Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth

Dodd, Jodie M; Crowther, Caroline A; Grivell, Rosalie M; Deussen, Andrea R

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004906.pub5

Cited by 20 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two previous systematic reviews evaluated IOL in women with previous CS using different agents with successful vaginal delivery in 50-70% of them [16,17]. In our study we reported mostly similar results (65%).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Induction of labor in patients with previous cesarean section using two different forms of vaginal dinoprostone

Hassan¹

2016

Evidence Based Womenʼs Health Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundInduction of labor (IOL) in women who have undergone a prior cesarean section (CS) is an alternative to mitigate subsequent CS. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two different forms of vaginal dinoprostone (1.5 and 3 mg vaginal tablets) for IOL in patients who have undergone one previous CS. Materials and methodsThis pilot study was conducted in Minia University Hospital, Egypt. Eighty pregnant women who had undergone one previous CS were randomized to receive vaginal dinoprostone 1.5 or 3 mg for IOL. The outcome measures were compared. Results Use of dinoprostone 3 mg was associated with higher number of vaginal delivery, less oxytocin use, and shorter induction-delivery interval compared with 1.5 mg dose. The differences were not statistically significant. Out of 80 patients planned for IOL, 52 (65%) delivered vaginally and 28 (35%) underwent a CS. Maternal morbidity did not differ significantly between the two groups. Uterine dehiscence was diagnosed in only one patient (1.2%). Three cases had atonic postpartum hemorrhage. ConclusionThe two forms of dinoprostone vaginal tablets had comparable efficacy and safety profile when used for IOL in women who had undergone a previous CS. A larger, multicenter, randomized, controlled study is recommended.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Induction of labor in patients with previous cesarean section using two different forms of vaginal dinoprostone

Hassan¹

2016

Evidence Based Womenʼs Health Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Caesarean sections are clearly necessary in some high‐risk situations, such as placenta praevia or fetal distress. For other situations, there is ongoing debate about the systematic use of caesarean section, for example for breech presentation, multiple births or women with previous caesarean section …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk‐stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro‐Peristat study

Macfarlane

Blondel

Mohangoo

et al. 2015

BJOG

215

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To use data from routine sources to compare rates of obstetric intervention in Europe both overall and for subgroups at higher risk of intervention.Design Retrospective analysis of aggregated routine data.Setting Thirty-one European countries or regions contributing data on mode of delivery to the Euro-Peristat project.Population Births in participating countries in 2010.Methods Countries provided aggregated data about overall rates of obstetric intervention and about caesarean section rates for specified subgroups.Main outcome measures Mode of delivery.Results Rates of caesarean section ranged from 14.8% to 52.2% of all births and rates of instrumental vaginal delivery ranged from 0.5% to 16.4%. Overall, there was no association between rates of instrumental vaginal delivery and rates of caesarean section, but similarities were observed between some countries that are geographically close and may share common traditions of practice. Associations were observed between caesarean section rates for women with breech and vertex births and with singleton and multiple births but patterns of association for women who had and had not had previous caesarean sections were more complex.Conclusions The persisting wide variations in caesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery rates point to a lack of consensus about practice and raise questions for further investigation. Further research is needed to explore the impact of differences in clinical guidelines, healthcare systems and their financing and parents' and professionals' attitudes to care at delivery.

show abstract

“…The choice between elective cesarean section, awaiting spontaneous onset of labor and induction of labor is difficult, as risks and benefits have to be considered carefully. Current sources of information are limited to non-randomized trials [2][3][4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double-balloon catheter and sequential vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 alone for induction of labor after previous cesarean section

Kehl

Weiß

Wamsler

et al. 2015

Arch Gynecol Obstet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth

Abstract: Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth.

Cited by 20 publications

References 23 publications

Induction of labor in patients with previous cesarean section using two different forms of vaginal dinoprostone

Induction of labor in patients with previous cesarean section using two different forms of vaginal dinoprostone

Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk‐stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro‐Peristat study

Double-balloon catheter and sequential vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 alone for induction of labor after previous cesarean section

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About