Management of previous cesarean section

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 123-129

  Biswas, Arijit ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Previous cesarean section; Repeat cesarean; Trial of labour; Uterine rupture; Vaginal birth after previous cesarean

Indexed keywords

MISOPROSTOL; OXYTOCIN; PROSTAGLANDIN E2;

BALLOON CATHETER; BLOOD TRANSFUSION; CESAREAN SECTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DELIVERY; FEMALE; FETUS WEIGHT; FORCEPS DELIVERY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HOSPITAL COST; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; LABOR; LABOR INDUCTION; NEWBORN MORTALITY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PERINATAL MORTALITY; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREGNANCY DIABETES MELLITUS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCAR; TWIN PREGNANCY; UTERUS; UTERUS RUPTURE; VACUUM EXTRACTION; VAGINAL DELIVERY; WOUND CLOSURE; WOUND DEHISCENCE;

CESAREAN SECTION, REPEAT; FEMALE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TRIAL OF LABOR; UTERINE RUPTURE; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

EID: 0037388118     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001703-200304000-00007     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. ACOG Practice Pattern No. 1. Vaginal delivery after previous cesarean birth. Washington DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 1995.
2. Martin JA, Park MM, Sutton PD. Births: preliminary data for 2001. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2002; 50:1-20.
3. Melnikow J, Romano P, Gilbert WM, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean in California. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98:421-426. This report shows the inverse relationship between completed VBAC rates and prevalent cesarean section rates in 51 hospitals in California.
4. Potter JE, Berquo E, Perpetuo IH, et al. Unwanted cesarean sections among public and private patients in Brazil: prospective study. BMJ 2001; 323:1155-1158.
5. Chua S, Arulkumaran S. Trial of scar. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 37:6-11.
6. Bais JM, van der Borden DM, Pel M, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean section in a population with a low overall cesarean section rate. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 96:158-162. This small prospective database review from a regional hospital in the Netherlands reports a high VBAC trial rate and success rate.
7. Spaans WA, Sluijs MB, van Roosmalen J, Bleker OP. Risk factors at cesarean section and failure of subsequent trial of labour. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2002; 100:163-166. This small retrospective review from the Netherlands attempts to identify risk factors at previous cesarean section that may be related to the failure of a trial of VBAC in a subsequent pregnancy.
8. Mozurkewich EL, Hutton EK. Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183:1187-1197.
9. Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, et al. Labor after previous cesarean: influence of prior indication and parity. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95:913-916.
10. Coughlan C, Kearney R, Turner MJ. What are the implications for the next delivery in primigravidae who have an elective cesarean section for breech presentation? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 109:624-626. This study is especially important in the light of the recent practice of cesarean section for all breech presentations. The risk of repeat cesarean section was no higher than that in nulliparas.
11. Bujold E, Gauthier RJ. Should we allow a trial of labor after a previous cesarean for dystocia in the second stage of labor? Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98:652-655. This retrospective study of 2002 cases shows, contrary to popular belief, a higher success rate of VBAC when a previous cesarean section was for second-stage dystocia (75%) compared with a previous cesarean section for first-stage dystocia (65.6%).
12. Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, et al. Interdelivery interval and risk of symptomatic uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97:175-177. This review of 2409 case records showed that an interdelivery interval of less than 19 months was associated with a threefold increased risk of symptomatic uterine rupture compared with longer interdelivery intervals.
13. Huang WH, Nakashima DK, Rumney PJ, et al. Interdelivery interval and the success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:41-44. This retrospective cohort study of 1516 patients attempting VBAC found no significant difference in the success rate when the interdelivery interval was greater than or less than 19 months.
14. Beckett VA, Regan L. Vaginal birth after cesarean: the European experience. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2001; 44:594-603.
15. Harer Jr WB. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: current status. JAMA 2002; 287:2627-2630. This commentary reviews the current standards of trial of VBAC and the evolving ACOG recommendations
16. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA, Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:689-695.
17. Hook B, Kiwi R, Amini SB, et al. Neonatal morbidity after elective repeat cesarean section and trial of labor. Pediatrics 1997; 100:348-353.
18. Hibbard JU, Ismail MA, Wang Y, et al. Failed vaginal birth after a cesarean section: how risky is it? I. Maternal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184:1365-1371. This retrospective chart review of 1344 patients attempting VBAC shows an increased risk of uterine rupture and infectious morbidity in those with a failed trial.
19. 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; 345:54-55. This is a large population-based retrospective cohort analysis of 20 095 second pregnancies in patients with one previous cesarean section. When compared with elective repeat cesarean section, there was a significantly increased risk of uterine rupture (based on ICD-9 codes) after induction of labour, especially when prostaglandins were used.
20. Greene MF. Vaginal delivery after cesarean section: is the risk acceptable? N Engl J Med 2001; 345:3-4. This editorial reviews the study by Lydon-Rochelle et al. [19••] and concludes that, for a previous cesarean section pregnancy, 'the safest thing for the baby' is unequivocally a repeat elective cesarean section.
21. Ananth CV, Smulian JC, Vintzileos AM. The association of placenta previa with history of cesarean delivery and abortion: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177:1071-1078.
22. Gilliam M, Rosenberg D, Davis F. The likelihood of placenta previa with greater number of cesarean deliveries and higher parity. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:976-980.
23. Yap OW, Kim ES, Laros Jr RK. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after uterine rupture in labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184:1576-1581. This retrospective chart review of 21 cases occurring over a 23-year period evaluates maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality after uterine rupture.
24. Bujold E, Gauthier RJ. Neonatal morbidity associated with uterine rupture: what are the risk factors? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186:311-314. This review of charts and electronic monitoring strips evaluates factors associated with severe metabolic acidosis or death in cases of uterine rupture.
25. Smith GC, Pell JP, Cameron AD, Dobbie R. Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies. JAMA 2002; 287:2684-2690. This large, population-based retrospective cohort study from Scotland found that the risk of perinatal death after the trial of VBAC was significantly higher than that associated with planned repeat cesarean section.
26. Sims EJ, Newman RB, Hulsey TC. Vaginal birth after cesarean: to induce or not to induce. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184:1122-1124.
27. Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, et al. Uterine rupture during induced and augmented labor in gravid women with one prior cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181:882-886.
28. 2 vaginal inserts for labor induction in women with previous cesarean sections. J Reprod Med 2002; 47:549-554.
29. MacKenzie IZ. Prostaglandin induction and the scarred uterus. In: Keirse MJNC, Elder MB, editors. Induction of labor: special issues. Amsterdam: Exerpta Medica; 1991. pp. 29-33.
30. 2 for cervical ripening: a multicenter study of patients with prior cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol 1997; 14:157-160.
31. Weiss J, Nannini A, Fogerty S, et al. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report. The use of hospital discharge data to monitor uterine rupture - Massachusetts, 1990-7. MMWR 2000; 49:245-248.
32. Plaut MM, Schwartz ML, Lubarsky SL. Uterine rupture associated with the use of misoprostol in the gravid patient with a previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180:1535-1542.
33. Blanchette H, Blanchette M, McCabe J, Vincent S. Is vaginal birth after cesarean safe? Experience at a community hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184:1478-1484. This 4-year prospective cohort study found that VBAC is safe to be undertaken in a community hospital setting, provided the induction of labour is not used.
34. ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. Committee opinion. Induction of labor for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:679-680. The latest ACOG recommendation discourages the use of prostaglandins for cervical priming and induction for women with a previous cesarean section.
35. Khotaba S, Volfson M, Tarazova L, et al. Induction of labor in women with previous cesarean section using the double balloon device. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001; 80:1041-1042. This small study examines a mechanical method of cervical priming and labour induction. This is an interesting alternative to prostaglandins.
36. Bretelle F, Cravello L, Shojai R, et al. Vaginal birth following two previous cesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001; 94:23-26. This is a retrospective review of 96 cases with two previous cesarean sections who were allowed a trial of VBAC. The success rate was 65.5% and there were three scar dehiscences.
37. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin, no.2. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. October 1998. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999; 64:201-208.
38. ACOG Task Force on Cesarean Delivery Rates. Evaluation of cesarean delivery. Washington DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2000.
39. Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, et al. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186:1326-1330. This study is a cautionary note for those practising single-layer uterine closure during cesarean section becaus a significantly higher risk of uterine rupture was noted during subsequent VBAC attempts.
40. Rylander EE, Beeson JH, Aikman RH. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Clin Fam Pract 2001; 3:385-400.
41. 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; 185:903-905. This review of case records suggests that VBAC is still a reasonable option for infants weighing more than 4 kg.
42. Chauhan SP, Magann EF, Carroll CS, et al. Mode of delivery for the morbidly obese with prior cesarean delivery: vaginal versus repeat cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185:349-354. Morbidly obese women weighing more than 300 lb with a previous cesarean section pregnancy present special management problems. The place of a trial of VBAC in this group of women is assessed in this retrospective review.
43. Coleman TL, Randall H, Graves W, Lindsay M. Vaginal birth after cesarean among women with gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184:1104-1107.
44. Myles T. Vaginal birth of twins after a previous cesarean section. J Matern Fetal Med 2001; 10:171-174. This small, retrospective, case-controlled study of 19 twin pregnancies attempting VBAC found more than an 84% success rate.
45. Flamm B, Geiger A. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: an admission scoring system. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90:907-910.
46. Weinstein D, Benshushan A, Tanos V, Zilberstein R. Predictive score for vaginal birth after cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 174:192-198.
47. Macones GA, Hausman N, Edelstein R, et al. 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; 184:409-413. This is an interesting comparative study assessing the utility and effectiveness of neural networks compared with standard multivariate models for predicting the success of VBAC. The multivariate model was better able to predict outcomes.
48. Lieberman E. Risk factors for uterine rupture during a trial of labor after cesarean. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2001; 44:609-621. A comprehensive review based on a MEDLINE search of risk factors for uterine rupture in trials of VBAC.
49. Shipp TD, Zelop C, Repke JT, et al. The association of maternal age and symptomatic uterine rupture during a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:585-588.
50. Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Cohen A, et al. Trial of labor after 40 weeks' gestation in women with prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97:391-393. This retrospective review of 2775 cases of previous cesarean section pregnancy concluded that the risk of uterine rupture does not increase substantially when VBAC after spontaneous labour (not induced labour) is attempted after 40 weeks.
51. Petrikovsky BM, Ravens S. 'Endoview' project of intrapartum endoscopy. JSLS 2002; 6:175-177.
52. Chung A, Macario A, El-Sayed YY. Cost-effectiveness of a trial of labor after previous cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97:932-941. A statistical model looking at the cost-effectiveness of VBAC versus repeat cesarean sections found that VBAC would be cost-effective when the probability of success was 0.74.
53. November MT. Cost analysis of vaginal birth after cesarean. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2001; 44:571-587. A comprehensive review of the cost-analysis of all aspects of VBAC.
54. DiMaio H, Edwards RK, Euliano TY, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: an historic cohort cost analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186:890-892.