Induction of labour with prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel in women with one previous caesarean section

Induction of labour in patients with prior caesarean births or uterine surgery

The current evidence favours trial of labour after one caesarean in the absence of any other contraindications, recognizing that risks with both trial of labour after caesarean (TOLAC) and elective repeat caesarean section (ERCS) birth are relatively uncommon. When the need for induction of labour (IOL) following a previous caesarean arises, shared decision-making should be based on the current available evidence. This approach, however, needs to be tailored, taking into account the individual's history, initial examination and response to the ongoing process of induction to optimize the maternal and foetal outcomes. This paper aims to review the evidence and provide guidance on decision making surrounding labour induction in a pregnancy following a prior caesarean or uterine surgery.

Clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rates: Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

To systematically review the literature on clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rates.

METHODS

We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Wiley Cochrane Library, CINAHL via EBSCOhost; and Ovid PsycINFO. Additional studies were identified by searching for clinical trial records, conference proceedings and dissertations. Limits were applied for language (English and French) and year of publication (1985 to present). Two reviewers independently screened comparative studies (randomized or non-randomized controlled trials, and observational designs) according to a priori eligibility criteria: women with prior cesarean sections; any clinical intervention or exposure intended to increase the VBAC rate; any comparator; and, outcomes reporting VBAC, uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence rates. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer verified for accuracy. Meta-analysis was conducted using Mantel-Haenszel (random effects model) relative risks (VBAC rate) and risk differences (uterine rupture and dehiscence). Two reviewers independently conducted methodological quality assessments using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies (six trials and 23 cohorts) examined different clinical interventions affecting rates of vaginal deliveries among women with a prior cesarean delivery (CD). Methodological quality was good overall for the trials; however, concerns among the cohort studies regarding selection bias, comparability of groups and outcome measurement resulted in higher risk of bias. Interventions for labor induction, with or without cervical ripening, included pharmacologic (oxytocin, prostaglandins, misoprostol, mifepristone, epidural analgesia), non-pharmacologic (membrane sweep, amniotomy, balloon devices), and combined (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic). Single studies with small sample sizes and event rates contributed to most comparisons, with no clear differences between groups on rates of VBAC, uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review evaluated clinical interventions directed at increasing the rate of vaginal delivery among women with a prior CD and found low to very low certainty in the body of evidence for cervical ripening and/or labor induction techniques. There is insufficient high-quality evidence to inform optimal clinical interventions among women attempting a trial of labor after a prior CD.

Induction of labor in grand multiparous women with previous cesarean delivery: how safe is this?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcome of induced and spontaneous labor in grand multiparous women with one previous lower segment cesarean section (CS), so that the safety of labor induction could be assessed.

METHODS

In 102 women (study group), labor was induced and the outcome was compared with 280 women (control group) who went into spontaneous labor. All 382 women were grand multiparous and had one previous CS.

RESULTS

There were no significant difference in oxytocin augmentation, CS, scar dehiscence, fetal birth weight or apgar scores between groups. There was one neonatal death, two still births, one early neonatal death and one congenital malformation in the study group and this was not significant. There was no significant difference in vaginal birth in the study (80.9%) and the control group (83.8%).

CONCLUSION

In this moderate-sized study, induction of labor may be a safe option in grand multiparous women, if there is no absolute induction for repeating CS.