Vaginal Birth After Cesarean
Top Cited Papers
- 1 June 2010
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Vol. 115 (6), 1267-1278
- https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e3181df925f
Abstract
To systematically review the evidence about maternal and neonatal outcomes relating to vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC).Relevant studies were identified from multiple searches of MEDLINE, DARE, and the Cochrane databases (1980 to September 2009) and from recent systematic reviews, reference lists, reviews, editorials, Web sites, and experts.Inclusion criteria limited studies to the English-language and human studies conducted in the United States and developed countries specifically evaluating birth after previous cesarean delivery. Studies focusing on high-risk maternal or neonatal conditions, including breech vaginal delivery, or fewer than 10 patients were excluded. Poor-quality studies were not included in analyses.We identified 3,134 citations and reviewed 963 articles for inclusion; 203 articles met the inclusion criteria and were quality rated. Overall rates of maternal harms were low for both trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. Although rare in both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor, maternal mortality was significantly increased for elective repeat cesarean delivery at 0.013% compared with 0.004% for trial of labor. The rates of maternal hysterectomy, hemorrhage, and transfusions did not differ significantly between trial of labor and elective repeat cesarean delivery. The rate of uterine rupture for all women with prior cesarean was 0.30%, and the risk was significantly increased for trial of labor (0.47% compared with 0.03% for elective repeat cesarean delivery). Perinatal mortality was also significantly increased for trial of labor (0.13% compared with 0.05% for elective repeat cesarean delivery).Overall the best evidence suggests that VBAC is a reasonable choice for the majority of women. Adverse outcomes were rare for both elective repeat cesarean delivery and trial of labor. Definitive studies are lacking to identify patients who are at greatest risk for adverse outcomes.Keywords
This publication has 51 references indexed in Scilit:
- The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variabilityJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2008
- Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working GroupBMC Health Services Research, 2004
- What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse dataStatistics in Medicine, 2004
- Evaluating non-randomised intervention studiesHealth Technology Assessment, 2003
- Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the treesBMJ, 2001
- A multilevel model framework for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomesStatistics in Medicine, 2000
- Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methodsStatistics in Medicine, 1999
- Best evidence synthesis: An intelligent alternative to meta-analysisJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986
- Cesarean section delivery rates: United States, 1981.American Journal of Public Health, 1983