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

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 188, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 824-830

  Elkousy, Mohammed A ^a,b   Sammel, Mary ^b   Stevens, Erika ^b   Peipert, Jeffrey F ^c   Macones, George ^a,b,d,e  

^a HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c WOMEN AND INFANTS HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d Leonard Davis Inst for Hlth Econ   (United States)

^e Dept of Maternal Fetal Medicine ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Birth weight; Macrosomia; Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIRTH WEIGHT; CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABOR; LABOR COMPLICATION; MACROSOMIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD; NEWBORN; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT INDICATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; UTERUS RUPTURE;

EID: 0037343069     PISSN: 00029378     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.186     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2001;345:3-8.
2. Greene, MF. Vaginal delivery after cesarean section: is the risk acceptable? N Engl J Med 2001;345:54-5.
3. Curtin SC, rates of cesarean birth and vaginal birth after previous cesarean, 1991-1993. Mon Vital Stat Rep 1997;43(Suppl):1-12.
4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean section. Washington (DC): American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 1999. Practice bulletin No.: 5.
5. Reddy UM, DiVito MM, Armstrong JC, Hyslop T, Wapner RJ. Population adjustment of the definition of the vaginal birth after cesarean rate. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:1166-9.
6. Rosen MG, Dickinson JC, Westhoff CL. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a meta-analysis of morbidity and mortality. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:465-70.
7. Macones GA, Hausman N, Edelstein R, Stamilio DM, Marder SJ. Predicting outcomes of trials of labor in women attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a comparison of multivariate methods with neural networks. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:409-13.
8. Caughey AB, Shipp TD, Repke JT, Zelop C, Cohen A, Lieberman E. Trial of labor after cesarean delivery: the effect of previous vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:938-41.
9. Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, Cohen A, Lieberman E. Outcomes of trial of labor following previous cesarean delivery among women with fetuses weighing >4009 g. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:903-5.
10. Flamm BL, Goings JR. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: is suspected fetal macrosomia a contraindication? Obstet Gynecol 1989;74:694-7.
11. Phelan JP, Eglinton GS, Horenstein JM, Clark SL, Yeh S. Previous cesarean birth: trial of labor in women with macrosomic infants. J Reprod Med 1984;29:36-40.
12. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley; 2000. p. 86, 91-116.
13. Hamilton LC. Statistics with Stata 5. Pacific Grove (CA): Brooks/Cole; 1998. p. 186, 189-192.
14. Mickey RM, Greenland S. The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. Am J Epidemiol 1989; 129:125-37.
15. Benacerraf BR, Gelman R, Frigoletto FD. Sonographically estimated fetal weights: accuracy and limitation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;159:1118-21.