Failed vaginal birth after a cesarean section: How risky is it?: I. Maternal morbidity

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine the maternal risks associated with failed attempt at vaginal birth after cesarean compared with elective repeat cesarean delivery or successful vaginal birth after cesarean. STUDY DESIGN: From 1989 to 1998 all patients attempting vaginal birth after cesarean and all patients undergoing repeat cesarean deliveries were reviewed. Data were extracted from a computerized obstetric database and from medical charts. The following three groups were defined: women who had successful vaginal birth after cesarean, women who had failed vaginal birth after cesarean, and women who underwent elective repeat cesarean. Criteria for the elective repeat cesarean group included no more than two previous low transverse or vertical incisions, fetus in cephalic or breech presentation, no previous uterine surgery, no active herpes, and adequate pelvis. Predictor variables included age, parity, type and number of previous incisions, reasons for repeat cesarean delivery, gestational age, and infant weight. Outcome variables included uterine rupture or dehiscence, hemorrhage >1000 mL, hemorrhage >2000 mL, need for transfusion, chorioamnionitis, endometritis, and length of hospital stay. The Student t test and the chi(2) test were used to compare categoric variables and means; maternal complications and factors associated with successful vaginal birth after cesarean were analyzed with multivariate logistic regression, allowing odds ratios, adjusted odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and P values to be calculated. RESULTS: A total of 29,255 patients were delivered during the study period, with 2450 having previously had cesarean delivery. Repeat cesarean deliveries were performed in 1461 women (5.0%), and 989 successful vaginal births after cesarean delivery occurred (3.4%). Charts were reviewed for 97.6% of all women who underwent repeat cesarean delivery and for 93% of all women who had vaginal birth after cesarean. Vaginal birth after cesarean was attempted by 1344 patients or 75% of all appropriate candidates. Vaginal birth after cesarean was successful in 921 women (69%) and unsuccessful in 424 women. Four hundred fifty-one patients undergoing cesarean delivery were deemed appropriate for vaginal birth after cesarean. Multiple gestations were excluded from analysis. Final groups included 431 repeat cesarean deliveries and 1324 attempted vaginal births after cesarean; in the latter group 908 were successful and 416 failed. The overall rate of uterine disruption was 1.1% of all women attempting labor; the rate of true rupture was 0.8%; and the rate of hysterectomy was 0.5%. Blood loss was lower (odds ratio, 0.5%; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-0.9) and chorioamnionitis was higher (odds ratio, 3.8%; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-6.4) in women who attempted vaginal births after cesarean. Compared with women who had successful vaginal births after cesarean, women who experienced failed vaginal births after cesarean had a rate of uterine rupture that was 8.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.9-42) higher, a rate of transfusion that was 3.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.1-13.3) higher, a rate of chorioamnionitis that was 1.5% (95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.1) higher, and a rate of endometritis that was 6.4% (95% confidence interval, 4.1-9.8) higher. CONCLUSION: Patients who experience failed vaginal birth after cesarean have higher risks of uterine disruption and infectious morbidity compared with patients who have successful vaginal birth after cesarean or elective repeat cesarean delivery. Because actual numbers of morbid events are small, caution should be exercised in interpreting results and counseling patients. More accurate prediction for safe, successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery is needed.     

Do Italian Mothers Prefer Cesarean Delivery?

ABSTRACT: Background: In Italy the proportion of births by cesarean section rose from 11.2 percent in 1980 to 27.9 percent in 1996 and 33.2 percent in 2000. The aim of this study was to identify factors, other than medical and obstetrical risk, that may influence the method of delivery and to analyze mother's preference for vaginal versus cesarean delivery among women after the birth of their first baby in university hospitals in Italy. Methods: Primiparous women were selected from 100 consecutive deliveries in 23 university hospitals in 1999. To determine antenatal, delivery, and postnatal history, and women's preference for method of delivery, trained health personnel interviewed 1986 women. Results: Of the 1986 women who were interviewed (response rate 95%), 1023 primiparas comprised the study sample. The cesarean section rate was 36 percent. Ninety‐one percent of the women who delivered spontaneously and 73 percent of those who underwent a cesarean section would have preferred a vaginal delivery. Conclusions: Most of the interviewed women in this study preferred, or were satisfied with, vaginal birth. (BIRTH 30:2 June 2003)     

Current concepts regarding vaginal birth after cesarean delivery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the current literature on vaginal birth after cesarean delivery efficacy and safety. RECENT FINDINGS: There are two major themes in current vaginal birth after cesarean delivery research. The first is continued work on the short-term safety, including maternal events such as uterine rupture and perinatal death. The second theme focuses on identifying predictors for success and failure. SUMMARY: Current information suggests that the rate of major maternal and neonatal complications with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery is low, and this option should be offered to women with a single prior low transverse cesarean. Future research should focus on an evaluation of both short-term and long-term consequences of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery compared with elective repeat cesarean section.     

Obstetric outcomes in women with two prior cesarean deliveries: is vaginal birth after cesarean delivery a viable option?

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare clinical outcomes in women with 1 versus 2 prior cesarean deliveries who attempt vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) and also to compare clinical outcomes of women with 2 prior cesarean deliveries who attempt VBAC or opt for a repeat cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort study, in which the medical records of more than 25,000 women with a prior cesarean delivery from 16 community and tertiary care hospitals were reviewed by trained nurse abstractors. Information on demographics, obstetric history, medical and social history, and the outcomes of the index pregnancy was obtained. Comparisons of obstetric outcomes were made between women with 1 versus 2 prior cesarean deliveries, and also between women with 2 prior cesarean deliveries who opt for VBAC attempt versus elective repeat cesarean delivery. Both bivariate and multivariate techniques were used for these comparisons. RESULTS: The records of 20,175 women with one previous cesarean section and 3,970 with 2 prior cesarean sections were reviewed. The rate of VBAC success was similar in women with a single prior cesarean delivery (75.5%) compared with those with 2 prior cesarean deliveries (74.6%), though the odds of major morbidity were higher in those with 2 prior cesarean deliveries (adjusted odd ratio[OR] = 1.61 95% CI 1.11-2.33). Among women with 2 prior cesarean deliveries, those who opt for a VBAC attempt had higher odds of major complications compared with those who opt for elective repeat cesarean delivery (adjusted OR = 2.26, 95% CI 1.17-4.37). CONCLUSION: The likelihood of major complications is higher with a VBAC attempt in women with 2 prior cesarean deliveries compared with those with a single prior cesarean delivery. In women with 2 prior cesarean deliveries, while major complications are increased in those who attempt VBAC relative to elective repeat cesarean delivery, the absolute risk of major complications remains low.     

The effect of birth weight on vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of increasing birth weight on the success rates for a trial of labor in women with one previous cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: To evaluate the effect of increasing birth weight for women who undergo a trial of labor, the medical records of women who had attempted a vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) from 1995 through 1999 in 16 community and university hospitals were reviewed retrospectively by trained abstractors. Information was collected about demographics, medical history, obstetric history, neonatal birth weight, complications, treatment, and outcome of the index pregnancy. The analysis was limited to women with singleton gestations with a history of 1 previous cesarean delivery. Because women with previous vaginal deliveries have higher vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates, the women were divided into four risk groups on the basis of their birth history. Groups were defined as women with no previous vaginal deliveries (group 1), women with a history of a previous vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (group 2), women with a history of a vaginal delivery before their cesarean delivery (group 3), and a group of women with a vaginal delivery both before and after the previous cesarean delivery (group 4). RESULTS: There were 9960 women with a singleton gestation and a history of one previous cesarean delivery. The overall vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rate for the cohort was 74%. The overall vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 65%, 94%, 83%, and 93%, respectively. An analysis of neonatal birth weights of <4000 g, 4000 to 4249 g, 4250 to 4500 g, and >4500 g in group 1 showed a reduction in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates from 68%, 52%, 45%, and 38%, respectively. In the remaining groups, there was no success rate below 63% for any of the birth weight strata. For group 1, vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates were decreased when the indication for the previous cesarean delivery was cephalopelvic disproportion or failure to progress or when the treatment was either an induction or augmentation of labor. The uterine rupture rate was higher in women for group 1 with birth weights of > or =4000 g (relative risk, 2.3; P <.001). CONCLUSION: Women with macrosomic fetuses and a history of a previous vaginal delivery should be informed of the favorable vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates. Given the risks of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, those women with no history of a vaginal delivery should be counseled that the success rates may be <50% when the neonatal birth weight exceeds 4000 g and that the success rates may be even lower if the indication for the previous cesarean delivery was cephalopelvic disproportion or failure to progress or if the treatment requires either induction or augmentation of labor. The uterine rupture rate was 3.6% in women for group 1 with a birth weight > or =4000 g.     

Vaginal birth after cesarean section: Experience from a regional hospital

ObjectiveTrial of labor after cesarean section (TOLAC) is an option for women with previous cesarean section. However, few women choose this option because of safety concerns. We evaluate the safety and risks associated with TOLAC and the success rate of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC).Material and methodsWe reviewed all patients with a history of previous cesarean section that underwent elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) or TOLAC in a regional teaching hospital from Nov, 2013 to May, 2018. Maternal basic clinical information, intrapartum management, postpartum complications, and neonatal outcomes were analyzed.Results199 pregnant women with a history of at least one previous cesarean section were enrolled. 156 women received ERCS and 43 women (21.6%) underwent TOLAC, with 37 (86.0%) who underwent successful VBAC. The VBAC rate was 18.6%. Higher success rate was found in women with previous vaginal birth than in women without vaginal birth (100% vs. 81.8%). One case (2.3%) in the VBAC group was complicated with uterine rupture and inevitable neonatal death during second stage of labor. The uterus was repaired without maternal complications. In another case, the newborn's condition was complicated with low APGAR score (<7) at birth due to maternal chorioamnionitis. Among indications for previous cesarean section, cephalo-pelvic disproportion (CPD) was associated with TOLAC failure and uterine rupture after VBAC.ConclusionVBAC is a feasible and safe option. Modes of delivery should be thoroughly discussed when considering TOLAC for women with history of previous cesarean section due to CPD, considering its association with TOLAC failure in second stage of labor.     

A state-wide assessment of the obstetric,anesthesia, and operative team personnel who are available to manage the labors and deliveries and to treat the complications of women who attempt vaginal birth after cesarean delivery

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine on a state-wide basis the range of obstetric, anesthesia, and surgical team personnel who were available immediately to manage the labors and deliveries of women who attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Additionally, we tried to determine whether hospitals had stopped performing vaginal births after cesarean delivery or made changes in their policies regarding vaginal birth after cesarean delivery as a result of recent American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations. STUDY DESIGN: Available immediately was defined as "being present in the hospital." All hospitals that provided obstetric care in the State of Ohio were surveyed to determine whether an obstetrician with cesarean privileges, an anesthesiologist, or an anesthetist capable of independently administering anesthesia for a cesarean section, and a surgical team were available immediately when women attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. The hospitals were also asked whether they had stopped allowing vaginal births after cesarean delivery or had made changes in their vaginal birth after cesarean delivery policies in response to the recent recommendations of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Data were computerized and analyzed by the chi(2) test. RESULTS: Seventy-seven (93.9%), 35 (100%), and 13 (100%) of level I, II, and III hospitals performed vaginal births after cesarean delivery. An obstetrician was immediately available in 27.3%, 62.9%, and 100% of level I, II, and III institutions, respectively (P 相似文献   

Risk factors for cesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery after successful external cephalic version

Aim of this article is to examine if we could identify factors that predict cesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery in women who had a successful external cephalic version. We used data from a previous randomized trial among 25 hospitals and their referring midwife practices in the Netherlands. With the data of this trial, we performed a cohort study among women attempting vaginal delivery after successful ECV. We evaluated whether maternal age, gestational age, parity, time interval between ECV and delivery, birth weight, neonatal gender, and induction of labor were predictive for a vaginal delivery on one hand or a CS or instrumental vaginal delivery on the other hand. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios were calculated with univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Among 301 women who attempted vaginal delivery after a successful external cephalic version attempt, the cesarean section rate was 13% and the instrumental vaginal delivery rate 6%, resulting in a combined instrumental delivery rate of 19%. Nulliparity increased the risk of cesarean section (OR 2.7 (95% CI 1.2–6.1)) and instrumental delivery (OR 4.2 (95% CI 2.1–8.6)). Maternal age, gestational age at delivery, time interval between external cephalic version and delivery, birth weight and neonatal gender did not contribute to the prediction of failed spontaneous vaginal delivery. In our cohort of 301 women with a successful external cephalic version, nulliparity was the only one of seven factors that predicted the risk for cesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery.     

Vaginal birth after cesarean or repeat cesarean section: medical risks or social realities?

Despite the known medical safety and success of vaginal birth after cesarean section, rates of planned repeat cesarean sections remain high. The process involved in women's decisions to choose vaginal birth after cesarean section or repeat cesarean section was investigated by a questionnaire study at a private and a public hospital. Women were questioned regarding timing, influence of others, reasons for their choice, satisfaction with the decision, etc. Results from 160 respondents showed that over half the women identified themselves as the primary decision maker. Physicians exerted more influence on the decisions of patients at the public hospital than on the patients at the private hospital. Overall, social exigencies appeared to play a more important role than an assessment of the medical risks in making these decisions.     

Cesarean section on maternal request: reasons for the request, self-estimated health, expectations, experience of birth and signs of depression among first-time mothers

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate first-time mothers undergoing cesarean section in the absence of medical indication, their reason for the request, self-estimated health, experience of delivery, and duration of breastfeeding. We also aimed to study if signs of depression postpartum are more common in this group. METHOD: In a prospective cohort study 357 healthy primiparas from two different groups, "cesarean section on maternal request" (n=91) and "controls planning a vaginal delivery" (n=266) completed three self-assessment questionnaires in late pregnancy, two days after delivery and 3 months after birth. Symptom scores from the Edinburgh postnatal depression scale at three months after birth were also investigated. RESULTS: Women requesting cesarean section experienced their health ass less good (p<0.001) and were more often planning for one child only (p<0.001). They more often reported anxiety for lack of support during labor (p<0.001), for loss of control (p<0.001), and concern for fetal injury/death (p<0.001). After planned cesarean section women in this group reported a better birth experience compared to women planning a vaginal birth (p<0.001). They were breastfeeding to a lesser extent three months after birth (p<0.001). There were no differences in signs of postpartum depression between the groups three months after birth (p=0.878). CONCLUSION: The knowledge gained from this study may help in understanding why some women prefer to give birth with elective cesarean section. It also elucidates the need for awareness of professional support during vaginal birth.     

Diet-controlled gestational diabetes mellitus does not influence the success rates for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether women with diet-controlled gestational diabetes mellitus who attempt vaginal birth after cesarean delivery are at increased risk of failure, when compared with their non-diabetic counterparts. STUDY DESIGN: We identified 13,396 women who attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery among 25,079 pregnant women with a previous cesarean delivery who were delivered between 1995 and 1999 at 16 community and university hospitals. Analysis was limited to 9437 women without diabetes mellitus and 423 women with diet-controlled diabetes mellitus who attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery with a singleton gestation and 1 previous low-flap cesarean delivery. Data that were collected by trained abstractors, included demographics, medical history, and both pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine an adjusted odds ratio for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success among women with diet-controlled gestational diabetes compared with women with no diabetes mellitus. We controlled for birth weight, maternal age, race, tobacco, chronic hypertension, hospital settings, labor management, and obstetric history. RESULTS: Forty-nine percent of the women with gestational diabetes mellitus and 67% of the women with no diabetes mellitus attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. The success rate for attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery among gestational diabetic women was 70%, compared with 74% for non-diabetic women. We found that gestational diabetes mellitus is not an independent risk factor for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery failure. The relative risk for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success in women with gestational diabetes mellitus compared with women without gestational diabetes mellitus was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-1.00). After an adjustment was made for confounding, the odds ratio for success with gestational diabetes mellitus was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.68-1.10). CONCLUSION: Women with diet-controlled gestational diabetes mellitus who were carrying singleton fetuses who had no more than 1 previous low flap cesarean delivery should be counseled that their disease does not decrease their chances for a successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Among diet-controlled diabetic women, the overall success rate for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery remains acceptable, and attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery should not be discouraged solely on the basis of gestational diabetes mellitus.     

Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the risk for uterine rupture is increased in women attempting vaginal birth after multiple cesarean deliveries. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study of women with prior cesarean delivery undergoing trial of labor and elective repeat operation. Maternal and perinatal outcomes were compared among women attempting vaginal birth after multiple cesarean deliveries and those with a single prior cesarean delivery. We also compared outcomes for women with multiple prior cesarean deliveries undergoing trial of labor with those electing repeat cesarean delivery. RESULTS: Uterine rupture occurred in 9 of 975 (0.9%) women with multiple prior cesarean compared with 115 of 16,915 (0.7%) women with a single prior operation (P = .37). Multivariable analysis confirmed that multiple prior cesarean delivery was not associated with an increased risk for uterine rupture. The rates of hysterectomy (0.6% versus 0.2%, P = .023) and transfusion (3.2% versus 1.6%, P < .001) were increased in women with multiple prior cesarean deliveries compared with women with a single prior cesarean delivery attempting trial of labor. Similarly, a composite of maternal morbidity was increased in women with multiple prior cesarean deliveries undergoing trial of labor compared with those having elective repeat cesarean delivery (odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.93). CONCLUSION: A history of multiple cesarean deliveries is not associated with an increased rate of uterine rupture in women attempting vaginal birth compared with those with a single prior operation. Maternal morbidity is increased with trial of labor after multiple cesarean deliveries, compared with elective repeat cesarean delivery, but the absolute risk for complications is small. Vaginal birth after multiple cesarean deliveries should remain an option for eligible women. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2.     

Impact of First Childbirth on Changes in Women’s Preference for Mode of Delivery: Follow‐up of a Longitudinal Observational Study

ABSTRACT: Background: A woman’s childbirth experience has an influence on her future preferred mode of delivery. This study aimed to identify determinants for women who changed from preferring a planned vaginal birth to an elective cesarean section after their first childbirth. Methods: This prospective longitudinal observational study involved two units that provide obstetric care in Hong Kong. A mail survey was sent to 259 women 6 months after their first childbirth. These women had participated in a longitudinal cohort study that examined their preference for elective cesarean section in the antenatal period of their first pregnancies. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify determinants for women who changed from preferring vaginal birth to elective cesarean section. Results: Twenty‐four percent (23.8%, 95% CI 18.4–29.3) of women changed from preferring vaginal birth to elective cesarean section after their first childbirth. Determinants found to be positively associated with this change included actual delivery by elective cesarean section (OR 106.3, 95% CI 14.7–767.4) intrauterine growth restriction (OR 19.5, 95% CI 1.1–353.6), actual delivery by emergency cesarean section (OR 8.4, 95% CI 3.4–20.6), higher family income (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.1–8.8), use of epidural analgesia (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.0–6.8), and higher trait anxiety score (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0–1.3). The most important reason for women who changed from preferring vaginal birth to elective cesarean section was fear of vaginal birth (24.4%). Conclusions: A significant proportion of women changed their preferred mode of delivery after their first childbirth. Apart from reducing the number of cesarean sections in nulliparous women, prompt provision of education to women who had complications and investigations into fear factors during vaginal birth might help in reducing women’s wish to change to elective cesarean section. (BIRTH 35:2 June 2008)     

Morbidity of failed labor in patients with prior cesarean section.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to determine whether the reported increased morbidity associated with failed attempted vaginal birth after cesarean section is attributable to the presence of a uterine scar alone or to labor preceding a cesarean section. STUDY DESIGN: Primiparous women (N = 237) who underwent repeat cesarean section after a failed trial of vaginal birth after cesarean section were retrospectively compared with 1582 nulliparous women who underwent a primary cesarean section after a failed trial of labor. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in maternal or neonatal morbidity between the two groups except for an increase in the prevalence of thin meconium in patients undergoing primary cesarean section. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the presence of a previous cesarean section scar does not increase the overall baseline morbidity associated with cesarean section after labor.     

Twice a cesarean, always a cesarean?

The cesarean delivery rate has quadrupled during the past two decades, resulting in considerable attention focused on alternatives to cesarean birth. One option, vaginal birth after one previous cesarean, has come to be recognized as an acceptable alternative to routine elective repeat cesarean delivery. The purpose of this report was to evaluate whether women with two previous cesareans can safely undergo a trial of labor. Between July 1, 1982 and June 30, 1986, data were collected prospectively on all women with previous cesareans. Those with a known classical incision or a medical or obstetric contraindication to a trial of labor were excluded from an attempted vaginal delivery. During this period, 67,784 patients were delivered, of whom 6250 (9.2%) had had a previous cesarean. Of the 6250 previous-cesarean patients, 1088 (17.4%) had had two previous cesareans; of these, 501 (46%) underwent a trial of labor and 346 (69%) delivered vaginally. Whereas the overall rate of uterine dehiscence was 3%, the rate in those women who attempted a vaginal delivery was 1.8%, versus 4.6% in those who did not. Overall, oxytocin was used in 284 (57%) and was associated with a dehiscence rate of 2.1%, versus 1.4% in the no-oxytocin group. Successful vaginal delivery was related significantly to the use of oxytocin and to a previous vaginal delivery. Trial of labor in patients with two previous cesareans appears to be a reasonable consideration.     

Vaginal birth after cesarean

Allowing a woman with a previous cesarean birth a trial of labor rather than performing an elective repeat cesarean section continues to be a controversial area in obstetrics today. In an effort to evaluate the risks associated with a trial of labor, a prospective investigation was undertaken from July 1, 1982, through June 30, 1984. During the first year of the study, patients with a known vertical scar or more than one prior cesarean birth were excluded from an attempted trial of labor. Beginning July 1, 1983, patients with two prior cesarean births were no longer excluded and were studied prospectively. During this 2-year period, 32,854 patients were delivered of their infants at the Los Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center. Of these patients, 2708 (8.2%) had undergone a prior cesarean birth, and 1796 women (66%) underwent a trial of labor. A total of 1465 (81%) of them achieved a vaginal delivery. Successful vaginal delivery by the number of prior cesarean sections was as follows: one, 82%; two, 72%; three, 90%. When contrasted with the group without a trial of labor, the group with a trial of labor had significantly less maternal morbidity. In a comparison of the groups with and without a trial of labor, the incidence of uterine dehiscence (1.9% versus 1.9%) and rupture (0.3% versus 0.5%) was similar. With the application of attempted vaginal delivery in our patients with a previous cesarean birth, we were able to reduce our cesarean delivery rate for this population alone by 54%. In summary, the benefits associated with a trial of labor in the patient with a prior cesarean birth far outweigh the risks. The policy of "once a cesarean section, always a cesarean section" should be abandoned.     

Personality and mode of delivery

BACKGROUND: Women's rights to request an elective cesarean section without a specific medical indication has been intensively debated during the last decade among healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to investigate if women requesting a cesarean section differ in their personality from those who plan a vaginal delivery. The aim was also to study differences between the groups in age, perceived health, and place of birth, IVF treatment, and family size planning. METHOD: Three hundred and twenty-eight pregnant women from two different groups, "cesarean section on maternal request" (n=84), and "vaginal delivery group" (n=242) completed the self-report inventory Karolinska Scales of Personality at 37-39 gestational weeks in pregnancy. RESULTS: A significant difference in age was found between the cesarean and the vaginal group (mean age 33.9 years versus 30.8, p<0.001). Analysis of covariance of personality traits showed that the subscales Monotony avoidance (p<0.003) and Socialization (p<0.002) differed significantly between women requesting cesarean section and women planning a vaginal delivery. There were no differences between the groups in variables concerning the anxiety proneness scale. CONCLUSION: Personality traits such as Socialization and Monotony avoidance differ significantly before birth between mothers who request a cesarean section and those who do not.     

The Importance of Mode of Birth After Previous Cesarean: Success,Satisfaction, and Postnatal Health

Introduction: The recent National Institutes of Health consensus conference on vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) recommended a focus on strategies that increase women's opportunities to make informed choices about VBAC. This study aimed to expand knowledge of women's experiences of planned VBAC by focusing on postnatal experiences of women who participated in an Australian birth‐after‐cesarean study. Methods: At 6 to 8 weeks after birth, 165 women who experienced childbirth after a previous cesarean rated satisfaction with their birth experiences using a 10‐point visual analogue scale, reported on postnatal health problems, and indicated whether they would make the same birth choice again. Results: Significant differences were found in satisfaction scores by mode of birth. Mean scores out of a possible score of 10 ranged from 8.86 for spontaneous vaginal birth, 7.86 for elective repeat cesarean delivery, 6.71 for emergency cesarean delivery, to 6.15 for instrumental vaginal birth (F= 5.33; P= .002). Mean satisfaction scores for spontaneous vaginal birth and elective repeat cesarean delivery were statistically higher than for instrumental vaginal birth and emergency cesarean birth. Women who experienced instrumental vaginal birth and emergency cesarean birth also reported a higher number of postnatal health‐related problems and were least likely to agree that they would make the same birth choice again. Discussion: Mode of birth was the most important determinant of postnatal satisfaction, postnatal health, and whether women felt they would make the same birth choice again. Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers should identify effective labor management practices that enhance women's opportunities to achieve spontaneous vaginal birth during planned VBAC.     

Maternal and neonatal outcomes after uterine rupture in labor

OBJECTIVE: There is significant controversy about the risks related to attempted vaginal birth after cesarean and the implications for informed consent of the patient. Recent data suggest that women who deliver in hospitals with high attempted vaginal birth after cesarean rates are more likely to experience successful vaginal birth after cesarean, as well as uterine ruptures. We conducted a study to evaluate maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality after uterine rupture at a tertiary care center. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective chart review of cases of uterine rupture from 1976 to 1998. All women who had a history of uterine rupture were identified with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, identifiers with hospital discharge data cross-referenced with a separate obstetric database. We abstracted demographic information, fetal heart rate patterns, maternal pain and bleeding patterns, umbilical cord gas values, and Apgar scores from the medical record. Outcome variables were uterine rupture events and major and minor maternal and neonatal complications. RESULTS: During the study period there were 38,027 deliveries. The attempted vaginal birth after cesarean rate was 61.3%, of which 65.3% were successful. We identified 21 cases of uterine rupture or scar dehiscence. Seventeen women had prior cesarean deliveries (10 with primary low transverse cesarean delivery, 3 with unknown scars, 1 with classic cesarean delivery, 2 with two prior cesarean deliveries, and 1 with four prior cesarean deliveries). Of the 4 women who had no history of previous uterine surgery, one had a bicornuate uterus whereas the others had no factors increasing the risk for uterine rupture. We confirmed uterine rupture and scar dehiscence in 19 women. Specific details were not available for 2 patients. Uterine rupture or scar dehiscence was clinically suspected in 16 women with 3 cases identified at delivery or after delivery. Sixteen women had symptoms of increased abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding, or altered hemodynamic status. There were 2 patients who required hysterectomies and 3 women who received blood transfusions; there were no maternal deaths related to uterine rupture. The fetal heart rate pattern in 13 cases showed bradycardia and repetitive variable or late decelerations. Thirteen neonates had umbilical artery pH >7.0. Two cases of fetal or neonatal death occurred, one in a 23-week-old fetus whose mother had presented to an outlying hospital and the second in a 25-week-old fetus with Potter's syndrome. All live-born infants were without evidence of neurologic abnormalities at the time of discharge. CONCLUSION: Our data confirm the relatively small risk of uterine rupture during vaginal birth after cesarean that has been demonstrated in previous studies. In an institution that has in-house obstetric, anesthesia, and surgical staff in which close monitoring of fetal and maternal well-being is available, uterine rupture does not result in major maternal morbidity and mortality or in neonatal mortality.     

Repeat Cesarean Delivery: What Indications Are Recorded in the Medical Chart?

Abstract: Background: National surveillance estimates reported a troubling 63 percent decline in the rate of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) from 1996 (28.3%) to 2003 (10.6%), with subsequent rising rates of repeat cesarean delivery. The study objective was to examine patterns of documented indications for repeat cesarean delivery in women with and without labor. Methods: We conducted a population‐based validation study of 19 nonfederal short‐stay hospitals in Washington state. Of the 4,541 women who had live births in 2000, 11 percent (n = 493) had repeat cesarean without labor and 3 percent (n = 138) had repeat cesarean with labor. Incidence of medical conditions and pregnancy complications, patterns of documented indications for repeat cesarean delivery, and perioperative complications in relation to repeat cesarean delivery with and without labor were calculated. Results: Of the 493 women who underwent a repeat cesarean delivery without labor, “elective”(36%) and “maternal request”(18%) were the most common indications. Indications for maternal medical conditions (3.0%) were uncommon. Among the 138 women with repeat cesarean delivery with labor, 60.1 percent had failure to progress, 24.6 percent a non‐reassuring fetal heart rate, 8.0 percent cephalopelvic disproportion, and 7.2 percent maternal request during labor. Fetal indications were less common (5.8%). Breech, failed vacuum, abruptio placentae, maternal complications, and failed forceps were all indicated less than 5.0 percent. Women's perioperative complications did not vary significantly between women without and with labor. Regardless of a woman's labor status, nearly 10 percent of women with repeat cesarean delivery had no documented indication as to why a cesarean delivery was performed. Conclusions: “Elective” and “maternal request” were common indications among women undergoing repeat cesarean delivery without labor, and nearly 10 percent of women had undocumented indications for repeat cesarean delivery in their medical record. Improvements in standardization of indication nomenclature and documentation of indication are especially important for understanding falling VBAC rates. Future research should examine how clinicians and women anticipate, discuss, and make decisions about childbirth after a previous cesarean delivery within the context of actual antepartum care. (BIRTH 33:1 March 2006)