Second stage disorders in patients following a previous cesarean section: vacuum versus repeated cesarean section
- First Online:
- 269 Downloads
To investigate whether vacuum extraction due to failure of labor to progress (dystocia) during the second stage in a delivery following a previous cesarean section (CS) is related to increased adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes as compared with repeated CS.
A retrospective cohort study of pregnancy and delivery outcomes of patients in their second deliveries attempting a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) following one CS was conducted. Patients who delivered by vacuum extraction were compared with patients who underwent a repeated CS for failure of labor to progress during the second stage.
During the study period, 319 patients with a previous CS suffered from a prolonged second stage of labor in their second delivery. Of these, 184 underwent vacuum extraction and 135 patients underwent a repeated CS. No significant differences in relevant pregnancy complications such as perineal lacerations, uterine rupture, and post-partum hemorrhage and perinatal outcomes were noted between the groups. There were no cases of perinatal mortality in our study.
When managing second stage labor disorders, vacuum extraction does not seem to be an unsafe procedure in patients with a previous CS.
KeywordsCesarean section Vacuum extraction Prolonged second stage Vaginal birth after cesarean
- 2.National vital statistics reports—births: final data for 2008, published 8 Dec 2010, Vol 59, No. 1, NCHS, CDCGoogle Scholar
- 8.Majoko F, Gardener G (2008) Trial of instrumental delivery in theatre versus immediate caesarean section for anticipated difficult assisted births. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005545.pub2
- 9.Contag SA, Clifton RG, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Varner MW, Rouse DJ, Ramin SM, Caritis SN, Peaceman AM, Sorokin Y, Sciscione A, Carpenter MW, Mercer BM, Thorp JM Jr, Malone FD, Iams JD (2010) Neonatal outcomes and operative vaginal delivery versus cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol 27(6):493–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar