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

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.

Publication History

Received: 23 May 2022

Accepted after revision: 02 October 2022

Article published online:
01 December 2022

• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 5 Ashford JB, LeCroy CW, Lortie KL. Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Multidimensional Perspective. 4^th ed.. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning; 2010
• 6 Clark EA, Silver RM. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205: S2-S10
• 7 Jackson N, Paterson-Brown S. Physical sequelae of caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 15: 49-61
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 12 R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. 2022
• 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
• 14 Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50: 1088-1101
• 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
• 16 Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539-1558
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 22 Emembolu JO. Vaginal delivery after two or more previous caesarean sections: Is trial of labour contraindicated?. J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 18: 20-24
• 23 Miller DA, Diaz FG, Paul RH. Vaginal birth after cesarean: A 10-year experience. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 255-258
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 28 Martin JN, Harris BA, Huddleston JF. et al. Vaginal delivery following previous cesarean birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 146: 255-263
• 29 Riva HL, Teich JC. Vaginal delivery after cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1961; 81: 501-510
• 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
• 31 Asakura H, Myers SA. More than one previous cesarean delivery: A 5-year experience with 435 patients. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85: 924-929
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 35 Porreco RP, Meier PR. Trial of labor in patients with multiple previous cesarean sections. J Reprod Med 1983; 28: 770-772
• 36 Saldana LR, Schulman H, Reuss L. Management of pregnancy after cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 135: 555-561
• 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
• 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
• 39 Sharma S, Thorpe-Beeston JG. Trial of vaginal delivery following three previous caesarean sections. BJOG 2002; 109: 350-351
• 40 Lawson GW. Vaginal delivery after 3 previous caesarean sections. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 27: 115-116
• 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
• 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
• 43 ACOG. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 450-463
• 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
• 45 Guise JM, Berlin M, McDonagh M. et al. Safety of vaginal birth after cesarean: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 420-429
• 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
• 47 Roberts LJ. Elective section after two sections – where’s the evidence?. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 1199-1202
• 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
• 49 Cragin E. Conservatism in obstetrics. NY Med J 1916; 54 I
• 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
• 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
• 52 Granovsky-Grisaru S, Diamant YZ. Vaginal delivery following two or more caesarean sections. Harefuah 1993; 124: 221-222
• 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