Bl. Flamm et al., ELECTIVE REPEAT CESAREAN DELIVERY VERSUS TRIAL OF LABOR - A PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER STUDY, Obstetrics and gynecology, 83(6), 1994, pp. 927-932
Objective: To report a prospective multicenter comparison of outcomes
of patients who attempted trial of labor and those who underwent elect
ive repeat cesarean. Methods: During the study interval, all pregnant
women with previous cesarean delivery cared for at Kaiser Permanente H
ospitals in Southern California were studied regardless of whether tri
al of labor or elective repeat cesarean was planned. Results: Of 7229
study patients, 5022 (70%) had a trial of labor and 2207 had elective
repeat cesarean operations. Seventy-five percent (3746) of those optin
g for trial of labor went on to deliver vaginally. The rate of uterine
rupture was less than 1% and there were no maternal deaths related to
uterine rupture. The hospital length of stay, incidence of postpartum
transfusion, and incidence of postpartum fever were all significantly
higher in the elective repeat cesarean group than in the trial of lab
or group. Conclusions: Labor after previous cesarean delivery has a 75
% success rate, with a risk of uterine rupture of less than 1%. Neithe
r repeat cesarean delivery nor trial of labor is risk-free. With caref
ul supervision, trial of labor eliminates the need for a large proport
ion of repeat cesarean operations.