Risk of Uterine Rupture with Vaginal Birth after Cesarean in Twin Gestations.

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Obstetrics and Gynecology International Pub Date : 2021-03-31 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2021/6693142
Kimya Baradaran
{"title":"Risk of Uterine Rupture with Vaginal Birth after Cesarean in Twin Gestations.","authors":"Kimya Baradaran","doi":"10.1155/2021/6693142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Women with a previous cesarean delivery may attempt a subsequent vaginal birth or repeat cesarean. Vaginal birth after cesarean carries a greater risk of uterine rupture, defined as the disruption of all uterine layers, resulting in maternal-fetal morbidity or mortality. It is unclear how the risk of uterine rupture compares in patients with twin gestations who undergo different delivery methods.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this systematic review is to determine if there is an increased risk of uterine rupture in patients with twin gestations attempting vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) versus planned repeat cesarean delivery (PRCD). <i>Study Design</i>. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched systematically. Eligible studies were prospective and retrospective studies that evaluated the incidence of uterine rupture in twin pregnancies that attempted VBAC or PRCD. Data were manually extracted from these studies, and the number of events in each group was used to calculate an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>4 retrospective studies were included with a total of 7699 participants, 2305 of whom attempted VBAC and 5394 underwent PRCD. The absolute risk of uterine rupture in the VBAC and PRCD groups was 0.87% and 0.09%, respectively. The rate of uterine rupture was significantly higher in the VBAC group than in the PRCD group (OR: 9.43; CI: 3.54-25.17).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although VBAC is associated with higher rates of uterine rupture in twin pregnancies when compared with PRCD, the absolute risk of uterine rupture is low in both groups. Depending on individual risk factors, vaginal birth may be offered as a safe option to women with twin pregnancies and a history of cesarean delivery.</p>","PeriodicalId":19439,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics and Gynecology International","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8032534/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics and Gynecology International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6693142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Women with a previous cesarean delivery may attempt a subsequent vaginal birth or repeat cesarean. Vaginal birth after cesarean carries a greater risk of uterine rupture, defined as the disruption of all uterine layers, resulting in maternal-fetal morbidity or mortality. It is unclear how the risk of uterine rupture compares in patients with twin gestations who undergo different delivery methods.

Objective: The purpose of this systematic review is to determine if there is an increased risk of uterine rupture in patients with twin gestations attempting vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) versus planned repeat cesarean delivery (PRCD). Study Design. PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched systematically. Eligible studies were prospective and retrospective studies that evaluated the incidence of uterine rupture in twin pregnancies that attempted VBAC or PRCD. Data were manually extracted from these studies, and the number of events in each group was used to calculate an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: 4 retrospective studies were included with a total of 7699 participants, 2305 of whom attempted VBAC and 5394 underwent PRCD. The absolute risk of uterine rupture in the VBAC and PRCD groups was 0.87% and 0.09%, respectively. The rate of uterine rupture was significantly higher in the VBAC group than in the PRCD group (OR: 9.43; CI: 3.54-25.17).

Conclusion: Although VBAC is associated with higher rates of uterine rupture in twin pregnancies when compared with PRCD, the absolute risk of uterine rupture is low in both groups. Depending on individual risk factors, vaginal birth may be offered as a safe option to women with twin pregnancies and a history of cesarean delivery.

Abstract Image

双胎剖宫产后经阴道分娩的子宫破裂风险。
背景:曾进行过剖宫产的妇女可能会尝试阴道分娩或再次剖宫产。剖宫产后经阴道分娩有更大的子宫破裂风险,子宫破裂是指子宫各层破裂,导致母婴发病或死亡。目前还不清楚采用不同分娩方式的双胎妊娠患者发生子宫破裂的风险如何比较:本系统性综述旨在确定剖宫产后阴道分娩(VBAC)与计划中的再次剖宫产(PRCD)相比,双胎妊娠患者子宫破裂的风险是否会增加。研究设计。系统检索了 PubMed、Cochrane Library 和 CINAHL。符合条件的研究为前瞻性和回顾性研究,这些研究评估了尝试 VBAC 或 PRCD 的双胎妊娠中子宫破裂的发生率。人工从这些研究中提取数据,并用每组事件的数量来计算几率比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI):结果:4项回顾性研究共纳入7699名参与者,其中2305人尝试了VBAC,5394人接受了PRCD。VBAC组和PRCD组发生子宫破裂的绝对风险分别为0.87%和0.09%。VBAC组的子宫破裂率明显高于PRCD组(OR:9.43;CI:3.54-25.17):尽管 VBAC 与 PRCD 相比,双胎妊娠的子宫破裂率更高,但两组子宫破裂的绝对风险都很低。根据个体风险因素,阴道分娩可作为双胎妊娠和剖宫产史产妇的安全选择。
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
Obstetrics and Gynecology International
Obstetrics and Gynecology International OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Obstetrics and Gynecology International is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that aims to provide a forum for scientists and clinical professionals working in obstetrics and gynecology. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to obstetrics, maternal-fetal medicine, general gynecology, gynecologic oncology, uro-gynecology, reproductive medicine and infertility, reproductive endocrinology, and sexual medicine.
×
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