Martínez VE, Zetuna BJZ, Quesnel GBCA

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 493-498
PDF size: 182.37 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the factors associated with a trial of labor after a successful cesarean section in women with no history of previous delivery.
Materials and Methods: Observational case-control, longitudinal, retrospective, analytical, retrospective study performed in patient attended between 2017 and 2020 at Hospital Ángeles Lomas, with a singleton pregnancy of more than 37 weeks, with a trial of labor, with a previous cesarean section and no history of previous delivery. The independent variables were compared between the group that achieved a successful trial of labor after cesarean section with those of the group with failed trial. For statisti- cal analysis, the IBM SPSS program, version 21, was used. All categorical variables are expressed in frequencies and percentages.
Results: We included 135 patients with trial of labor after cesarean section of whom 65 (48.1%) had labor (successful trial) and 70 (51.8%) had cesarean section (failed trial). There was a higher proportion of spontaneous labor in the successful trial group compared to the failed trial group (66.2% compared to 37.1%). There were no significant differences in labor conduction, amniotic membrane integrity on admission, hours of labor, and birth weight.
Conclusions: Lower body mass index, spontaneous labor, and greater dilation on admission were significantly associated with a successful trial of labor after cesarean section. Membrane integrity, length of trial, and birth weight had no significant differences between groups.

REFERENCES

1. Betran A, Torloni M, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajcsyk R, DeneuxC, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section atpopulation level? A systematic review of ecologic studies.Reprod Health. 2015;12(57):1-10. doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6

2. Chalmers B. WHO appropriate technology for birthrevisited. Br J Obs Gynaecol. 1992;99(9):709-710. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb13867.x

3. Althabe F, Sosa C, Belizán J, Gibbons L, Jacquerioz F, BergelE. Cesarean Section Rates and Maternal and NeonatalMortality in Low-, Medium-, and High-Income Countries:An Ecological Study. Birth. 2006;33(4):270-277. doi:10.1111/j.1523-536x.2006.00118.x

4. Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R, Torloni M, Gülmezoglu A, BeltranA. Association between rates of caesarean section and maternaland neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwidepopulation-based ecological study with longitudinal data.BJOG. 2016;123(5):745-753. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13592

5. Betran A, Ye J, Moller A, Souza J, Zhang J. Trends and projectionsof caesarean section rates: global and regionalestimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6):e005671. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671.

6. Secretaría de salud, Dirección General de Información enSalud (DGIS). Cubos dinámicos de Nacimiento. Nacimientosocurridos 2008-2022. En línea. URL: https//sinba.salud.gob.mx/CubosDinamicos.

7. Gupta M, Saini V. Caesarean Section: Mortality and Morbidity.J Clin Diagnostic Research. 2018;12(9):1-6. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2018/37034.11994

8. World Health Organization. WHO Recommendations Non-Clinical Interventions to Reduce Unnecessary CaesareanSections. WHO Guidelines Approved by Guidelines ReviewCommittee. 2018. PMID: 30398818. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532672/

9. ACOG, SMFM, Caughey A, Cahill A, Guise J, Rouse D. SafePrevention of the Primary Cesarean Delivery. Am J Obs Gynecol.2014;210(3):179-193. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026.

10. Yanxin W, Kataria Y, Wang Z, Ming W, Ellervik C. Factors associatedwith successful vaginal birth after a cesarean section:a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth.2019;19(1):1-12. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2517-y.

11. ACOG. ACOG Practice Bulletin NO. 205: Vaginal Birth AfterCesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(2):110-127.doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003078.

12. Oboro V, Adewunmi A, Ande A, Olagbuji B, EzeanochieM, Oyeniran A. Morbidity associated withfailed vaginal birth after cesarean section. ActaObstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(9):1229-1232. doi:10.3109/00016349.2010.499448.

13. Hibbard J, Ismail M, Wang Y, Karrison T. Failed vaginalbirth after a cesarean section: How risky is it? Am JObstet Gynecol. 2001;184(7):1365-1371. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.115044.

14. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetriciansand Gynaecologists. Birth after previous caesarean section.Best Practice Statement. 2019. En línea. URL: https://ranzcog.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Birth-afterprevious-caesarean-section.pdf

15. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. BirthAfter Previous Caesarean Birth. Green-top Guideline No45. 2015. En línea. URL: https://www.rcog.org.uk/media/kpkjwd5h/gtg_45.pdf

16. Juhasz G, Gyamfi C, Gyamfi P, Tocce K, Stone J. Effect of boymass index excessive weight gain on success of vaginal birthafter cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(4):741-761. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000177972.32941.65.

17. Li Y, Bai Z, Long D, Wang H, Wu Y, Reilly K, et al. Predictingthe success of vaginal birth after caesarean delivery: a retrospectivecohort study in China. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):1-8. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027807

18. Madaan M, Agrawal S, Nigam A, Aggarwal R, Trivedi S. Trial oflabour after previous caesarean section: The predictive factorsaffecting outcome. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31(3):224–228. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2010.544426.

19. Mi Y, Qu P, Guo N, Bai R, Gao J, et al. Evaluation of factorsthat predict the success rate of trial of labor after the cesareansection. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):1-9.doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-04004-z.

20. He X, Dai Q, Wu X, Zhou J, Li J. Outcomes and risk factorsfor failed trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) inwomen with one previous cesarean section: a Chinesepopulation‑based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth.2022;22(1):1-6. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-05005-2.