The Impact of a Trial of Labor After Cesarean Versus Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery: A Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal Medicine (Baltimore)

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Feb 16

PMID 38363952

Authors

Xiao Chen

Mei-Yan Mi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The increasing global incidence of cesarean section has prompted efforts to reduce cesarean delivery rates. A trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) has emerged as an alternative to elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD) for women with a prior cesarean delivery. However, the available evidence on the comparative outcomes of these 2 options remains inconsistent, primarily due to varying advantages and risks associated with each. Our meta-analysis aims to compare the maternal-neonatal results in TOLAC and ERCD in women with prior cesarean deliveries.

Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library databases up to September,2022 to identity studies evaluating perinatal outcomes in women who underwent TOLAC compared to ERCD following a previous cesarean delivery. The included studies were subjected to meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software to assess the overall findings.

Results: A total of 13 articles were included in this meta-analysis. Statistically significant differences were identified in the rate of uterine rupture (OR = 2.01,95%CI = 1.48-2.74, P < .00001) and APGAR score < 7 at 5 minutes (OR = 2.17,95%CI = 1.69-2.77, P < .00001) between the TOLAC and ERCD groups. However, no significant differences were observed in the rates of hysterectomy, maternal blood transfusion, postpartum infection, postpartum hemorrhage and neonatal intensive care unit (P ≥ .05) admission between the 2 groups.

Conclusions: Our analysis revealed that TOLAC is associated with a higher risk of uterine rupture and lower incidence APGAR score < 7 at 5 minutes compared to ERCD. It is vital to consider predictive factors when determining the appropriate mode of delivery in order to ensure optimal pregnancy outcomes. Efforts should be made to identify the underlying causes of adverse outcomes and implement safety precautions to select suitable participants and create safe environments for TOLAC.

Citing Articles

Risks and Probabilities of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Trial of Labor after Cesarean-A Retrospective Study.

Carauleanu A, Solomon-Condriuc I, Vicoveanu P, Socolov D, Scripcariu I, Vasilache I Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(16).

PMID: 39202203 PMC: 11353003. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14161715.

References

Biraboneye S P, Ogutu O, van Roosmalen J, Wanjala S, Lubano K, Kinuthia J . Trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean delivery:are women making an informed decision at Kenyatta national hospital?. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017; 17(1):260. PMC: 5558758. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-017-1440-3. View

Higgins J, Thompson S . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11):1539-58. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1186. View

Souza J, Gulmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B . Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Med. 2010; 8:71. PMC: 2993644. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-71. View

Takeya A, Adachi E, Takahashi Y, Kondoh E, Mandai M, Nakayama T . Trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) in Japan: rates and complications. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020; 301(4):995-1001. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-020-05492-8. View

Stang A . Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010; 25(9):603-5. DOI: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z. View

Gilbert S, Grobman W, Landon M, Varner M, Wapner R, Sorokin Y . Lifetime cost-effectiveness of trial of labor after cesarean in the United States. Value Health. 2013; 16(6):953-64. PMC: 3983690. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.014. View

Barber E, Lundsberg L, Belanger K, Pettker C, Funai E, Illuzzi J . Indications contributing to the increasing cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118(1):29-38. PMC: 3751192. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821e5f65. View

Crowther C, Dodd J, Hiller J, Haslam R, Robinson J . Planned vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean: patient preference restricted cohort with nested randomised trial. PLoS Med. 2012; 9(3):e1001192. PMC: 3302845. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001192. View

Gregory K, Fridman M, Korst L . Trends and patterns of vaginal birth after cesarean availability in the United States. Semin Perinatol. 2010; 34(4):237-43. DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2010.03.002. View

10.

Tsai H, Wu C . Vaginal birth after cesarean section-The world trend and local experience in Taiwan. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 56(1):41-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2016.03.007. View

11.

Li Y, Bai Z, Long D, Wang H, Wu Y, Reilly K . Predicting the success of vaginal birth after caesarean delivery: a retrospective cohort study in China. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(5):e027807. PMC: 6538023. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027807. View

12.

Miller E, Grobman W . Obstetric outcomes associated with induction of labor after 2 prior cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213(1):89.e1-89.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.003. View

13.

Uno K, Mayama M, Yoshihara M, Takeda T, Tano S, Suzuki T . Reasons for previous Cesarean deliveries impact a woman's independent decision of delivery mode and the success of trial of labor after Cesarean. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20(1):170. PMC: 7092517. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-2833-2. View

14.

Spaans W, van der Vliet L, Roell-Schorer E, Bleker O, van Roosmalen J . Trial of labour after two or three previous caesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003; 110(1):16-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-2115(03)00082-4. View

15.

Fagerberg M, Marsal K, Kallen K . Predicting the chance of vaginal delivery after one cesarean section: validation and elaboration of a published prediction model. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 188:88-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.02.031. View

16.

Naji O, Abdallah Y, Bij De Vaate A, Smith A, Pexsters A, Stalder C . Standardized approach for imaging and measuring Cesarean section scars using ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 39(3):252-9. DOI: 10.1002/uog.10077. View

17.

Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R, Torloni M, Gulmezoglu A, Betran A . Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population-based ecological study with longitudinal data. BJOG. 2015; 123(5):745-53. PMC: 5014131. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13592. View

18.

Dunsmoor-Su R, Sammel M, Stevens E, Peipert J, Macones G . Impact of sociodemographic and hospital factors on attempts at vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 102(6):1358-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.obstetgynecol.2003.08.010. View

19.

Dodd J, Crowther C, Huertas E, Guise J, Horey D . Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; (4):CD004224. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004224.pub2. View

20.

Lehmann S, Baghestan E, Bordahl P, Irgens L, Rasmussen S . Perinatal outcome in births after a previous cesarean section at high trial of labor rates. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018; 98(1):117-126. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13458. View