4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Maternal and perinatal complications with uterine rupture in 142,075 patients who attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: A review of the literature

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 189, Issue 2, Pages 408-417

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00675-6

Keywords

vaginal birth after cesarean delivery; trial of labor; uterine rupture; acidosis; perinatal mortality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of uterine rupture and its complications as the result of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: PubMed was searched from 1989 to 2001, with the terms VBAC, uterine rupture, trial of labor, uterine rupture, cesarean delivery, uterine rupture, and scarred uterus, rupture. For inclusion, reports had to contain data from at least 100 patients with trials of labor that included a description of adverse outcomes. Duplicate reporting from a single institution was excluded. Odds ratios and 95% Cls were calculated. RESULTS: Seventy-two of the 361 articles (20% that were identified met the inclusion criteria. A 6.2 per 1000 trial of labor rate of uterine rupture (total = 880 uterine ruptures in 142,075 trials of labor) was determined. For every 1000 trials of labor the uterine rupture-related complication rate was 1.8 for packed red blood cell transfusion, 1.5 for pathologic fetal acidosis (cord pH < 7.00), 0.9 for hysterectomy, 0.8 for genitourinary injury, 0.4 for perinatal death, and 0.02 for maternal death. The perinatal mortality rate was significantly lower among studies from the United States versus other countries (0.3 vs 0.6; odds ratio, 0.50; 95% Cl, 0.26-0.94) and in series that exceeded 1000 patients (0.2 vs 1.7; odds ratio, 7.34; 95% Cl, 3.94-13.69). CONCLUSION: Although relatively uncommon, uterine rupture is associated with several adverse outcomes, depending on the time of the publication and the site and size of the population that was studied.

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