Trial of Labor or Repeated Cesarean SectionThe Woman's Choice
Richard G. Roberts, MD, JD;
Hanan S. Bell, PhD;
Eric M. Wall, MD, MPH;
Julie Graves Moy, MD, MPH;
George H. Hess, MD;
Hugh P. H. Bower, MD
Arch Fam Med. 1997;6(2):120-125.
Abstract
| |
Objective
To develop recommendations for the preferred delivery method for a pregnant woman who underwent a previous low transverse cesarean section and who has no contraindications to labor.
Data Sources
MEDLINE searches and the references from retrieved articles yielded 759 citations. Search terms included trial of labor (TOL), trial of scar, vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC), and uterine rupture.
Study Selection
Articles with primary outcomes data contrasting TOL and elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) were analyzed. Studies from developing countries or before 1980 were excluded.
Data Extraction
Data from 292 articles were extracted independently by at least 2 team members using a structured form.
Data Synthesis
Outcome data were combined using commercially available software and are presented as absolute differences per 10 000, with 95% Bayesian confidence intervals. Maternal outcomes showed that TOL increased the risk for uterine rupture (23.9 [0.24%]); ERCS increased the risk for infection (522 [5.22%]) and bleeding (58.6 [0.59%]). Infant outcomes differed only for 5-minute Apgar scores of less than 7, which were more likely for infants whose mothers underwent TOL (85 [0.85%]). Other outcomes (eg, disability), patient preferences, and cost data did not lend themselves to metaanalysis and were examined separately. While two thirds of women desired TOL, one third preferred ERCS. Costs were 1.7 to 2.4 times greater for ERCS.
Conclusions
A woman should be given information on both delivery methods and encouraged to undergo TOL, but her preference for ERCS should be respected.
Author Affiliations
The affiliations of the authors appear in the acknowledgment section at the end of the article.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
A Native American Community with a 7% Cesarean Delivery Rate: Does Case Mix, Ethnicity, or Labor Management Explain the Low Rate?
Leeman and Leeman
Ann Fam Med 2003;1:36-43.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Trade-offs in Clinical Policy Making
Dawson and Acheson
Arch Fam Med 1997;6:127-128.
ABSTRACT
|
