Volume 31, Issue 146 (May & June 2023)                   J Adv Med Biomed Res 2023, 31(146): 250-254 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Soleimani Z, Laluie A, Jenab A, Soleimani A. Obstetric Outcomes of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Section: A Case-Control Study. J Adv Med Biomed Res 2023; 31 (146) :250-254
URL: http://journal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-6805-en.html
Obstetric Outcomes of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Section: A Case-Control Study
Zahra Soleimani *1 , Afsaneh Laluie2 , Arman Jenab3 , Azam Soleimani4
1- Dept. Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , z.soleimanii2018@gmail.com
2- Dept. Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Student Research Committee, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Cardiac Rehabilitation Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract:   (3454 Views)

Background and Objective: Given the importance of the benefits of natural childbirth and the complications of recurrent cesarean section, we have conducted the present study to determine the maternal and neonatal complications of natural childbirth after cesarean section.
Materials and Methods: In this case-control study, the obstetric complications of 84 women who had undergone a previous cesarean delivery referred to Baqiyatallah Hospital in 2018 for vaginal delivery after cesarean section (VBAC) delivery compared with 84 women with a previous vaginal delivery, who intended to give birth vaginally for the second delivery. Demographic, anthropometric, obstetric, and perinatal data of them were collected and registered in a researcher-developed form. Two groups were compared using the t-test and chi-square test.
Results: The mean age in VBAC and control group was 30.49±6.83 and 32.08±7.28 years, respectively (P=0.15). There were not any occurrence of urinary rupture, bladder rupture, stool control disorder, uterine rupture, nephrotic infection, and ICU hospitalization of the mothers in the two groups. Regarding puerperal infection (3.57% in the VBAC group and 4.76% in the control group, P=0.69) and hospitalization of neonates in ICU (9.52% in the VBAC group and 5.95% in the control group, p=0.39), there was no significant difference between the two groups.
Conclusion: It seems that the overall incidence of obstetric complications in women attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery is low and not higher than those with prior vaginal delivery. Therefore, for the achievement of benefits of natural childbirth for both the mother and the fetus, women with a prior cesarean should be offered VBAC.

Keywords: Cesarean section, Vaginal birth after cesarean, Pregnancy Complications
Full-Text [PDF 403 kb]   (1731 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (543 Views)  

✅ It seems that the overall incidence of obstetric complications in women attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery is low and not higher than those with prior vaginal delivery. Therefore, for the achievement of benefits of natural childbirth for both the mother and the fetus, women with a prior cesarean should be offered VBAC.


Type of Study: Original Research Article | Subject: Clinical Medicine
Received: 2022/06/26 | Accepted: 2023/01/20 | Published: 2023/06/26
References
1. Roberts CL, Nippita TA. International caesarean section rates: the rising tide. The Lancet Global Health. 2015; 3(5):e241-e2. [DOI:10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70111-7] [PMID]
2. Martin J, Hamilton B, Osterman M. Births in the United States, 2016 (NCHS Data Brief No. 287). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2017.
3. Lurie S, Shalev A, Sadan O, Golan A. The changing indications and rates of cesarean section in one academic center over a 16-year period (1997-2012). Taiwanese J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 55(4):499-502. [DOI:10.1016/j.tjog.2014.12.014] [PMID]
4. Nilsen C, Østbye T, Daltveit AK, Mmbaga BT, Sandøy IF. Trends in and socio-demographic factors associated with caesarean section at a Tanzanian referral hospital, 2000 to 2013. Int J Equit Health. 2014; 13(1):1-11. [DOI:10.1186/s12939-014-0087-1] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Chauhan S, Beydoun H, Hammad I, et al. Indications for caesarean sections at≥ 34 weeks among nulliparous women and differential composite maternal and neonatal morbidity. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 121(11):1395-402. [DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.12669] [PMID]
6. Katikireddi SV, Gorman DR, Leyland AH. A comparison of trends in caesarean section rates in former communist (transition) countries and other European countries. Europ J Pub Health. 2013;23(3):381-3. [DOI:10.1093/eurpub/cks165] [PMID] [PMCID]
7. Yavangi M, Sohrabi MR, Alishahi TA. Effect of Iranian ministry of health protocols on cesarean section rate: a quasi-experimental study. J Res Health Sci. 2013; 13(1):48-52.
8. Cheng YW, Eden KB, Marshall N, Pereira L, Caughey AB, Guise J-M. Delivery after prior cesarean: maternal morbidity and mortality. Clin Perinatol. 2011; 38(2):297-309. [DOI:10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.012] [PMID] [PMCID]
9. Bellows P, Shah U, Hawley L, et al. Evaluation of outcomes associated with trial of labor after cesarean delivery after a change in clinical practice guidelines in an academic hospital. J Maternal Fetal Neonat Med. 2017; 30(17):2092-6. [DOI:10.1080/14767058.2016.1237498] [PMID]
10. Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E, Guise JM, Horey D. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 10(12):CD004224. [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004224.pub3]
11. Ananth CV, Friedman AM, Keyes KM, Lavery JA, Hamilton A, Wright JD. Primary and repeat cesarean deliveries: a population-based study in the United States, 1979-2010. Epidemiol (Cambridge, Mass). 2017; 28(4):567. [DOI:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000658] [PMID] [PMCID]
12. Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A, Abdallah Y, Stalder C, Sayasneh A, et al. Predicting successful vaginal birth after Cesarean section using a model based on Cesarean scar features examined by transvaginal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 41(6):672-8. [DOI:10.1002/uog.12423] [PMID]
13. Haumonte JB, Raylet M, Christophe M, et al. French validation and adaptation of the Grobman nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. J Gynecol Obstet Human Reproduct. 2018; 47(3):127-31. [DOI:10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.12.002] [PMID]
14. Asgarian A, Rahmati N, Nasiri F, Mohammadbeigi A. The failure rate, related factors, and neonate complications of vaginal delivery after cesarean section. Iran J Nursing Midwif Res. 2020; 25(1):65. [DOI:10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_101_19] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. Charitou A, Charos D, Vamenou I, Vivilaki VG. Maternal and neonatal outcomes for women giving birth after previous cesarean. Europ J Midwif. 2019; 3. [DOI:10.18332/ejm/108297]
16. Rweyemamu MA. Predictors and outcomes of women attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery at Iringa regional referral hospital: The University of Dodoma; 2018.
17. Aya T, Emi A, Takahashi Y, Eiji K, Masaki M, Takeo N. 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] [PMID]
18. Familiari A, Neri C, Caruso A, et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean section: a multicentre study on prognostic factors and feasibility. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020; 301(2):509-15. [DOI:10.1007/s00404-020-05454-0] [PMID]
19. Mizrachi Y, Barber E, Kovo M, Bar J, Lurie S. Prediction of vaginal birth after one ceasarean delivery for non-progressive labor. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018; 297(1):85-91. [DOI:10.1007/s00404-017-4569-4] [PMID]
20. Lazarou A, Oestergaard M, Netzl J, Siedentopf JP, Henrich W. Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC): fear it or dare it? An evaluation of potential risk factors. J Perinat Med. 2021; 49(7):773-82. [DOI:10.1515/jpm-2020-0222] [PMID]
21. Li YX, Bai Z, Long DJ, et al. Predicting the success of vaginal birth after caesarean delivery: a retrospective cohort study in China. BMJ open. 2019; 9(5):e027807. [DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027807] [PMID] [PMCID]
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2025 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Advances in Medical and Biomedical Research

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb