4.6 Article

Normal First Stage of Labor in Women Undergoing Trial of Labor After Cesarean Delivery

Journal

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 119, Issue 4, Pages 732-736

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31824c096c

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation [66329]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To compare first-stage labor patterns in women undergoing trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) and those without a previous cesarean to explore whether a uterine scar alters this stage of labor. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of consecutive term vertex singletons who reached the second stage of labor. Cervical examinations and obstetric outcomes were collected from medical records. Labor curves of those laboring spontaneously, stratified by TOLAC status, were constructed using a repeated-measures analysis. Interval-censored regression was used to estimate duration of labor, centimeter by centimeter, stratified by TOLAC status and adjusted for race, obesity, macrosomia, and previous vaginal delivery. RESULTS: Of 5,388 consecutive term births, 2,021 labored spontaneously and were included. The 1,881 laboring women with no previous cesarean delivery were compared with 140 women undergoing TOLAC. There was no significant difference in rates of cervical dilation between the groups. The median time for dilation from 4 to 10 cm was 3.0 hours for TOLAC and 2.8 hours for non-TOLAC (P=.52). A post hoc sample size calculation (alpha=0.05) shows 90% power to detect a median difference of 0.4 hours with the fixed sample size available. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in first-stage labor curves or cervical dilation rate between women undergoing TOLAC and those without a previous cesarean. Diagnoses of labor disorders should be made with similar standards between those with and without a uterine scar. (Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:732-6) DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31824c096c

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available