The risk of uterine rupture is not increased with single- compared with double-layer closure: A Swedish cohort study

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Volumn 122, Issue 11, 2015, Pages 1535-1541

  Hesselman, S ^a,b   Hogberg U ^a   Ekholm Selling, K ^b   Rassjo E B ^b   Jonsson, M ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b Center for Clinical Research Sormland County Council   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Uterine closure; uterine rupture; vaginal birth after caesarean section

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIRTH WEIGHT; BODY HEIGHT; CESAREAN SECTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; DOUBLE LAYER UTERUS CLOSURE; EPIDURAL ANESTHESIA; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMAN; INFECTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATERNAL AGE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; SINGLE LAYER UTERUS CLOSURE; SWEDEN; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTERUS RUPTURE; UTERUS SURGERY; VAGINAL DELIVERY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DELIVERY; DIABETES, GESTATIONAL; LABOR; LABOR INDUCTION; NEWBORN; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS, INFECTIOUS; REGISTER; RISK; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURGERY; SUTURING METHOD; TIME; UTERINE RUPTURE; UTERUS;

ANALGESIA, EPIDURAL; BIRTH WEIGHT; BODY HEIGHT; COHORT STUDIES; DIABETES, GESTATIONAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; LABOR, INDUCED; LABOR, OBSTETRIC; MATERNAL AGE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS, INFECTIOUS; REGISTRIES; RISK; RISK FACTORS; SUTURE TECHNIQUES; SWEDEN; TIME FACTORS; UTERINE RUPTURE; UTERUS; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

EID: 84942553882     PISSN: 14700328     EISSN: 14710528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13015     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Declercq E, Young R, Cabral H, Ecker J,. Is a rising cesarean delivery rate inevitable? Trends in industrialized countries, 1987 to 2007. Birth 2011; 38: 99-104.
2. Hofmeyr GJ, Say L, Gulmezoglu AM,. WHO systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity: the prevalence of uterine rupture. BJOG 2005; 112: 1221-8.
3. Fagerberg MC, Marsal K, Ekstrom P, Kallen K,. Indications for first caesarean and delivery mode in subsequent trial of labour. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2013; 27: 72-80.
4. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Leindecker S, Varner MW, et al., Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2581-9.
5. Fitzpatrick KE, Kurinczuk JJ, Alfirevic Z, Spark P, Brocklehurst P, Knight M,. Uterine rupture by intended mode of delivery in the UK: a national case-control study. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001184.
6. Dodd JM, Anderson ER, Gates S,. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(3): CD004732.
7. Roberge S, Chaillet N, Boutin A, Moore L, Jastrow N, Brassard N, et al., Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 115: 5-10.
8. Durnwald C, Mercer B,. Uterine rupture, perioperative and perinatal morbidity after single-layer and double-layer closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 925-9.
9. Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S, Brassard N, Cormier B, Hamilton E, et al., The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 43-50.
10. Gyamfi C, Juhasz G, Gyamfi P, Blumenfeld Y, Stone JL,. Single- versus double-layer uterine incision closure and uterine rupture. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2006; 19: 639-43.
11. Group CC, Abalos E, Addo V, Brocklehurst P, El Sheikh M, Farrell B, et al., Caesarean section surgical techniques (CORONIS): a fractional, factorial, unmasked, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013; 382: 234-48.
12. CAESAR study collaborative group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG 2010; 117: 1366-76.
13. Al-Zirqi I, Stray-Pedersen B, Forsen L, Vangen S,. Uterine rupture after previous caesarean section. BJOG 2010; 117: 809-20.
14. Kaczmarczyk M, Sparen P, Terry P, Cnattingius S,. Risk factors for uterine rupture and neonatal consequences of uterine rupture: a population-based study of successive pregnancies in Sweden. BJOG 2007; 114: 1208-14.
15. Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, Cohen A, Lieberman E,. Interdelivery interval and risk of symptomatic uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97: 175-7.
16. Shipp TD, Zelop C, Cohen A, Repke JT, Lieberman E,. Post-cesarean delivery fever and uterine rupture in a subsequent trial of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 136-9.
17. Weimar CH, Lim AC, Bots ML, Bruinse HW, Kwee A,. Risk factors for uterine rupture during a vaginal birth after one previous caesarean section: a case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010; 151: 41-5.
18. Dekker GA, Chan A, Luke CG, Priest K, Riley M, Halliday J, et al., Risk of uterine rupture in Australian women attempting vaginal birth after one prior caesarean section: a retrospective population-based cohort study. BJOG 2010; 117: 1358-65.
19. Cahill AG, Waterman BM, Stamilio DM, Odibo AO, Allsworth JE, Evanoff B, et al., Higher maximum doses of oxytocin are associated with an unacceptably high risk for uterine rupture in patients attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 32 e1-5.
20. 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.
21. Cnattingius S, Ericson A, Gunnarskog J, Kallen B,. A quality study of a medical birth registry. Scand J Soc Med 1990; 18: 143-8.
22. Centre for Epidemiology, National Board of Health and Welfare. The National Patient Register. (Article no. 2003-42-8). Stockholm, Sweden: National Board of Health and Welfare; 2003 [ www.socialstyrelsen.se/register/halsodataregister/patientregistret/inenglish ]. Accessed 22 February 2014.
23. Centre for Epidemiology, National Board of Health and Welfare. Causes of Death 2003. Stockholm, Sweden: National Board of Health and Welfare; 2005.
24. Centre for Epidemiology, National Board of Health and Welfare. The Swedish Version of 10th Revision of WHO's International Classification of Diseases. Stockholm, Sweden: National Board of Health and Welfare; 1997 [ www.socialstyrelsen.se/klassificeringochkoder/diagnoskoder#4 ]. Accessed 22 February 2014.
25. Statistics Sweden. SCB. Percentiler av langd vikt BMI 2010-2011 [ www.scb.se/sv-Hitta-statistik/sok/?query&ulf%2fsilc+l%C3%A4ngd ]. Accessed 22 February 2014.
26. Marsal K, Persson PH, Larsen T, Lilja H, Selbing A, Sultan B,. Intrauterine growth curves based on ultrasonically estimated foetal weights. Acta Paediatr 1996; 85: 843-8.
27. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. [ www.R-project.org ]. Accessed 21 November 2013.
28. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S,. lme4: Linear Mixed-effects Models Using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0-5; 2013 [ http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4 ]. Accessed 21 November 2013.
29. Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, Harel F, Gauthier RJ,. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 1326-30.
30. Center for Epidemiology. Evaluation of the Swedish Medical Birth Register. Stockholm, Sweden: Center for Epidemiology; 2002.
31. Guise JM, McDonagh MS, Osterweil P, Nygren P, Chan BK, Helfand M,. Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section. BMJ 2004; 329: 19-25.
32. Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, Cohen A, Lieberman E,. Effect of previous vaginal delivery on the risk of uterine rupture during a subsequent trial of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183: 1184-6.
33. Al-Zirqi I, Stray-Pedersen B, Forsen L, Kjersti Daltveit A, Vangen S,; NUR Group. Validation study of uterine rupture registration in the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013; 92: 1086-93.
34. Studsgaard A, Skorstengaard M, Glavind J, Hvidman L, Uldbjerg N,. Trial of labor compared to repeat cesarean section in women with no other risk factors than a prior cesarean deliveries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013; 92: 1256-63.
35. Sheiner E, Levy A, Katz M, Mazor M,. Short stature-an independent risk factor for Cesarean deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005; 120: 175-8.
36. Camilleri AP,. The obstetric significance of short stature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1981; 12: 347-56.
37. Hamilton EF, Bujold E, McNamara H, Gauthier R, Platt RW,. Dystocia among women with symptomatic uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184: 6.
38. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. RCOG. Green-top Guideline No. 45-birth after previous caesarean birth. London: RCOG; 2007.
39. Cahill AG, Odibo AO, Allsworth JE, Macones GA,. Frequent epidural dosing as a marker for impending uterine rupture in patients who attempt vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 2: 355 e1-5.
40. Bayrampour H, Heaman M,. Advanced maternal age and the risk of cesarean birth: a systematic review. Birth 2010; 37: 219-26.
41. Glantz JC,. Obstetric variation, intervention, and outcomes: doing more but accomplishing less. Birth 2012; 39: 286-90.
42. Koyanagi A,. Macrosomia in 23 developing countries: an analysis of a multicountry, facility-based, cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2013; 381: 476-83.