4.3 Article

Labor patterns in Chinese women in Fuzhou attempting vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery: a retrospective cohort study

Journal

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH
Volume 47, Issue 12, Pages 6091-6099

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0300060519884145

Keywords

Vaginal birth after cesarean section; vaginal delivery; labor duration; labor curve; cervical dilation; trial of labor

Funding

  1. Fujian Science and Technology Project [2018Y0005]
  2. Fujian Medical Innovation Subject [2017-CX-11]
  3. Key Clinical Specialty Discipline Construction of Fujian, P.R.C. [593]
  4. Fujian Provincial Health and Family Planning Commission Youth Research Project [2017-2-11]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To investigate the characteristics of labor in Chinese women who successfully have vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC). Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a hospital with 1000 beds between January 1 2015 and December 31 2017. A total 657 parturients with VBAC were selected. Women were divided into two groups according to previous cesarean section with or without trial of labor. Labor curves were analyzed and interval-censored regression was used to estimate the duration of labor. Results The 95th percentile for the first stage of labor in VBAC was 13.03 hours, and labor accelerated after 4 cm of cervical dilation in both groups. The dilation rate in the trial of labor group was superior to that in the non-trial of labor group at 6-10 cm of dilation. After 6 cm, labor accelerated much faster in the trial of labor group than in the non-trial of labor group. Conclusions Management of labor in parturients with VBAC whose cervical dilation is >6 cm should be treated differently according to previous cesarean section with or without trial of labor. If there is trial of labor in a previous delivery, the duration of labor should be shortened.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available