Mode of birth in subsequent pregnancy when first birth was vacuum extraction or second stage cesarean section at a tertiary referral hospital in Uganda.
Assisted vaginal birth
Cesarean section
Maternal outcome
Mode of birth
Neonatal outcome
Vacuum extraction
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Feb 2024
01 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
31
12
2022
accepted:
21
01
2024
medline:
2
2
2024
pubmed:
2
2
2024
entrez:
2
2
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The trends of increasing use of cesarean section (CS) with a decrease in assisted vaginal birth (vacuum extraction or forceps) is a major concern in health care systems all over the world, particularly in low-resource settings. Studies show that a first birth by CS is associated with an increased risk of repeat CS in subsequent births. In addition, CS compared to assisted vaginal birth (AVB), attracts higher health service costs. Resource-constrained countries have low rates of AVB compared to high-income countries. The aim of this study was to compare mode of birth in the subsequent pregnancy among women who previously gave birth by vacuum extraction or second stage CS in their first pregnancy at Mulago National Referral Hospital, Uganda. This was a retrospective cohort study that involved interviews of 81 mothers who had a vacuum extraction or second stage CS in their first pregnancy at Mulago hospital between November 2014 to July 2015. Mode of birth in the subsequent pregnancy was compared using Chi-2 square test and a Fisher's exact test with a 0.05 level of statistical significance. Higher rates of vaginal birth were achieved among women who had a vacuum extraction (78.4%) compared to those who had a second stage CS in their first pregnancy (38.6%), p < 0.001. Vacuum extraction increases a woman's chance of having a subsequent spontaneous vaginal birth compared to second stage CS. Health professionals need to continue to offer choice of vacuum extraction in the second stage of labor among laboring women that fulfill its indication. This will help curb the up-surging rates of CS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38302920
doi: 10.1186/s12884-024-06282-9
pii: 10.1186/s12884-024-06282-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
98Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caeseren section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1349–57.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5
pubmed: 30322585
Thomas J, Callwood A, Brocklehurst P, Walker J. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit. BJOG. 2000;107(5):579–80.
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb13296.x
pubmed: 10826569
Bahl R, Strachan B, Murphy DJ. Outcome of subsequent pregnancy three years after previous operative delivery in the second stage of labour: cohort study. BMJ. 2004;328(7435):311.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.37942.546076.44
pubmed: 14724128
pmcid: 338093
Black M, Bhattacharya S, Philip S, Norman JE, McLernon DJ. Planned repeat Cesarean section at term and adverse Childhood Health outcomes: a record-linkage study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(3):e1001973.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001973
pubmed: 26978456
pmcid: 4792387
Draycott TJ, Di Renzo GC. The role of operative vaginal birth in the 21st century and a way forward. BJOG. 2017;124(Suppl 4):5–6.
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14791
pubmed: 28940871
Betrán AP, Temmerman M, Kingdon C, Mohiddin A, Opiyo N, Torloni MR, et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1358–68.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31927-5
pubmed: 30322586
Nolens B, Namiiro F, Lule J, van den Akker T, van Roosmalen J, Byamugisha J. Prospective cohort study comparing outcomes between vacuum extraction and second-stage cesarean delivery at a Ugandan tertiary referral hospital. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;142:28–36.
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12500
pubmed: 29630724
Nkwabong E, Kayawa Monglo S, Mbu R. The effect of primary cesarean section on subsequent delivery. J Preg Child Health. 2015;2(129):2.
Christmann-Schmid C, Raio L, Scheibner K, Müller M, Surbek D. Back to once a caesarean: always a caesarean? A trend analysis in Switzerland. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;294(5):905–10.
doi: 10.1007/s00404-016-4055-4
pubmed: 26980229
Turner MJ. Delivery after a previous cesarean section reviewed. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14854 .
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14854
pubmed: 37194553
Kaplanoglu M, Karateke A, Un B, Akgor U, Baloğlu A. Complications and outcomes of repeat cesarean section in adolescent women. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7(12):5621–8.
pubmed: 25664081
pmcid: 4307528
Zhang Y, Zhou J, Ma Y, Liu L, Xia Q, Fan D, Ai W. Mode of delivery and preterm birth in subsequent births: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(3):e0213784.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213784
pubmed: 30870524
pmcid: 6417656
Offringa Y, Paret L, Vayssiere C, Parant O, Loussert L, Guerby P. Second stage cesarean section and the risk of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022;159(3):783–9.
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14186
pubmed: 35307823
Wang M, Kirby A, Gibbs E, Gidaszewski B, Khajehei M, Chua SC. Risk of preterm birth in the subsequent pregnancy following caesarean section at full cervical dilatation compared with mid-cavity instrumental delivery. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;60(3):382–8.
doi: 10.1111/ajo.13058
pubmed: 31514230
Coates D, Thirukumar P, Spear V, Brown G, Henry A. What are women’s mode of birth preferences and why? A systematic scoping review. Women Birth. 2020;33(4):323–33.
doi: 10.1016/j.wombi.2019.09.005
pubmed: 31607640
Adu-Bonsaffoh K, Tamma E, Seffah J. Preferred mode of childbirth among women attending antenatal clinic at a tertiary hospital in Ghana: a cross-sectional study. Afr Health Sci. 2022;22(2):480–8.
doi: 10.4314/ahs.v22i2.56
pubmed: 36407389
pmcid: 9652646