Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Twice a cesarean, always a cesarean?

Authors: J P, Phelan; M O, Ahn; F, Diaz; H S, Brar; M H, Rodriguez;

Twice a cesarean, always a cesarean?

Abstract

The cesarean delivery rate has quadrupled during the past two decades, resulting in considerable attention focused on alternatives to cesarean birth. One option, vaginal birth after one previous cesarean, has come to be recognized as an acceptable alternative to routine elective repeat cesarean delivery. The purpose of this report was to evaluate whether women with two previous cesareans can safely undergo a trial of labor. Between July 1, 1982 and June 30, 1986, data were collected prospectively on all women with previous cesareans. Those with a known classical incision or a medical or obstetric contraindication to a trial of labor were excluded from an attempted vaginal delivery. During this period, 67,784 patients were delivered, of whom 6250 (9.2%) had had a previous cesarean. Of the 6250 previous-cesarean patients, 1088 (17.4%) had had two previous cesareans; of these, 501 (46%) underwent a trial of labor and 346 (69%) delivered vaginally. Whereas the overall rate of uterine dehiscence was 3%, the rate in those women who attempted a vaginal delivery was 1.8%, versus 4.6% in those who did not. Overall, oxytocin was used in 284 (57%) and was associated with a dehiscence rate of 2.1%, versus 1.4% in the no-oxytocin group. Successful vaginal delivery was related significantly to the use of oxytocin and to a previous vaginal delivery. Trial of labor in patients with two previous cesareans appears to be a reasonable consideration.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Reoperation, Cesarean Section, Oxytocin, Trial of Labor, Uterine Rupture, Pregnancy, Surgical Wound Dehiscence, Humans, Female, Prospective Studies, Fetal Monitoring

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    60
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 1%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
60
Average
Top 1%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!