Risk factors for vaginal delivery after cesarean section
- Autores: Kuznetsova N.B.1,2, Ilуasova G.M.1, Bushtyreva I.O.2, Gimbut V.S.2, Pavlova N.G.3
-
Afiliações:
- Rostov State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
- Clinic of Professor Bushtyreva LLC
- Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
- Edição: Nº 10 (2023)
- Páginas: 78-85
- Seção: Original Articles
- URL: https://journals.eco-vector.com/0300-9092/article/view/624678
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2023.121
- ID: 624678
Citar
Texto integral
Acesso aberto
Acesso está concedido
Acesso é pago ou somente para assinantes
Resumo
Objective: This study aimed to identify the risk factors associated with vaginal delivery in women who had previously undergone cesarean section. The analysis focused on clinical data and medical history as well as the course of pregnancy and labor.
Materials and methods: Forty pregnant women with a uterine scar from a prior cesarean section who attempted vaginal delivery were included in this study. Based on the labor outcomes, they were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised 26 women who underwent vaginal delivery, while group 2 consisted of 14 women who required repeat cesarean section during labor. A comparative analysis was conducted, taking into account clinical data, medical history, and the progression of index pregnancy and labor.
Results: Patients in group 2 exhibited higher weight gain during pregnancy than those in group 1, with values of 12.5 [11, 16] and 10 kg [9; 14], respectively (p=0.045). Additionally, 30.8% of the women in group 1 had a history of previous vaginal deliveries, whereas no patients in group 2 had such a history (p<0.05). The placenta was more frequently located along the anterior uterine wall in group 1 (80.8%) than in group 2 (28.6%) (p=0.002). On admission to the maternity hospital, the minimum thickness of the lower uterine segment in the scar area, as determined by ultrasound, was greater in group 1 than in group 2, measuring 2.35 mm [2; 2.8] and 2.1 mm [1.95; 2.23], respectively (p=0.015). Moreover, women in group 1 were significantly more likely to be admitted with a mature cervix according to the Bishop scale than those in group 2 (p=0.007). The dilation of the internal os was twice as wide in group 1 versus group 2 (p=0.002). Rupture of membranes occurred at term more frequently in group 1 than in group 2 (p=0.03).
Conclusions: Based on our findings, risk factors associated with an unsuccessful attempt at vaginal delivery after cesarean section include a lower uterine segment thickness ≤2.1 mm upon admission, cervical maturity score ≤5 points according to the Bishop scale, dilation of the internal os ≤2 cm upon admission, and early rupture of membranes.
Texto integral
Sobre autores
Natalya Kuznetsova
Rostov State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia; Clinic of Professor Bushtyreva LLC
Email: lauranb@inbox.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0342-8745
Dr. Med. Sci., Associate Professor, Professor at the Center for Simulation Training; Chief Physician
Rússia, Rostov-on-Don; Rostov-on-DonGulmira Ilуasova
Rostov State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Autor responsável pela correspondência
Email: gulmirka666@mail.ru
post-graduate student
Rússia, Rostov-on-DonIrina Bushtyreva
Clinic of Professor Bushtyreva LLC
Email: kio4@mail.ru
Dr. Med. Sci., Professor, Director
Rússia, Rostov-on-DonVitaliy Gimbut
Clinic of Professor Bushtyreva LLC
Email: vgimbut@gmail.com
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-5608-5328
PhD, Doctor of Ultrasound Diagnostics
Rússia, Rostov-on-DonNatalia Pavlova
Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: ngp05@yandex.ru
PhD, Professor at the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology
Rússia, St. PetersburgBibliografia
- Российское общество акушеров-гинекологов (РОАГ), Ассоциация акушерских анестезиологов-реаниматологов (АААР). Роды одноплодные, родоразрешение путем кесарева сечения. Клинические рекомендации. 2020. [Russian Society of Obstetricians-Gynecologists, Association of Obstetrician Anesthesiologists-Resuscitators. Single-child labor, delivery by caesarean section. Clinical guidelines. 2020. (in Russian)]. Available at: https://www.arfpoint.ru/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ kr-kesarevo-sechenie.pdf
- Mascarello К.С., Horta B.L., Silveira M.F. Maternal complications and cesarean section without indication: systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev. Saude Publica. 2017; 51: 105. https://dx.doi.org/10.11606/ S1518-8787.2017051000389.
- Радзинский В.Е. Акушерская агрессия, v. 2.0. М.: Изд-во журнала Status Praesens; 2017. 872c. [Radzinsky V.E. Obstetric aggression, v. 2.0. Moscow: Status Praesens; 2017. 872p. (in Russian)].
- Савельева Г.М., Курцер М.А., Бреслав И.Ю., Коноплянников А.Г., Латышкевич О.А. Разрывы матки в современном акушерстве. Акушерство и гинекология. 2020; 9: 48-55. [Savelyeva G.M., Kurtser M.A., Breslav I.Yu., Konoplyannikov A.G., Latyshkevich O.A. Uterine ruptures in modern obstetrics. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020; (9): 48-55. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.9.48-55.
- Sandall J., Tribe RM., Avery L., Mola G., Visser G.H., Homer C.S. et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018; 392(10155): 1349-57. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5.
- Shi X.-M., Wang Y., Zhang Y., Wei Y.L., Chen L., Zhao Y.-Y. Effect of primary elective cesarean delivery on placenta accreta: a case-control study. Chin. Med. J. (Engl). 2018; 131(6): 672-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.226902.
- Российское общество акушеров-гинекологов. Послеоперационный рубец на матке, требующий предоставления медицинской помощи матери во время беременности, родов и в послеродовом периоде. Клинические рекомендации. 2021. [Russian Society of Obstetricians-Gynecologists. A postoperative scar on the uterus that requires the provision of medical care to the mother during pregnancy, childbirth and in the postpartum period. Clinical guidelines. 2021. (in Russian)]. Available at: https:// minzdrav.midural.ru/uploads/2021/07/Послеоперационный%20рубец%20на%20матке.pdf Accessed 12.01.2023.
- ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019; 133(2): e110-e127. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003078.
- Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Birth after previous caesarean birth (Green-top Guideline No. 45). 2015. Available at: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_45.pdf Accessed 12.01.2023.
- Queensland Government. Queensland Maternity and Neonatal Clinical Guideline: Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC). 2020. Available at: https://www.health.qld.gov.au/qcg Accessed 12.01.2023.
- Вученович Ю.Д., Новикова В.А., Радзинский В.Е. Альтернатива повторному кесареву сечению. Доктор.Ру. 2020; 19(6): 15-22. [Vuchenovich Yu.D., Novikova V.A., Radzinsky V.E. An Alternative to Repeat Cesarean Section. Doctor.Ru. 2020; 19(6): 15-22. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.31550/ 1727-2378-2020-19-6-15-22.
- Вученович Ю.Д., Новикова В.А., Костин И.Н., Радзинский В.Е. Риски несостоятельности рубца и попытки вагинальных родов после кесарева сечения. Акушерство и гинекология: новости, мнения, обучение. 2019; 7(3, Приложение): 93-100. [Vuchenovich Yu.D., Novikova V.A., Kostin I.N., Radzinsky V.E. Risk of uterine rupture during a trial of vaginal labor after cesarean. Obstetrics and Gynecology: News, Opinions, Training. 2019; 7(3, Suppl.): 93-100. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.24411/ 2303-9698-2019-13913.
- Пономарева О.А., Писарева Е.Е., Литвина Е.В., Дворецкая Ю.А., Ильина О.В. Хирургическая анатомия живота после кесарева сечения. Волгоградский научно-медицинский журнал. 2020; 2: 26-30. [Ponomareva O.A., Pisareva E.E., Litvina E.V., Dvoreckaya Y.A., Ilina O.V. Surgical anatomy of the abdomen after cesarean section. Volgograd Journal of Medical Research. 2020; (2): 26-30. (in Russian)].
- Айламазян Э.К., Павлова Н.Г., Поленов Н.И., Кузьминых Т.У., Шелаева Е.В. Морфофункциональная оценка нижнего сегмента матки в конце физиологической беременности и у беременных с рубцом. Журнал акушерства и женских болезней. 2006; 55(4): 11-8. [Ailamazyan E.K., Pavlova N.G., Polenov N.I., Kuzminih T.U., Shelaeva E.V. Morphofunctional evaluation of the lower uterine segment in physiological pregnancy and scarred uterus. Journal of Obstetrics and Women's Diseases. 2006; 55(4): 11-8. (in Russian)].
- Петрова Л.Е., Кузьминых Т.У., Коган И.Ю., Михальченко Е.В. Особенности клинического течения родов у женщин с рубцом на матке после кесарева сечения. Журнал акушерства и женских болезней. 2012; 61(6): 41-7. [Petrova L.E., Kuzminykh T.U., Kogan I.Yu., Mykhalchenko E.V. Characteristics of clinical progress of vaginal delivery after cesarean section. Journal of Obstetrics and Women's Diseases. 2012; 61(6): 41-7. (in Russian)].
Arquivos suplementares
