated 4 hourly to a maximum of five doses if indicated), or a 3 mg tablet of prostaglandin E2 vaginally (which could be repeated in 6 hours, according to routine departmental protocol). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The number delivering vaginally within 24 hours of the induction. RESULTS: Seventy-five women delivered vaginally in the misoprostol group and 73 in the PGE2 group. Of these, 50.7% in the misoprostol group and 54.8% in the PGE2 group delivered within 24 hours of the induction (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.3). More women in the misoprostol group were given oxytocin, but this was not statistically significant (60%vs 47%, RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.7). Two women in the misoprostol group had uterine hyperstimulation. The neonatal outcomes were not significantly different in the two groups. There was a pound 1100 saving on direct drug costs in the misoprostol group. CONCLUSIONS: Oral misoprostol (100 microg) has similar efficacy to vaginal PGE2 tablets, and may be an option to consider for term labour induction.     

Trial of Labour after Previous Caesarean Section: Obstetric Outcome

Of 305 patients with a previous lower segment Caesarean section scar admitted over a 28-month period, 207 were allowed a trial of labour. A successful trial of labour was achieved in 63.3% of patients with a recurrent indication and 73.4% with a nonrecurrent indication. Of 75 patients who received oxytocin for augmentation and 22 for induction of labour, 70.5% achieved vaginal delivery. This was similar to the vaginal delivery rate in patients who did not require augmentation in induction. Three cases of scar dehiscence occurred in patients who had oxytocin, but in whom the recommended management protocol was ignored. The events that led to these 3 dehiscences is described. Analysis of birth-weights revealed a trend towards more repeat Caesareans with increasing birth-weight beyond 2,500 g. This was especially reflected by the higher emergency Caesarean section rate in those who had a trial of labour. A trial of labour in patients with a previous Caesarean scar is safe, and can be allowed even in patients who had the previous Caesarean for cephalopelvic disproportion, although malpresentation and obvious disproportion must be excluded. Judicious use of oxytocin for a limited period of time should help in reducing the number of repeat Caesarean sections.     

Twin Delivery After a Previous Caesarean: A Twelve-Year Experience

Objectives: To compare maternal and neonatal morbidities between trial of labour (TOL) and elective Caesarean section in women with twin pregnancies who have had a prior Caesarean.Methods: An observational study was conducted of women with a prior Caesarean who delivered twins at 28 weeks’ gestation or greater in Ste-Justine Hospital between 1988 and 2001. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared between women who had a TOL (group I) and those who had an elective Caesarean delivery (group 2).Results: Twenty-six women and 52 fetuses were included in group 1 and compared to the 71 women and 142 fetuses in group 2. Maternal age, gestational age, and birth weight were comparable in both groups. In group 1, 22 (85%) out of 26 women delivered twin A vaginally and 19 (73%) delivered both vaginally. There was no significant difference in the umbilical artery cord pH, Apgar score, ventilatory support, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit between the 2 groups. There was also no significant difference in the rate of postpartum maternal fever or decrease of serum hemoglobin between the 2 groups, but the median hospital stay was higher in the group with elective Caesarean (5.0 vs. 3.0 days, p <0.001). There were no uterine ruptures or other major complications in either group.Conclusion: There were no significant differences in maternal and neonatal morbidity outcomes between births by trial of labour and by elective Caesarean, in twin pregnancies after a prior Caesarean section. A trial of labour is associated with a shorter hospital stay.     

Misoprostol versus expectant management in premature rupture of membranes at term

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of immediate induction of labour with vaginal misoprostol versus expectant management for 24 hours followed by oxytocin induction in women with premature rupture of membranes at term (term PROM). DESIGN: An open, randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: Public university hospital in Campinas City, Brazil. POPULATION: One hundred and fifty pregnancies, half of them allocated to each group. METHODS: Statistical analysis used Student's t test, the chi2 test, Fisher's exact test, survival analysis and risk ratio estimates with 95% CI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Latency period, recruitment to delivery period, period of hospitalisation, mode of delivery, contractility pattern, fetal wellbeing, labour and delivery complications, neonatal and maternal morbidity. RESULTS: Both groups had similar general characteristics, but the misoprostol group had a significantly shorter latency period (9.4 vs 15.8 hours), a shorter time interval from recruitment to delivery (18.9 vs 27.5 hours), a shorter period of maternal hospitalisation and a slightly higher proportion of alterations of contractility when compared with the expectant group. Caesarean section rates were 20% in the misoprostol group and 30.7% in the other. There were no differences between them regarding fetal wellbeing, complications during labour and delivery and neonatal or postpartum maternal morbidity. Within 24 hours, 44% of women had delivered in the expectant group against 73.3% in the misoprostol group. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate labour induction with misoprostol in cases of term PROM shortens the latency period, the total time between recruitment to delivery and the time of maternal hospitalisation, increasing the occurrence of alterations of contractility without any maternal and perinatal outcomes disadvantages.     

Use of the Atad catheter for the induction of labour in women who have had a previous Caesarean section--a case series

Abstract The induction of labour of women with an unfavourable cervix who have had a previous Caesarean section, is challenging. Eight women who had a Caesarean section in a previous pregnancy had labour induced with an Atad catheter. Six out of eight women achieved labour, and two out of these six women had a vaginal delivery. An Atad catheter is an option for women needing induction of labour with an unfavourable cervix who have had a Caesarean section previously and are motivated to have a vaginal delivery.     

Should obstetricians support a 'term cephalic trial'?

Recent analyses of the published data suggest that the risks of elective Caesarean delivery in an uncomplicated pregnancy may not outweigh the benefits of vaginal birth by as much as has been supposed. Indeed, this balance may be so close that the place of elective Caesarean delivery of a term cephalic baby might be considered as a worthwhile subject of a randomised controlled trial. We discuss the potential consequences of such a trial and what effect it could have on obstetric practice.     

Trial of Labour in Patients with a Prior Caesarean Section and an Intervening Vaginal Delivery

202 patients having had one vaginal delivery after a prior Caesarean section between 1980 and 1984 were followed-up to December, 1986; 77 of them came again for delivery during this time. Four elective Caesarean sections and 103 trials of labour were carried out in this patient group. Of these, 88 (85.4%) ended in vaginal delivery. There was no fetal loss, nor any significant maternal or fetal morbidity; in particular there was no uterine rupture or scar dehiscence. It is concluded that the prognosis for vaginal delivery is good once a successful trial of scar has occurred, so long as the labour is carefully monitored and a repeat Caesarean section performed when indicated.