Vol. 1 No. 1 (2022): International Journal of Applied Technology in Medical Sciences
Articles

Outcome Of Antenatal CARE PLANNED VBAC Versus Unplanned VBAC

PDF
  • Aisha Assmani Adam,
  • Ohayla Hassan

Published 2022-11-04

Keywords

  • Gynecology,
  • VBAC,
  • ANC,
  • NICU,
  • Maternal Morbidity

How to Cite

Outcome Of Antenatal CARE PLANNED VBAC Versus Unplanned VBAC. (2022). International Journal of Applied Technology in Medical Sciences, 1(1), 4-18. https://doi.org/10.54878/s5sn3631

Abstract

Background: The primary target when setting policies in obstetrics and gynaecology is gaining successful delivery with the minimum feto-maternal adverse outcome. Studying the difference between planned and unplanned vaginal birth after caesarean section expected to serve such goal by monitoring and evaluating the possible risks in unplanned VBAC such as risk of rupture uterus and other relevant complication. 

Materials: all pregnant women with one previous caesarean section planned for VBAC either in the ANC or labour pain. 

Results: A total of 245pregnant women had been enrolled in this study. The age of both groups found to be similar to each other. the education level had significant effect on the type of delivery in group A the majority of the women was university graduate while in group B who were unplanned for VBAC the majority are secondary. Most of both groups are from urban area. In group A, most of the patient parity are vary between I-IV as follow (87.6%) while in group B I_IV (84.6%). Group A had high visit rate for ANC most of them went to referral clinic (51.1%). While in group B (68.9%) went to health center. The commonest indication for a previous CS was failure to progress in both groups. The success rate of VBAC in both groups was similar (68%) in group A while in group B (67%). the commonest type of previous C/S was emergencies in both groups. In group A (94%) had been counseled for VBAC and majority was counseled by registrar while the majority in group B had not been counseled for VBAC.The maternal outcome in group A was (1.4%) for PPH & (1.4%) for uterine rupture while in group B (1%) for PPH and (2.9%) for uterine rupture and the majority of both groups had no complication. The neonatal outcome in group planned for VBAC was good (99%) alive baby while in group B (7%) had FSB. Group B recorded much rate admitted to ICU (18%). 

Conclusion: The study highlighted that the success rates of VBAC in planned group were significantly higher than the unplanned group. There was no significant different in the maternal morbidity, the neonatal outcome in group planned for VBAC was better than in group B. Group B recorded much rate admitted to NICU among them the birth asphyxia was high than group planned for VBAC.

PDF

References

  1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), Hilder L, Zhichao Z, Parker M, Jahan S, Chambers GM. Australian mothers and babies 2012.
  2. New Zealand Ministry of Health. Clinical Indicators. 2012. Available from: http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/newzealand-maternity-clinical-indicators-2012.
  3. American College of Obstetricans and Gynaecologists (ACOG). Clinical Management Guidelines Vaginal Birth after Previous Caesarean Section. 2010
  4. Jozwiak M, Dodd JM. Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section, Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;3:CD009792
  5. Gregory KD KL, Fridman M et al. Vaginal birth after Cesarean : clinical risk factors associated withadverse outcome, Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008(198):452-5
  6. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists July 2015.
  7. Pallasmaa N, Ekblad U, Aitokallio-Tallberg A, Uotila J, Raudaskoski T, Ulander VM, et al. Cesarean delivery in Finland: maternal complications and obstetric risk factors, ActaObstetGynecol Scand. 2010;89(7):896- 902
  8. Allen VM, O'Connell CM, Liston RM, Baskett TF. Maternal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery without labor compared with spontaneous onset of labor at term, Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(3):477-82.
  9. Regan J, Thompson A, DeFranco E. The influence of mode of delivery on breastfeeding initiation in women with a prior cesarean delivery: a population-based study, Breastfeed Med. 2013;8:181-6
  10. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Birth after Previous Caesarean section. 2007
  11. Ugwumadu A (2005) Does the maxim “once a Caesarean, always a Caesarean” still hold true? PLoS Med 2(9): e305.
  12. Wells CE, Cunningham FG (2015) Choosing The Route of Delivery After Cesarean Birth. Up to Date
  13. Smith GC, White IR, Pell JP, Dobbie R (2005) Predicting cesarean section and uterine rupture among women attempting vaginal birth after prior cesarean section. PLoS Med 2(9): e252.
  14. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2013) ACOG committee opinion no. 559: Cesarean delivery on maternal request. ObstetGynecol 121(4): 904- 907.
  15. . International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) (2009) Committee for the Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health. Ethical aspects regarding caesarean delivery for nonmedical reasons. Ethical issues in obstetrics and gynecology by the FIGO Committee for the Study of Ethical Aspects of Human Reproduction and Women’s Health. London, FIGO, p. 72-73.
  16. (2006) National Institutes of Health state-ofthe-science conference statement: Cesarean delivery on maternal request March 27–29, 2006. ObstetGynecol 107(6): 1386-1397
  17. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Leindecker S, et al. (2004) Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 351(25): 2581- 2589.
  18. Guise JM, McDonagh MS, Osterweil P, Nygren P, Chan BK, et al. (2004) Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section. BMJ 329(7456): 19-25
  19. Cox KJ (2014) Counseling women with a previous cesarean birth: toward a shared decision-making partnership. J Midwifery Womens Health 59(3): 237-245
  20. Eden KB, McDonagh M, Denman MA, Marshall N, Emeis C, et al. (2010) New insights on vaginal birth after cesarean: can it be predicted? ObstetGynecol 116(4): 967-981.
  21. Smith GC, Pell JP, Cameron AD, Dobbie R (2002) Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies. JAMA 287(20): 2684-2690
  22. Turitz AL, Friedman AM, Gyamfi-Bannerman C (2016) Trial of labor after cesarean versus repeat cesarean in women with smallforgestational age neonates: a secondary analysis. J Maternity Fetal Neonatal Med 29(18): 3051-3055.
  23. French L (2004) Trial of Labor After Cesarean Section Is Relatively Safe. AmFam Physician 70(9): 1761-1762
  24. Studsgaard A, Skorstengaard M, Glavind J, Hvidman L, Uldbjerg N (2013) Trial of labor compared to repeat cesarean section in women with no other risk factors than a prior cesarean delivery. ActaObstetGynecolgyScand 92(11): 1256-1263
  25. Fagerberg MC, Maršál K, Källén K (2015) Predicting the chance of vaginal delivery after one cesarean section: validation and elaboration of a published prediction model. Eur J ObstetGynecolReprodBiol 188: 88-94.
  26. Smith GC, Pell JP, Pasupathy D, Dobbie R (2004) Factors predisposing to perinatal death related to uterine rupture during attempted vaginal birth after caesarean section: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 329(7462): 375.
  27. Gyamfi C, Juhasz G, Gyamfi P, Stone JL (2004) Increased success of trial of labor after previous vaginal birth after cesarean. ObstetGynecol 104(4): 715-719.
  28. Landon MB (2010) Predicting uterine rupture in women undergoing trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. SeminPerinatol 34(4): 267- 271.
  29. Tahseen S, Griffiths M (2010) Vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC-2)-a systematic review with meta-analysis of success rate and adverse outcomes of VBAC-2 versus VBAC-1 and repeat (third) caesarean sections. BJOG 117(1): 5-19
  30. Cahill AG, Tuuli M, Odibo AO, Stamilio DM, Macones GA (2010) Vaginal birth after caesarean for women with three or more prior caesareans: assessing safety and success. BJOG 117(4):
  31. Miller ES, Grobman WA (2015) Obstetric outcomes associated with induction of labor after 2 prior cesarean deliveries. Am J ObstetGynecol 213(1): 89.e1-89.e5. 422-427
  32. Ravasia DJ, Wood SL, Pollard JK (2000) Uterine rupture during induced trial of labor among women with previous cesarean delivery. Am J ObstetGynecol 183(5): 1176-1179.
  33. Hoffman MK, Grant GH (2015) Induction of labor in women with a prior cesarean delivery. SeminPerinatol 39(6): 471-474.
  34. Lin C, Raynor BD (2004) Risk of uterine rupture in labor induction of patients with prior cesarean section: an inner city hospital experience. Am J ObstetGynecol 190(5): 1476- 1478.
  35. Grantz KL, Gonzalez-Quintero V, Troendle J, Reddy UM, Hinkle SN, et al. (2015) Labor patterns in women attempting vaginal birth after cesarean with normal neonatal outcomes. Am J ObstetGynecol 213(2): 226.e1- 226.e6
  36. Bujold E, Mehta SH, Bujold C, Gauthier RJ (2002) Inter delivery interval and uterine rupture. Am J ObstetGynecol 187(5): 1199- 1202.
  37. Blumenfeld YJ, Caughey AB, El-Sayed YY, Daniels K, Lyell DJ (2010) Single- versus doublelayer hysterotomy closure at primary caesarean delivery and bladder adhesions. BJOG 117(6): 690-694
  38. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Phillippe HJ, Nisand I (1996) Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet 347(8997): 281-284.
  39. Carroll CS Sr, Magann EF, Chauhan SP, Klauser CK, Morrison JC (2003) Vaginal birth after cesarean section versus elective repeat cesarean delivery: Weight-based outcomes. Am J ObstetGynecol 188(6): 1516-1520.
  40. Phelan JP, Clark SL, Diaz F, Paul RH. Vaginal birth after caesarean. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;157:1510–5
  41. Hoskins IA, Gomez JL. Correlation between maximum cervical dilatation at caesarean delivery and subsequent vaginal birth after caesarean delivery. ObstetGynaecol. 1997;89:591–3.