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

Outcome of a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery.

Authors: G S, Eglinton; J P, Phelan; S, Yeh; F P, Diaz; T M, Wallace; R H, Paul;

Outcome of a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery.

Abstract

In the United States over 90% of patients with a history of cesarean delivery in the prior pregnancy undergo repeat cesarean delivery in a subsequent pregnancy. The costs of the nearly universal approach to this issue are staggering and have been addressed by a recent National Institutes of Health consensus development conference. In 1979 at the Women's Hospital of Los Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center we initiated a policy of permitting a trial of spontaneous labor and vaginal delivery in selected patients with prior cesarean deliveries. Patients selected for a trial of labor (TOL) were those with a history of one prior uterine incision known to be low transverse. During 1980 there were 13,292 deliveries and 13,147 live births; 871 of these patients had a history of prior cesarean delivery. Of the 871 women, 308 (35%) were permitted a TOL. There were 240 vaginal deliveries, for a success rate of 78%. Twenty-two perinatal deaths occurred among the 871 patients, none directly attributable to the TOL. There were three ruptured uteri, one directly attributable to a TOL. Seven hysterectomies were performed in this group, none directly attributable to a TOL. This experience has encouraged us to expand the patient group offered a TOL after prior cesarean delivery under carefully controlled conditions.

Keywords

Adult, Reoperation, Labor, Obstetric, Cesarean Section, Infant, Newborn, Hysterectomy, Pregnancy, Infant Mortality, Surgical Wound Dehiscence, Humans, Female, Retrospective Studies

  • 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).
    39
    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!
39
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!