Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31109302›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2019

Success of trial of labor in women with a history of previous cesarean section for failed labor induction or labor dystocia: a retrospective cohort study.

Katariina Place, Heidi Kruit, Aydin Tekay, Seppo Heinonen, Leena Rahkonen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Katariina PlaceDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 2, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland. katariina.place@hus.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2916-7870
Heidi KruitDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 2, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Aydin TekayDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 2, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Seppo HeinonenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 2, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
Leena RahkonenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 2, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rates of cesarean section (CS) are increasing worldwide leading to an increased risk for maternal and neonatal complications in the subsequent pregnancy and labor. Previous studies have demonstrated that successful trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) is associated with the least maternal morbidity, but the risks of unsuccessful TOLAC exceed the risks of scheduled repeat CS. However, prediction of successful TOLAC is difficult, and only limited data on TOLAC in women with previous failed labor induction or labor dystocia exists. Our aim was to evaluate the success of TOLAC in women with a history of failed labor induction or labor dystocia, to compare the delivery outcomes according to stage of labor at time of previous CS, and to assess the risk factors for recurrent failed labor induction or labor dystocia.

methodsThis retrospective cohort study of 660 women with a prior CS for failed labor induction or labor dystocia undergoing TOLAC was carried out in Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, between 2013 and 2015. Data on the study population was obtained from the hospital database and analyzed using SPSS.

resultsThe rate of vaginal delivery was 72.9% and the rate of repeat CS for failed induction or labor dystocia was 17.7%. The rate of successful TOLAC was 75.6% in women with a history of labor arrest in the first stage of labor, 73.1% in women with a history of labor arrest in the second stage of labor, and 59.0% in women with previous failed induction. The adjusted risk factors for recurrent failed induction or labor dystocia were maternal height < 160 cm (OR 1.9 95% CI 1.1-3.1), no prior vaginal delivery (OR 8.3 95% CI 3.5-19.8), type 1 or gestational diabetes (OR 1.8 95% CI 1.0-3.0), IOL for suspected non-diabetic fetal macrosomia (OR 10.8 95% CI 2.1-55.9) and birthweight ≥4500 g (OR 3.3 95% CI 1.3-7.9).

conclusionsTOLAC is a feasible option to scheduled repeat CS in women with a history of failed induction or labor dystocia. However, women with no previous vaginal delivery, maternal height < 160 cm, diabetes or suspected neonatal macrosomia (≥4500 g) may be at increased risk for failed TOLAC.

Indexed as

Trial of LaborAdultCesarean SectionDelivery, ObstetricDystociaFemaleFinlandHumansLabor, InducedPregnancyRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsVaginal Birth after CesareanCesarean sectionInduction of laborLabor dystociaTrial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC)

Identifiers

PMID31109302
PMCPMC6528374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.