Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 287, Issue 6, pp 1099–1103 | Cite as

The outcomes of trial of labour after cesarean section following induction of labour compared to spontaneous labour

Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the success rate of vaginal birth after cesarean birth (VBAC) and its outcome when labour was induced compared to spontaneous labour.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.

Keywords

Induction of labour Previous caesarian section Vaginal birth after cesarean section 

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Zirqi I, Stray-Pedersen B, Forsén L, Vangen S (2010) Uterine rupture after previous caesarean section. BJOG 117(7):809–820 (erratum in BJOG 117(8): 1041)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beckett VA, Regan L (2001) Vaginal birth after cesarean: the European experience. Clin Obstet Gynecol 44(3):594–603 (review)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ba’aqeel HS (2009) Cesarean delivery rates in Saudi Arabia: a ten-year review. Ann Saudi Med 29(3):179–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2010) Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 116:450–463 (practice bulletin no. 115)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Martin DP, Easterling TR (2000) Association between method of delivery and maternal rehospitalization. JAMA 283(18):2411–2416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zelop C, Heffner LJ (2004) The downside of cesarean delivery: short- and long-term complications. Clin Obstet Gynecol 47(2):386–393 (review)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark SL, Koonings PP, Phelan JP (1985) Placenta previa/accreta and prior cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 66(1):89–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (2006) Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 107(6):1226–1232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright JD, Bonanno C, Shah M, Gaddipati S, Devine P (2010) Peripartum hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 116(2 Pt 1):429–434 (erratum in Obstet Gynecol 116(6): 1461)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sobande AA, Albar H (2002) Induction of labor with prostaglandin E2 vaginal tablets in parous and grand multiparous patients with previous cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 78(1):19–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Makoha FW, Felimban HM, Fathuddien MA, Roomi F, Ghabra T (2004) Multiple cesarean section morbidity. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 87(3):227–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dodd JM, Crowther CA (2006) Elective repeat cesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004906. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004906.pub2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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):2581–2589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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
  16. 16.
    Locatelli A, Regalia AL, Ghidini A, Ciriello E, Biffi A, Pezzullo JC (2004) Risks of induction of labour in women with a uterine scar from previous low transverse caesarean section. BJOG 111(12):1394–1399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cahill AG, Macones GA (2007) Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: evidence-based practice. Clin Obstet Gynecol 50(2):518–525 (review)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Agnew G, Turner MJ (2009) Vaginal prostaglandin gel to induce labour in women with one previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol 29(3):209–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Catling-Paull C, Johnston R, Ryan C, Foureur MJ, Homer CS (2011) Clinical interventions that increase the uptake and success of vaginal birth after caesarean section: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs 67(8):1646–1661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bedoya C, Bartha JL, Rodriguez I, Fontan I, Bedoya JM, Sanchez-Ramos J (1992) A trial of labor after cesarean section in patients with or without a prior vaginal delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 39(4):285–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Caughey AB, Shipp TD, Repke JT, Zelop C, Cohen A, Lieherman E (1998) Trial of labor after cesarean delivery: the effect of previous vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179(4):938–941PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Locatelli A, Ghidini A, Ciriello E, Incerti M, Bonardi C, Regalia AL (2006) Induction of labor: comparison of a cohort with uterine scar from previous cesarean section vs. a cohort with intact uterus. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 19(8):471–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ravasia DJ, Wood SL, Pollard JK (2000) Uterine rupture during induced trial of labor among women with previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183(5):1176–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ouzounian JG, Miller DA, Hiebert CJ, Battista LR, Lee RH (2011) Vaginal birth after cesarean section: risk of uterine rupture with labor induction. Am J Perinatol 28(8):593–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of MedicineKing Khalid University Hospital, King Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations