Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 298, Issue 2, pp 273–277 | Cite as

Complicated primary cesarean delivery increases the risk for uterine rupture at subsequent trial of labor after cesarean

  • Lina Salman
  • Liran Hiersch
  • Anat Shmueli
  • Eyal Krispin
  • Arnon Wiznitzer
  • Rinat Gabbay-Benziv
Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • 215 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate whether cesarean delivery (CD) indication, labor status, and other primary CD characteristics affect the risk for uterine rupture in subsequent deliveries.

Methods

A case–control study of women attempting trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) in a single, tertiary, university-affiliated medical center (2007–2016). Deliveries complicated by uterine rupture were matched to successful vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in a 1:3 ratio. Indication, labor status and post-partum complications (postpartum hemorrhage and postpartum infection) at primary CD were compared between study and control group.

Results

During study period, there were 75,682 deliveries, of them, 3937 (5.2%) were TOLAC. Study group included 53 cases of uterine rupture at TOLAC and 159 women with successful VBAC. Women in study group had significantly lower rates of previous VBAC (15.1 vs. 28.9%, p = 0.047). Rate of postpartum complications at primary CD was significantly higher in women with TOLAC complicated by uterine rupture (7.5 vs. 1.9%, respectively, p = 0.042). Utilizing the multivariate logistic regression analysis, postpartum complications remained an independent risk factor for uterine rupture in the following TOLAC (aOR 4.07, 95% CI 1.14–14.58, p = 0.031).

Conclusion

Postpartum hemorrhage and infection, in primary CD, seem to be associated with increased risk for uterine rupture during subsequent TOLAC.

Keywords

Cesarean delivery Trial of labor after cesarean Uterine rupture VBAC Post-partum hemorrhage 

Notes

Author contributions

LS: concept and design, data acquisition, data interpretation, manuscript editing. LH: data acquisition and interpretation, manuscript revision. AS: data acquisition and interpretation, manuscript revision. EK: data acquisition and interpretation, manuscript revision. AW: concept of design, data analysis, manuscript revision. RGB: concept and design, data acquisition, data interpretation, manuscript editing.

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Informed consent

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR (2016) The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS One 11(2):e0148343CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buhimschi CS, Zhao G, Sora N, Madri JA, Buhimschi IA (2010) Myometrial wound healing post-cesarean delivery in the MRL/MpJ mouse model of uterine scarring. Am J Pathol 177(1):197–207CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY et al (2005) The MFMU cesarean registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:1016–1023CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tahseen S, Griffiths M (2010) Vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC-2)—a systematic review with meta-analysis of success rate and adverse outcomes of VBAC-2 versus VBAC-1 and repeat (third) caesarean sections. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 117(1):5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, Cohen A, Lieberman E (2001) Interdelivery interval and risk of symptomatic uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 97(2):175–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP (2001) Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 345(1):3–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Al-Zirqi I, Stray-Pedersen B, Forsén L, Daltveit AK, Vangen S (2016) Uterine rupture: trends over 40 years. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol 123(5):780–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vilchez G, Nazeer S, Kumar K, Warren M, Dai J, Sokol RJ (2017) Contemporary epidemiology and novel predictors of uterine rupture: a nationwide population-based study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 296(5):869–875CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ et al (2004) Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 351(25):2581–2589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, Cohen A, Caughey AB, Lieberman E (1999) Uterine rupture during induced or augmented labor in gravid women with one prior cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:882–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bailit JL, Landon MB, Thom E et al (2006) The MFMU cesarean registry: impact of time of day on cesarean complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195(4):1132–1137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mizrachi Y, Barber E, Kovo M, Bar J, Lurie S (2018) Prediction of vaginal birth after one ceasarean delivery for non-progressive labor. Arch Gynecol Obstet 297(1):85–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB et al (2007) Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birt after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 109(4):806–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sciscione AC, Landon MB, Leveno KJ et al (2008) Previous preterm cesarean delivery and risk of subsequent uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 111(3):648–653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lannon SMR, Guthrie KA, Vanderhoeven JP, Gammill HS (2015) Uterine rupture risk after periviable cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 125(5):1095–1100CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chen Y, Han P, Wang YJ, Li YX (2017) Risk factors for incomplete healing of the uterine incision after cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet 296(2):355–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brahmalakshmy BL, Kushtagi P (2015) Variables influencing the integrity of lower uterine segment in post-cesarean pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291(4):755–762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    El Refaeey AEA, Abdelfattah H, Mosbah A et al (2017) Is early intervention using Mansoura-VV uterine compression sutures an effective procedure in the management of primary atonic postpartum hemorrhage? : a prospective study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 17(1):160CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krispin E, Hiersch L, Wilk Goldsher Y, Wiznitzer A, Yogev Y, Ashwal E (2017) Association between prior vaginal birth after cesarean and subsequent labor outcome. J Maternal-Fetal Neonatal Med 27:1–7Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vigorito R, Montemango R, Sconne G, De Stefano R (2016) Obstetric outcome associated with trial of labor in women with three perior cesarean delivery and at least one prior vaginal birth in an area with a particulary high rate of cesarean delivery. J Maternal-Fetal Neonatal Med 29(22):3741–3743CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Helen Schneider Hospital for Women, Rabin Medical CenterPetach TikvaIsrael
  2. 2.The Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Lis Maternity Hospital, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical CenterTel AvivIsrael
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyHillel Yaffe Medical CenterHaderaIsrael
  5. 5.The Rappaport Faculty of MedicineTechnionHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations