Comparison of Success Rate of Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Between Women with Lower Segment Uterine Scar Thickness more than and less than 3.5mm

Robina Ali
{"title":"Comparison of Success Rate of Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Between Women with Lower Segment Uterine Scar Thickness more than and less than 3.5mm","authors":"Robina Ali","doi":"10.29054/APMC/2021.1123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although scar thickness is been used for predicting vaginal birth among women with previous one cesarean section but which women are good candidates for VBAC, the value of applying sonographic LUS thickness measurement in the management of VBAC remains unclear and there are no clear guidelines in this regard. Objective: To determine the frequency of successful vaginal birth after previous one cesarean section and to compare the frequency of vaginal birth after previous one cesarean section in women with scar thickness >3.5 mm compared to those with scar thickness ≤3.5 mm. Study Design: Descriptive, Case-series study. Settings: Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, DHQ Hospital, Faisalabad. Duration: Six months from December 15, 2017 to June 15, 2018. Methodology: The Non probability, consecutive sampling technique was used in this study. A total of 151 patients in spontaneous labor at term presented to labor room and fulfilling the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study. After taking informed written consent, the patients were placed randomly into two groups. Group A included all the women with scar thickness >3.5 mm on ultrasonography while Group B included all the women with scar thickness ≤ 3.5mm on ultrasonography. All cases were followed till delivery and outcome variables like vaginal birth was noted. Data was entered and analyzed through SPSS version 21. Results: Mean age was 27.53 ± 4.93 years. Mean gestational age was 39.09 ± 1.13 weeks. Frequency of successful vaginal birth after previous one cesarean section was found in 131(86.75%) patients, whereas there was no VBAC in 20(13.25%) patients. The results of the study showed that women with scar thickness > 3.5 mm were more likely to have vaginal birth (96.65%) versus those with scar thickness ≤3.5mm (79.27%) (P = 0.003). Conclusion: This study concluded that the frequency of vaginal birth after previous one cesarean section in women with scar thickness > 3.5 mm is much higher as compared to those with scar thickness ≤3.5mm.","PeriodicalId":319424,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Punjab Medical College","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Punjab Medical College","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29054/APMC/2021.1123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although scar thickness is been used for predicting vaginal birth among women with previous one cesarean section but which women are good candidates for VBAC, the value of applying sonographic LUS thickness measurement in the management of VBAC remains unclear and there are no clear guidelines in this regard. Objective: To determine the frequency of successful vaginal birth after previous one cesarean section and to compare the frequency of vaginal birth after previous one cesarean section in women with scar thickness >3.5 mm compared to those with scar thickness ≤3.5 mm. Study Design: Descriptive, Case-series study. Settings: Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, DHQ Hospital, Faisalabad. Duration: Six months from December 15, 2017 to June 15, 2018. Methodology: The Non probability, consecutive sampling technique was used in this study. A total of 151 patients in spontaneous labor at term presented to labor room and fulfilling the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study. After taking informed written consent, the patients were placed randomly into two groups. Group A included all the women with scar thickness >3.5 mm on ultrasonography while Group B included all the women with scar thickness ≤ 3.5mm on ultrasonography. All cases were followed till delivery and outcome variables like vaginal birth was noted. Data was entered and analyzed through SPSS version 21. Results: Mean age was 27.53 ± 4.93 years. Mean gestational age was 39.09 ± 1.13 weeks. Frequency of successful vaginal birth after previous one cesarean section was found in 131(86.75%) patients, whereas there was no VBAC in 20(13.25%) patients. The results of the study showed that women with scar thickness > 3.5 mm were more likely to have vaginal birth (96.65%) versus those with scar thickness ≤3.5mm (79.27%) (P = 0.003). Conclusion: This study concluded that the frequency of vaginal birth after previous one cesarean section in women with scar thickness > 3.5 mm is much higher as compared to those with scar thickness ≤3.5mm.
子宫下段瘢痕厚度大于与小于3.5mm剖宫产后阴道分娩成功率的比较
背景:虽然疤痕厚度被用来预测有过一次剖宫产的女性阴道分娩,但哪些女性是VBAC的好候选人,但超声LUS厚度测量在VBAC治疗中的价值尚不清楚,在这方面没有明确的指导方针。目的:了解瘢痕厚度>3.5 mm与瘢痕厚度≤3.5 mm的女性既往1次剖宫产后阴道分娩成功率的差异,比较瘢痕厚度>3.5 mm与瘢痕厚度≤3.5 mm的女性既往1次剖宫产后阴道分娩成功率的差异。研究设计:描述性、病例系列研究。地点:费萨拉巴德DHQ医院妇产科。时间:2017年12月15日至2018年6月15日六个月。方法:本研究采用非概率连续抽样技术。本研究共纳入151例足月自然分娩至产房并符合纳入标准的患者。在获得知情同意书后,将患者随机分为两组。A组包括超声检查瘢痕厚度>3.5 mm的所有女性,B组包括超声检查瘢痕厚度≤3.5mm的所有女性。所有病例随访至分娩,并记录阴道分娩等结果变量。数据通过SPSS version 21录入和分析。结果:平均年龄27.53±4.93岁。平均胎龄39.09±1.13周。131例(86.75%)患者术后阴道分娩成功,20例(13.25%)患者无阴道分娩。研究结果显示,疤痕厚度> 3.5mm的女性顺产的可能性(96.65%)高于疤痕厚度≤3.5mm的女性(79.27%)(P = 0.003)。结论:本研究认为瘢痕厚度> 3.5mm的女性既往1次剖宫产后阴道分娩的频率明显高于瘢痕厚度≤3.5mm的女性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信