Date: 11 Jan 2013
The outcomes of trial of labour after cesarean section following induction of labour compared to spontaneous labour
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
To determine the success rate of vaginal birth after cesarean birth (VBAC) and its outcome when labour was induced compared to spontaneous labour.
Prospective cohort study of all women who had lower segment caesarian section (LSCS) in any previous delivery and were admitted for a trial of labour after cesarean between April 2010 and March 2011 at a University Hospital. We compared the success rates of VBAC in women who had induction of labour (IOL) to those who came with spontaneous labour.
During the study period, 320 women who elected to have trial of labour after cesarean and were included in the study, 268 (83.8 %) had spontaneous labour and 52 (16.3 %) had IOL. The most common indications for IOL were post term pregnancy 30 %, diabetes during pregnancy 19 % and prelabour spontaneous rupture of membranes 17 %. There was no difference between both groups in age, previous vaginal delivery and gestational age. In terms of the method of induction, the most commonly used method was transcervical Foley catheter in 21 cases (40.4 %) and then Oxytocin in 19 cases (36.5 %), nine women had combined methods of induction (17.3 %). Prostaglandin E2 was used in three women (5.8 %). The incidence of successful VBAC in spontaneous labour was 72 %, however, when induced, the incidence of successful VBAC was 63.5 %. Compared to the spontaneous labour group, induced women had significantly higher rate of CS (36.5 vs. 28 %; P = 0.026).
Women with one previous CS who undergo IOL have lower success rates of vaginal delivery compared to those presented in spontaneous labour. These findings might help clinicians and patients in the decision making for the method of delivery when it comes to pregnancy with a previous scar.
Ba’aqeel HS (2009) Cesarean delivery rates in Saudi Arabia: a ten-year review. Ann Saudi Med 29(3):179–183PubMed
Dekker GA, Chan A, Luke CG, Priest K, Riley M, Halliday J et al (2010) Risk of uterine rupture in Australian women attempting vaginal birth after one prior caesarean section: a retrospective population-based cohort study. BJOG 117(11):1358–1365. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02688.x (erratum in BJOG 117(13): 1672)PubMedCrossRef
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2010) Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 116:450–463 (practice bulletin no. 115)CrossRef
Clark SL, Koonings PP, Phelan JP (1985) Placenta previa/accreta and prior cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 66(1):89–92PubMed
Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Leindecker S, Varner MW, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network et al (2004) Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 351(25):2581–2589PubMedCrossRef
Thomas J, Paranjothy S; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit (2001) National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report, RCOG Press, London. http://www.rcog.org.uk/resources/public/pdf/nscs_audit.pdf
Guise J-M, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman MA, Marshall M, Fu RR et al (2010) Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evidence reports/technology assessments no. 191 (prepared by the Oregon Health 7 Science University evidence-based practice center under contract no. 290-2007-10057-I). AHRQ publication no. 10-E003, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville
- The outcomes of trial of labour after cesarean section following induction of labour compared to spontaneous labour
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Volume 287, Issue 6 , pp 1099-1103
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Induction of labour
- Previous caesarian section
- Vaginal birth after cesarean section
- Industry Sectors