Associated factors and pregnancy outcomes of trial of labor after cesarean: a prospective cohort study
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-9408.2017.09.007
- VernacularTitle:瘢痕子宫阴道试产成功的影响因素及妊娠结局:前瞻性队列研究
- Author:
Suhua WEI
;
Xiaodong YE
;
Lili QIU
;
Yimin DAI
;
Zhiqun WANG
;
Jie LI
;
Aiyuan YUE
;
Feiran ZHANG
;
Mingming ZHENG
- Keywords:
Vaginal birth after cesarean;
Trial of labor;
Cesarean section,repeat;
Surgical procedures,elective;
Pregnancy outcome;
Prospective studies
- From:
Chinese Journal of Perinatal Medicine
2017;20(9):649-655
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To investigate the safety of trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) and clinical factors associated with successful TOLAC and to compare TOLAC with elective repeat caesarean section (ERCS) in terms of obstetric and neonatal outcomes.Methods A prospective cohort study was conducted among gravidas who had a history of lower segment cesarean section and were hospitalized in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology,the Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Medical School of Nanjing University from January to December 2014.Exclusion criteria included indications for caesarean section (such as placenta previa,placenta accreta,twin pregnancy,breech presentation and severe preeclampsia),serious maternal complications after cesarean section,lower uterine segment thinner than 3 mm and poor healing of uterine incision.Totally,287 gravidas were enrolled.Among them,142 chose TOLAC and the other 145 requested ERCS.Clinical data of those gravidas were collected and statistically analyzed by t-test,Log-rank test,Chi-square or Fisher's exact test.Results (1) The success rate of TOLAC was 90.8％ (129/142).There was no significant difference in maternal age,gestational age,thickness of lower uterine segment,interval between the two deliveries and neonatal birth weight and asphyxia rate between the successful (n=129) and unsuccessful (n=13) groups (all P＞0.05).Although the two groups had no significant difference in postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) rate,the gravidas who failed in TOLAC lost more blood than those who succeeded [425 (195-675) vs 200 (50-1 400) ml,P＜0.05].Moreover,higher amniotic fluid contamination rate was observed in the unsuccessful group [6/13 vs 17.1％ (22/129),P＜0.05].In the TOLAC group,99.3％ (141/142) were under continuous fetal heart rate monitoring.Incomplete uterine rupture occurred in one women without serious maternal or neonatal outcomes.The reasons for 13 failed TOLAC cases were unbearable pain during labor,abnormal labor,fetal distress and threatened rupture of uterus.(2) Compared with the ERCS group,the TOLAC group showed shorter interval from last cesarean section to the indexed delivery[5 (2-18) vs 6 (2-19) years],younger maternal age [(31±4) vs (33 ±4) years old] and less blood loss [200 (50-1 400) vs 300 (100-1 500) ml] (all P＜0.05).Conclusion Our study shows that,those who preferred TOLAC were younger,or had shorter pregnancy interval from last cesarean section.The success rate of TOLAC is high for women undergoing systematic prenatal assessment and close management during labor with less blood loss and non-serious maternal and neonatal complications compared with ERCS.
