Skip to main content

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

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics volume 287, pages 1099–1103 (2013)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  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)

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Beckett VA, Regan L (2001) Vaginal birth after cesarean: the European experience. Clin Obstet Gynecol 44(3):594–603 (review)

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ba’aqeel HS (2009) Cesarean delivery rates in Saudi Arabia: a ten-year review. Ann Saudi Med 29(3):179–183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2010) Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 116:450–463 (practice bulletin no. 115)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Martin DP, Easterling TR (2000) Association between method of delivery and maternal rehospitalization. JAMA 283(18):2411–2416

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Zelop C, Heffner LJ (2004) The downside of cesarean delivery: short- and long-term complications. Clin Obstet Gynecol 47(2):386–393 (review)

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clark SL, Koonings PP, Phelan JP (1985) Placenta previa/accreta and prior cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 66(1):89–92

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):1226–1232

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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):19–23

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Makoha FW, Felimban HM, Fathuddien MA, Roomi F, Ghabra T (2004) Multiple cesarean section morbidity. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 87(3):227–232

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2581–2589

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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):1394–1399

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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, Rockville

  18. Cahill AG, Macones GA (2007) Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: evidence-based practice. Clin Obstet Gynecol 50(2):518–525 (review)

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Agnew G, Turner MJ (2009) Vaginal prostaglandin gel to induce labour in women with one previous caesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol 29(3):209–211

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):1646–1661

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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):285–289

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):938–941

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):471–475

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  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):1176–1179

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):593–596

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the help we received from the residents and the nurses who were working in the labour and delivery room during the study period in collecting the data for this study. We thank Bella Rowena Magnaye for her administrative support.

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, King Khalid University Hospital, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

    Ghadeer Al-Shaikh & Hazem Al-Mandeel

Authors
  1. Ghadeer Al-Shaikh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hazem Al-Mandeel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ghadeer Al-Shaikh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Al-Shaikh, G., Al-Mandeel, H. The outcomes of trial of labour after cesarean section following induction of labour compared to spontaneous labour. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287, 1099–1103 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2709-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2709-z

Keywords

  • Induction of labour
  • Previous caesarian section
  • Vaginal birth after cesarean section