Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 277, Issue 4, pp 339–344

The safety of a trial of labor after cesarean section in a grandmultiparous population

  • Eitan Kugler
  • Ilana Shoham-Vardi
  • Eliezer Burstien
  • Moshe Mazor
  • Reli Hershkovitz
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The rate of vaginal birth after a cesarean (VBAC) delivery in the multiparous population has decreased largely in recent years because of maternal and neonatal complications. The clinical management of grand multiparous (GMP) women (>5 births) with a prior cesarean delivery is even less clear. The purpose of the present study was to assess the risks of maternal and neonatal complications associated with VBAC compared to that of repeated elective cesarean section (CS) in the GMP population.

Methods

A retrospective study of 1,102 GMP women with a singleton gestation and a prior single CS was conducted. Data were retrieved from the database of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Soroka University Medical Center, Beer Sheva, Israel. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared between women who underwent a successful VBAC attempt, women who had failed in a trial of labor and women who had an elective repeated CS.

Results

Six hundred and nineteen women (56%) underwent a successful VBAC, 155 (14%) underwent a trail of labor and 328 (30%) had an elective repeated CS. Women who had a successful VBAC required less blood transfusion, and had less puerperal fever diseases (P < 0.001). Induction or augmentation of labor was associated with failure of VBAC (P < 0.001). No significant differences in neonatal complications were observed between the groups. No significant difference in uterine dehiscence, uterine rupture, amnionitis, postpartum hemorrhage, hysterectomy, puerperal fever and thromboembolic diseases was observed between the groups.

Conclusions

A successful VBAC in the GMP population was not associated with a higher risk of maternal complications in comparison with a repeated elective CS.

Keywords

VBAC Trial of labor Elective cesarean delivery Grand multiparous Uterine dehiscence Uterine rupture Neonatal mortality rate 

References

  1. 1.
    El-Sayed YY, et al (2007) Perinatal outcomes after successful and failed trials of labor after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196(6):583PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sachs BP, Kobelin C, Castro MA, Frigoletto F (1999) The risks of lowering the cesarean delivery rate. N Engl J Med 340:54–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    American College of Obstetricians, Gynecologists (2004) Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Practice bulletin no. 54. ACOG, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, et al (2004) Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 351:2581–2589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ziel HA (1962) Grand multiparity and its obstetric implications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 84:1427–1441PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yamani Zamzami TY (2004) Vaginal birth after cesarean section in grand multiparous women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 270:21–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National High Blood Pressure Education Program (2000) Working group report on high blood pressure in pregnancy. Am J obstet Gynecol 183:51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    American College of Obstetricians, Gynecologists (ACOG) (1994) Diabetes and pregnancy. Technical bulletin no. 200. ACOG, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Powers AC (2001) Diabetes mellitus. In: Braunwald E, Fauci AS, Kasper DL, Hauser SL, Longo DL, Jameson JL (eds) Harrison’s principles of internal medicine, 15th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 2109Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mussey RD, DeNormandie RL, Adair FL (1935) The American Committee on maternal welfare. Am J Obstet and Gynecol 28:754Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Humphrey MD (2003) Is grand multiparity an independent predictor of pregnancy risk? A retrospective observational study. Med J Aust 179:294–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seidman DS, Armon Y, Roll D, et al (1988) Grand multiparity: an obstetric or neonatal risk factor? Am J Obstet Gynecol 158:1034–1039PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Babinski A, Kerenyi T, Torok O, et al (1999) Perinatal outcome in grand and great grand multiparity: effects of parity on obstetric risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:669–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mozurkewich EL, Hutton EK (2000) Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:1187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hibbard JU, Ismail MA, Wang Y, Te C, Karrison T (2001) Failed vaginal birth after a cesarean section: how risky is it? Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:1365–1371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zelop CM, Shipp TM, Repke JT, Cohen A, Lieberman E (2000) Effect of previous vaginal delivery on the risk of uterine rupture during a subsequent trial of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:1184–1186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ofir K, Sheiner E, Levy A, Katz M, Mazor M (2004) Uterine rupture: differences between a scarred and an unscarred uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:425–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Srinivas SK, Stamilio DM, Stevens EJ, Odibo AO, Peipert JF, Macones GA (2007) Predicting failure of a vaginal birth attempt after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 109:800–805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Durnwald CP, Mercer BM (2004) Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: predicting success, risks of failure. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 15(6):388–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chauhan SP, Martin JN Jr, Henrichs CE, et al (2003) Maternal and perinatal complications with uterine rupture in 142075 patients who attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a review of the literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith GC, Pell JP, Cameron AD, et al (2002) Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies. JAMA 287:2684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fretts RC, Schmittdiel J, McLean FH, Usher RH, Goldman MB (1995) Increased maternal age and the risk of fetal death. N Engl J Med 333:953–957PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bai J, Wong FW, Bauman A, Mohsin M (2002) Parity and pregnancy outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:274–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hashima JN, et al (2004) Predicting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a review of prognostic factors and screening tools. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:547–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eitan Kugler
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ilana Shoham-Vardi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eliezer Burstien
    • 1
    • 2
  • Moshe Mazor
    • 1
    • 2
  • Reli Hershkovitz
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ultra Sound Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, Soroka University Medical CenterBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Epidemiology and Health Services Evaluation Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, Soroka University Medical CenterBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations