Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Perineal Laceration | Research article

Influence of the second stage of labor on maternal and neonatal outcomes in vaginal births after caesarean section: a multicenter study in Germany

Authors: G. Gitas, L. Proppe, A. K. Ertan, S. Baum, A. Rody, M. Kocaer, K. Dinas, L. Allahqoli, A. S. Laganà, A. Sotiriadis, S. Sommer, I. Alkatout

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) introduced a new standard of care in 2014, extending the duration of the second stage of labor in order to reduce caesarean delivery (CD) rates and its severe complications. The aim of the present study is to evaluate success rates of trial of labor after caesarean section (TOLAC), as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes after the establishment of the recent guidelines.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed at two large departments in Germany from January 2008 to January 2018. Patients undergoing TOLAC were divided into two groups. Group I (958 patients) was constituted before the establishment of the current guidelines, and Group II (588 patients) after the establishment of the guidelines. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare neonatal outcomes after successful TOLAC and operative vaginal delivery with those after failed TOLAC and secondary CD.

Results

The success rate of vaginal births after cesarean section (VBAC) fell from 66.4% in Group I to 55.8% in Group II (p < 0.001). The median duration of the second stage of labor was statistically significantly longer in Group II than in Group I (79.3 ± 61.9 vs. 69.3 ± 58.2 min) for patients without previous vaginal birth. The incidence of operative vaginal delivery decreased from Group I to Group II (9.6% vs. 6.8%). The incidence of third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations, blood loss and emergency CD were similar in the two groups. Concerning the neonatal outcome, our groups did not differ significantly in regard of rates of umbilical artery cord pH < 7.1 (p = 0.108), the 5-min Apgar scores below 7 (p = 0.224) and intubation (p = 0.547). However, the transfer rates to the neonatal care unit were significantly higher in Group II than in Group I (p < 0.001). Neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly in the subgroup analysis.

Conclusion

Extending the second stage of labor does not necessarily result in more vaginal births after TOLAC. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. Further studies will be needed to evaluate the role of operative vaginal delivery and the duration of the second stage of labor in TOLAC.

Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK. Births in the United States, 2017. NCHS Data Brief. 2018;(318):1-8.

Cheng YW, Eden KB, Marshall N, Pereira L, Caughey AB, Guise JM. Delivery after prior cesarean: maternal morbidity and mortality. Clin Perinatol. 2011;38(2):297–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kiwan R, Al Qahtani N. Outcome of vaginal birth after cesarean section: a retrospective comparative analysis of spontaneous versus induced labor in women with one previous cesarean section. Ann Afr Med. 2018;17(3):145–50. https://doi.org/10.4103/aam.aam_54_17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Haumonte JB, Raylet M, Christophe M, Mauviel F, Bertrand A, Desbriere R, et al. French validation and adaptation of the Grobman nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018;47(3):127–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.12.002.CrossRefPubMed

Knight HE, Gurol-Urganci I, van der Meulen JH, Mahmood TA, Richmond DH, Dougall A, et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean section: a cohort study investigating factors associated with its uptake and success. BJOG. 2014;121(2):183–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12508.CrossRefPubMed

MacDorman M, Declercq E, Menacker F. Recent trends and patterns in cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) deliveries in the United States. Clin Perinatol. 2011;38(2):179–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.007.CrossRefPubMed

Spong CY. To VBAC or not to VBAC. PLoS Med. 2012;9(3):e1001191. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001191.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ye J, Betran AP, Guerrero Vela M, Souza JP, Zhang J. Searching for the optimal rate of medically necessary cesarean delivery. Birth. 2014;41(3):237–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12104.CrossRefPubMed

Okada H, Kuhn C, Feillet H, Bach JF. The ‘hygiene hypothesis’ for autoimmune and allergic diseases: an update. Clin Exp Immunol. 2010;160(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2249.2010.04139.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E, Guise J, Horey D. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;(12):CD004224. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004224.pub3.

11.

Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Leindecker S, Varner MW, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(25):2581–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa040405.CrossRefPubMed

12.

McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA Jr, Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(10):689–95. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199609053351001.CrossRefPubMed

13.

American College of O, Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal M, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, et al. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):179–93.CrossRef

14.

Caughey AB. Is there an upper time limit for the management of the second stage of labor? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(4):337–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.08.001.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1181–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182704880.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Rouse DJ, Weiner SJ, Bloom SL, Varner MW, Spong CY, Ramin SM, et al. Second-stage labor duration in nulliparous women: relationship to maternal and perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(4):357 e1–7.CrossRef

17.

Friedman EA. Primigravid labor; a graphicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1955;6(6):567–89. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-195512000-00001.CrossRefPubMed

18.

American College of O, Gynecology Committee on Practice B-O. ACOG practice bulletin number 49, December 2003: dystocia and augmentation of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(6):1445–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obstetgynecol.2003.10.011.CrossRef

19.

Zhang J, Troendle J, Grantz KL, Reddy UM. Statistical aspects of modeling the labor curve. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):750 e1–4.CrossRef

20.

Cohen WR, Friedman EA. Misguided guidelines for managing labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):753 e1–3.CrossRef

21.

Fischer T, Mortl M, Reif P, Kiss H, Lang U, Austrian Society for G, et al. Statement by the OEGGG with review of the literature on the mode of delivery of premature infants at the limit of viability. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2018;78(12):1212–6. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0669-1480.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory KD, et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(6):1281–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181fdef6e.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Gravenhorst JB, Schreuder AM, Veen S, Brand R, Verloove-Vanhorick SP, Verweij RA, et al. Breech delivery in very preterm and very low birthweight infants in The Netherlands. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;100(5):411–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb15263.x.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Wilson-Leedy JG, DiSilvestro AJ, Repke JT, Pauli JM. Reduction in the cesarean delivery rate after obstetric care consensus guideline implementation. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(1):145–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001488.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Zipori Y, Grunwald O, Ginsberg Y, Beloosesky R, Weiner Z. The impact of extending the second stage of labor to prevent primary cesarean delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(2):191 e1–7.CrossRef

26.

Rosenbloom JI, Stout MJ, Tuuli MG, Woolfolk CL, Lopez JD, Macones GA, et al. New labor management guidelines and changes in cesarean delivery patterns. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(6):689 e1–8.CrossRef

27.

Grylka-Baeschlin S, Clarke M, Begley C, Daly D, Healy P, Nicoletti J, et al. Labour characteristics of women achieving successful vaginal birth after caesarean section in three European countries. Midwifery. 2019;74:36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2019.03.013.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Krizman E, Grzebielski P, Antony KM, Sampene E, Shanahan M, Iruretagoyena JI, et al. Operative vaginal delivery is a safe option in women undergoing a trial of labor after cesarean. AJP Rep. 2019;9(2):e190–e4. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1692482.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Norhayati MN, Nik Hazlina NH, Aniza AA, Sulaiman Z. Factors associated with severe maternal morbidity in Kelantan, Malaysia: a comparative cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):185. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-0980-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Miller N, Pelleg M, Hag-Yahia N, Daykan Y, Pasternak Y, Biron-Shental T. Labor progression of women attempting vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery with or without epidural analgesia. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;299(1):129–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4956-5.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Zheng L, Zhang Q, Liao Q, Chen R, Xu R, Han Q, et al. Labor patterns in Chinese women in Fuzhou attempting vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery: a retrospective cohort study. J Int Med Res. 2019;47(12):6091–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060519884145.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Wilson AN, Homer CSE. Third- and fourth-degree tears: a review of the current evidence for prevention and management. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;60(2):175–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13127.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Rathfisch G, Dikencik BK, Kizilkaya Beji N, Comert N, Tekirdag AI, Kadioglu A. Effects of perineal trauma on postpartum sexual function. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66(12):2640–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05428.x.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Fenner DE, Genberg B, Brahma P, Marek L, DeLancey JO. Fecal and urinary incontinence after vaginal delivery with anal sphincter disruption in an obstetrics unit in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(6):1543–9; discussion 9-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2003.09.030.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Ehrenstein V, Pedersen L, Grijota M, Nielsen GL, Rothman KJ, Sorensen HT. Association of Apgar score at five minutes with long-term neurologic disability and cognitive function in a prevalence study of Danish conscripts. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2009;9(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-9-14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

de Jongh BE, Locke R, Paul DA, Hoffman M. The differential effects of maternal age, race/ethnicity and insurance on neonatal intensive care unit admission rates. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012;12(1):97. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-12-97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Gimovsky AC, Berghella V. Randomized controlled trial of prolonged second stage: extending the time limit vs usual guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(3):361 e1–6.CrossRef

38.

Thuillier C, Roy S, Peyronnet V, Quibel T, Nlandu A, Rozenberg P. Impact of recommended changes in labor management for prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(3):341 e1–9.CrossRef

39.

Laughon SK, Berghella V, Reddy UM, Sundaram R, Lu Z, Hoffman MK. Neonatal and maternal outcomes with prolonged second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(1):57–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000278.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Influence of the second stage of labor on maternal and neonatal outcomes in vaginal births after caesarean section: a multicenter study in Germany
Authors: G. Gitas
L. Proppe
A. K. Ertan
S. Baum
A. Rody
M. Kocaer
K. Dinas
L. Allahqoli
A. S. Laganà
A. Sotiriadis
S. Sommer
I. Alkatout
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Perineal Laceration
Sectio Ceasarea
Sectio Caesarea
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-03817-2

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Influence of the second stage of labor on maternal and neonatal outcomes in vaginal births after caesarean section: a multicenter study in Germany

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Maternal sleep duration and neonatal birth weight: the Japan Environment and Children’s Study

Prevalence and associated factors of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among a cohort of Srilankan post-partum mothers: a cross-sectional study

A validation of the Postpartum Specific Anxiety Scale 12-item research short-form for use during global crises with five translations

Pregnant women’s decision-making capacity and adherence to iron supplementation in sub-Saharan Africa: a multi-country analysis of 25 countries

Circumferential shoulder laceration after posterior axilla sling traction: a case report of severe shoulder dystocia

Association of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms with gestational diabetes mellitus-a case control study in Wuhan, China