Safety and success rate of vaginal birth after two cesarean sections: Retrospective cohort study

9Citations
Citations of this article
43Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: Cesarean section is a lifesaving procedure with short and long-term consequences. Growing rates of cesarean sections worldwide arise problems for subsequent birth. The aim of this study was to compare safety of vaginal birth after two cesarean sections with repeat third cesarean section to help healthcare providers and patients make well informed decisions about mode of subsequent delivery. Material and methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary reference hospital. Database of all deliveries (2010-2017) after two previous cesarean sections was created from electronic and paper medical records. Preterm deliveries, abnormal karyotype and neonates with congenital anomalies were excluded from the study. The final analysis included 412 cases for maternal outcome analysis and 406 cases for neonatal outcome analysis. Results: Trial of labor after two cesareans in comparison to repeat cesarean section increases the risk of hemorrhage (OR: 10.84) and unfavorable composite maternal outcome (OR: 2.58). Failed trial of labor increases this risk of hemorrhage (OR: 15.27) and unfavorable composite maternal outcome (OR: 4.59) even further. There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes. 22 out of 35 trials of labor ended in successful delivery giving a success rate of 62.85%. 5 of 7 labor inductions ended in repeat cesarean section giving 28.6% success rate. There were no maternal deaths and emergency hysterectomies. Conclusions: Trial of labor, especially failed trial of labor, is associated with an increased risk of perinatal complications.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Modzelewski, J., Jakubiak-Proc, M., Materny, A., Sotniczuk, M., Kajdy, A., & Rabijewski, M. (2019). Safety and success rate of vaginal birth after two cesarean sections: Retrospective cohort study. Ginekologia Polska, 90(8), 438–445. https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.2019.0076

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free