Comparison of the Maternal and Fetal Complications of Vaginal Birth After C-Section (VBAC) and Repeat Cesarean Section in Isfahan Province

Allameh, Tajossadat; Allameh, Zahra; Javanmardi, Zahra; Moazam, Elham; Dehghan, Maryam

doi:10.30699/jogcr.8.2.131

Document Type : Original Research Article

Authors

¹ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

² Department of Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical sciences, Isfahan, Iran

³ School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical sciences, Isfahan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.30699/jogcr.8.2.131

Abstract

Background & Objective: Due to the uncertainties of maternal and neonatal complications after delivery and the lack of similar studies in this regard, this study aimed to compare the maternal and fetal complications of vaginal birth after C-Section (VBAC), natural delivery and repeat Cesarean section in Isfahan province.
Materials & Methods: In this one-year descriptive cross-sectional study, 49889 pregnant women who had the natural childbirth (29631 deliveries), elective repeat Cesarean section (20148 deliveries) and VBAC delivery (110 deliveries) were enrolled, then maternal and neonatal complications were compared in three groups.
Results: There was a significant difference between the three groups based on the maternal and neonatal outcome, Apgar scores in the first and fifth minutes after delivery and the need for resuscitation at birth (P <0.05). Neonatal outcome was better in natural delivery and then VBAC compared to repeat C-section, respectively. Maternal outcome was better in VBAC and then repeat C-section than the natural childbirth. Apgar scores in the first and fifth minute were better in VBAC, and later natural delivery than repeat C-section. Resuscitation at birth demonstrated better results for natural delivery and then VBAC than repeat C-section.
Conclusion: Utilizing VBAC and natural delivery have better maternal and fetal outcomes compared to C-section, along with being more satisfactory and safer.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Maternal Fetal Medicine

References

1. Guise JM, Denman MA, Emeis C, Marshall N, Walker M, Fu R, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(6):1267-78. [DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181df925f] [PMID]

2. Organization WH. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2(8452):436-7. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92750-3]

3. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller A-B, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PloS one. 2016;11(2):e0148343. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0148343] [PMID] [PMCID]

4. Azami-Aghdash S, Ghojazadeh M, Dehdilani N, Mohammadi M, Asl Amin Abad R. Prevalence and Causes of Cesarean Section in Iran: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Iran J Public Health. 2014;43(5):545-55.

5. Nigam A, Anand R, Jain N. Study of obstetric and fetal outcome of post caesarean pregnancy. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2015;4(1):215-9. [DOI:10.5455/2320-1770.ijrcog20150238]

6. American College of O, Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin# 54: vaginal birth after previous cesarean. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:203-12. [DOI:10.1097/00006250-200407000-00060]

7. MacDorman M, Declercq E, Menacker F. Recent trends and patterns in cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States. Clin Perinatol. 2011;38(2):179-92. [DOI:10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.007] [PMID]

8. Homer CSE, Johnston R, Foureur MJ. Birth after caesarean section: changes over a nine-year period in one Australian state. Midwifery. 2011;27(2):165-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.midw.2009.04.009] [PMID]

9. Black C, Kaye JA, Jick H. Cesarean delivery in the United Kingdom: time trends in the general practice research database. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(1):151-5. [DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000160429.22836.c0] [PMID]

10. Lydon-Rochelle MT, Cahill AG, Spong CY. Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery: Short-Term Maternal Outcomes. Semin Perinatol. 2010;34(4):249-57. [DOI:10.1053/j.semperi.2010.03.004] [PMID]

11. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS. Williams obstetrics, 24e: Mcgraw-hill New York, NY, USA; 2014.

12. Devkare V, Agarwal NV, Gayakwad N, Kamant S. Maternal and fetal outcome of VBAC after first previous LSCS in a tertiary care teaching hospital of Western India. Int J Curr Res Med Sci. 2017;3(7):8-17. [DOI:10.22192/ijcrms.2017.03.07.002]

13. Nazari S, Tabatabayee CM, Bagheri M, Sharifnia H. Prevalence and some maternal and neonatal outcomes of vaginal delivery after cesarean and repeat cesarean in a hospital repeated Bentolhoda Bojnoord. J North Khorasan Univ Med Sci. 2016;8(1):167-77. [DOI:10.29252/jnkums.8.1.167]

14. Zweifler J, Garza A, Hughes S, Stanich MA, Hierholzer A, Lau M. Vaginal birth after cesarean in California: before and after a change in guidelines. Ann Fam Med. 2006;4(3):228-34. [DOI:10.1370/afm.544] [PMID] [PMCID]

15. Mirteymouri M, Ayati S, Pourali L, Mahmoodinia M, Mahmoodinia M. Evaluation of maternal-neonatal outcomes in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery referred to maternity of academic hospitals. J Fam Reprod Health. 2016;10(4):206.

16. Durnwald CP, Mercer BM. Vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery: predicting success, risks of failure. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004;15(6):388-93. [DOI:10.1080/14767050410001724290] [PMID]

17. Young CB, Liu S, Muraca GM, Sabr Y, Pressey T, Liston RM, et al. Mode of delivery after a previous cesarean birth, and associated maternal and neonatal morbidity. Cmaj. 2018;190(18):E556-E64. [DOI:10.1503/cmaj.170371] [PMID] [PMCID]

18. Fobelets M, Beeckman K, Faron G, Daly D, Begley C, Putman K. Vaginal birth after caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery after one previous caesarean section: a cost-effectiveness analysis in four European countries. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):1-10. [DOI:10.1186/s12884-018-1720-6] [PMID] [PMCID]

19. Trojano G, Damiani GR, Olivieri C, Villa M, Malvasi A, Alfonso R, et al. VBAC: antenatal predictors of success. Acta Bio Medica: Atenei Parmensis. 2019;90(3):300.

20. Li Y-X, Bai Z, Long D-J, Wang H-B, Wu Y-F, Reilly KH, 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]

21. Abdelazim IA, Elbiaa AA, Al-Kadi M, Yehia AH, Sami Nusair BM, Faza MA. Maternal and obstetrical factors associated with a successful trial of vaginal birth after cesarean section. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2014;15(4):245-9. [DOI:10.5152/jtgga.2014.14104] [PMID] [PMCID]

22. Thapsamuthdechakorn A, Sekararithi R, Tongsong T. Factors Associated with Successful Trial of Labor after Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Cohort Study. J Pregnancy. 2018;2018:6140982. [DOI:10.1155/2018/6140982] [PMID] [PMCID]

23. Habak PJ, Kole M. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. StatPearls [Internet]: StatPearls Publishing; 2020.

24. Hidalgo-Lopezosa P, Hidalgo-Maestre M. Risk of uterine rupture in vaginal birth after cesarean: Systematic review. Enferm Clin. 2017;27(1):28-39. [DOI:10.1016/j.enfcli.2016.08.006] [PMID]

Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Cancer Research

Comparison of the Maternal and Fetal Complications of Vaginal Birth After C-Section (VBAC) and Repeat Cesarean Section in Isfahan Province

References

References

Volume 8, Issue 2 - Serial Number 31
March and April 2023
Pages 131-136

Comparison of the Maternal and Fetal Complications of Vaginal Birth After C-Section (VBAC) and Repeat Cesarean Section in Isfahan Province

References

References

Volume 8, Issue 2 - Serial Number 31March and April 2023Pages 131-136

Volume 8, Issue 2 - Serial Number 31
March and April 2023
Pages 131-136