Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Trial of labor after cesarean: attempted operative vaginal delivery versus emergency repeat cesarean, a prospective national cohort study

Journal of Perinatology volume 35, pages 258–262 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

A Corrigendum to this article was published on 27 March 2015

Abstract

Objective:

To compare neonatal and maternal outcomes of attempted operative vaginal delivery with emergency repeat cesarean in trial of labor after cesarean.

Study design:

Prospective 8-year cohort analysis using the Netherlands Perinatal Registry, including women with one prior cesarean giving birth through operative vaginal delivery or emergency repeat cesarean (n=12860). A multivariate analysis was performed. Odds ratios (OR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were calculated.

Results:

Attempted operative vaginal delivery increases the risk on neonatal birth trauma (aOR 15.0 (5.94 to 38.0)) and postpartum hemorrhage (aOR 2.59 (2.17 to 3.09)), and lowers the risk of wet lung syndrome (aOR 0.53 (0.35 to 0.80)) and neonatal convulsions (aOR 0.47 (0.24 to 0.91)).

Conclusion:

We found a highly increased risk of neonatal birth trauma and a moderately increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage but slightly lower risks of wet lung syndrome and neonatal convulsions after attempted operative vaginal delivery compared with emergency repeat cesarean.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tromp M, Ravelli ACJ, Méray N, Reitsma JB, Bonsel GJ . An efficient validation method of probabilistic record linkage including readmissions and twins. Meth Inform Med 2008; 47: 356–363.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Méray N, Reitsma JB, Ravelli ACJ, Bonsel GJ . Probabilistic record linkage is a valid and transparent tool to combine databases without a patient identification number. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 883–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Stichting Perinatale Registratie Nederland. Perinatale Zorg in Nederland 2007. Stichting Perinatale Registratie Nederland: Utrecht, 2009.

  4. Schaaf JM, Hof MH, Mol BW, Abu-Hanna A, Ravelli AC . Recurrence risk of preterm birth in subsequent singleton pregnancy after preterm twin delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207: 279.e1–279. e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kessous R, Tirosh D, Weintraub AY, Benshalom-Tirosh N, Sergienko R, Sheiner E . Second stage disorders in patients following a previous cesarean section: vacuum versus repeat cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012; 287: 1075–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Patel R, Verity L, Swingler R . Cohort study of operative delivery in the second stage of labour and standard of obstetric care. Brit J Obstet Gynaec 2003; 110: 610–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Contag SA, Clifton RG, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Varner MW, Rouse DJ et al. Neontal outcomes and operative vaginal delivery versus cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol 2010; 27: 493–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Walsh CA, Robson M, McAuliffe FM . Mode of delivery at term and adverse neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121: 122–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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: 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Selo-Ojeme D, Sathiyathasan S, Fayyaz M . Caesarean delivery at full cervical dilatation versus caesarean delivery in the first stage of labour: comparison of maternal and perinatal morbidity. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008; 278: 245–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alexander JM, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ, Landon MB, Gilbert S, Spong CY et al. Comparison of maternal and infant outcome from primary cesarean delivery during the second compared with first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 917–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all Dutch perinatal health-care professionals for registration of perinatal information. We would like to thank the Foundation of the Netherlands Perinatal Registry (PRN, www.perinatreg.nl) for permission to use the registry data (registration number 12.20).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    A L Rietveld, N Kok, B M Kazemier, C J M de Groot & P W Teunissen

Authors
  1. A L Rietveld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N Kok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B M Kazemier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C J M de Groot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P W Teunissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A L Rietveld.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rietveld, A., Kok, N., Kazemier, B. et al. Trial of labor after cesarean: attempted operative vaginal delivery versus emergency repeat cesarean, a prospective national cohort study. J Perinatol 35, 258–262 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2014.216

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2014.216

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links