Download PDF
Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2023; 227(02): 96-105
DOI: 10.1055/a-1965-4125
Review

Trial of Labor after Three or More Previous Cesarean Sections: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Arrigo Fruscalzo 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, HFR Fribourg, Switzerland
2   Faculty of Medicine, University of Münster, Germany
,
Emma Rossetti
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brixen General Hospital, Brixen, Italy
,
Ambrogio P. Londero 
4   Academic Unit of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Infant Health, University of Genova, Italy
5   Ennergi Research (non-profit organization), 33050 Lestizza, UD, Italy
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Aims To assess the success rate and prevalence of maternal or neonatal complications in women undergoing a trial of labor after three or more (≥3) previous cesarean sections (CSs).

Methods A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted from inception to May 2022 in Medline, Scopus, ENBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Reviews. Items detailing success rate and complications in women with a history of≥3 previous CSs were considered. Selected articles were evaluated for quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias. A pooled prevalence or odds ratio was calculated.

Findings Twelve articles were included for a total of 540 women with a history of≥3 CSs, accounting for the 2% (CI 95% 1–4%) of the whole cohort of trial of labor. Our findings show a 0.67 (CI 95% 0.53–0.78) rate of successful vaginal delivery. A higher success rate was observed in women having a history of a prior vaginal delivery (0.90, CI 95% 0.77–0.96) and when prostaglandins, peridural anesthesia or oxytocin were allowed (respectively 0.73, CI 95% 0.62–0.83, 0,73, CI 95% 0.57–0.85 and 0.73, CI 95% 0.64–0.81). Uterine rupture rate was 0.01 (CI 95% 0.00–0.01). No cases of fetal asphyxia or maternal or neonatal death were registered.

Conclusions The success rate and low frequency of severe complications observed seem to support a trial of labor in selected patients desiring a natural birth. However, a potential underestimation of serious maternal and neonatal complications should be considered in the decision-making process.

Key words

trial of labor after cesarean section - uterine scar - uterine rupture - adverse neonatal outcome - adverse maternal outcome.

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 23 May 2022

Accepted after revision: 02 October 2022

Article published online:
01 December 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB. et al. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0148343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Zwecker P, Azoulay L, Abenhaim HA. Effect of fear of litigation on obstetric care: A nationwide analysis on obstetric practice. Am J Perinatol 2011; 28: 277-284
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gibbons L, Belizan JM, Lauer JA. et al. Inequities in the use of cesarean section deliveries in the world. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206: 331.e1-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Fruscalzo A, Salmeri MG, Cendron A. et al. Introducing routine trial of labour after caesarean section in a second level hospital setting. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25: 1442-1446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ashford JB, LeCroy CW, Lortie KL. Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Multidimensional Perspective. 4th ed.. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Clark EA, Silver RM. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205: S2-S10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jackson N, Paterson-Brown S. Physical sequelae of caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 15: 49-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097-e1000097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bacchetti S, Pasqual EM, Bertozzi S. et al. Curative versus palliative surgical resection of liver metastases in patients with neuroendocrine tumors: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Gland Surg 2014; 3: 243-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Martella L, Bertozzi S, Londero AP. et al. Surgery for liver metastases from gastric cancer: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015; 94: e1113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. 2022
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M. et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50: 1088-1101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sterne JA, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54: 1046-1055
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539-1558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tassi A, Parisi N, Londero AP. Misoprostol administration prior to intrauterine contraceptive device insertion: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2020; 25: 76-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Vigorito R, Montemagno R, Saccone G. et al. Obstetric outcome associated with trial of labor in women with three prior cesarean delivery and at least one prior vaginal birth in an area with a particularly high rate of cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29: 3741-3743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cahill AG, Tuuli M, Odibo AO. et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean for women with three or more prior caesareans: Assessing safety and success. BJOG 2010; 117: 422-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Landon MB, Spong CY, Thom E. et al. Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 12-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Spaans WA, van der Vliet LME, Röell-Schorer EAM. et al. Trial of labour after two or three previous caesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003; 110: 16-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Emembolu JO. Vaginal delivery after two or more previous caesarean sections: Is trial of labour contraindicated?. J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 18: 20-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Miller DA, Diaz FG, Paul RH. Vaginal birth after cesarean: A 10-year experience. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 255-258
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hansell RS, McMurray KB, Huey GR. Vaginal birth after two or more cesarean sections: A five-year experience. Birth 1990; 17: 146-150 discussion 150–151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Novas J, Myers SA, Gleicher N. Obstetric outcome of patients with more than one previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160: 364-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pruett KM, Kirshon B, Cotton DB. et al. Is vaginal birth after two or more cesarean sections safe?. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72: 163-165
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Stovall TG, Shaver DC, Solomon SK. et al. Trial of labor in previous cesarean section patients, excluding classical cesarean sections. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 70: 713-717
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Martin JN, Harris BA, Huddleston JF. et al. Vaginal delivery following previous cesarean birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 146: 255-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Riva HL, Teich JC. Vaginal delivery after cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1961; 81: 501-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128: 305-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Asakura H, Myers SA. More than one previous cesarean delivery: A 5-year experience with 435 patients. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 924-929
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Granovsky-Grisaru S, Shaya M, Diamant YZ. The management of labor in women with more than one uterine scar: Is a repeat cesarean section really the only “safe” option?. J Perinat Med 1994; 22: 13-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Flamm BL, Newman LA, Thomas SJ. et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: Results of a 5-year multicenter collaborative study. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76: 750-754
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Farmakides G, Duvivier R, Schulman H. et al. Vaginal birth after two or more previous cesarean sections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156: 565-566
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Porreco RP, Meier PR. Trial of labor in patients with multiple previous cesarean sections. J Reprod Med 1983; 28: 770-772
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Saldana LR, Schulman H, Reuss L. Management of pregnancy after cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 135: 555-561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Paul RH, Phelan JP, Yeh SY. Trial of labor in the patient with a prior cesarean birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 297-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Bowyer L, Chapman M. Successful vaginal birth after three previous Caesarean sections with no prior labour. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 43: 471-472
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Sharma S, Thorpe-Beeston JG. Trial of vaginal delivery following three previous caesarean sections. BJOG 2002; 109: 350-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Lawson GW. Vaginal delivery after 3 previous caesarean sections. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 27: 115-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Ibraheim M, Mohamed S, Ikomi A. Unmonitored trial of labour and home delivery following three previous caesarean sections. J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 26: 165-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Katsulov A, Koleva Z, Iankov M. et al. Successful vaginal delivery after three previous cesarean sections – a case report and comment. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia) 2005; 44: 11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 ACOG. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 450-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 RCOG. Birth after previous caesarean birth. Green-top Guideline No. 45. October 2015. Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/media/kpkjwd5h/gtg_45.pdf
    PubMed
  • 45 Guise JM, Berlin M, McDonagh M. et al. Safety of vaginal birth after cesarean: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 420-429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ. et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2581-2589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Roberts LJ. Elective section after two sections – where’s the evidence?. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 1199-1202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Tahseen S, Griffiths M. 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 2010; 117: 5-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Cragin E. Conservatism in obstetrics. NY Med J 1916; 54 I
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Doret M, Touzet S, Bourdy S. et al. Vaginal birth after two previous c-sections: Obstetricians-gynaecologists opinions and practice patterns. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2010; 23: 1487-1492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Emmerick ICM, Oliveira MA, Luiza VL. et al. Access to medicines in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC): A scoping study. BMJ Open 2013; 3: e002224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Granovsky-Grisaru S, Diamant YZ. Vaginal delivery following two or more caesarean sections. Harefuah 1993; 124: 221-222
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: Power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 1119-1129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar