ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Impact of epidural analgesia on outcomes of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- FIGO good practice recommendations for vaginal birth after cesarean section.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Guideline
- Epidural Analgesia and Its Impact on the Duration of the Second Stage of Labor, Vacuum Extraction Delivery, and Neonatal Apgar Scores: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PRIMARY
objectiveTo assess the association between Epidural Analgesia (EA) during Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) and delivery mode (spontaneous or instrumental vaginal delivery). Secondary objectives include maternal and neonatal outcomes.
methodsIn this retrospective population-based cohort study, all women who underwent a VBAC with and without EA, between the years 1996-2016 at the Soroka University Medical Center (SUMC) were included. Women who delivered by cesarean section (elective and non-elective) and those who gave birth to a newborn with chromosomal abnormalities or major malformations, and multifetal gestations were excluded. Demographical, clinical, and obstetrical characteristics were recorded, and pregnancy complications and adverse perinatal outcomes were compared between the groups. The primary outcome was the type of delivery. Univariate analysis was followed by a multivariate analysis to control for confounders. A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsDuring the study period, 17,516 women who have had a previous CS met the inclusion criteria, of which 15% (n = 2652) used EA during labor, while the rest of the cohort 85% (n = 14,864) were non-EA users. Women in the EA group had higher rates of instrumental delivery and postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) as well as higher rates of oxytocin augmentation and a longer second stage of labor. The use of EA was found to be an independent risk factor for instrumental delivery after controlling for maternal age, ethnicity, parity, DM (diabetes mellitus), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, oxytocin augmentation, prolonged second stage of labor, induction of labor, fertility treatments and oligohydramnios. However, no significant differences were observed regarding neonatal outcomes including perinatal mortality, birth weight, Apgar scores and shoulder dystocia rates.
conclusionEA for women undergoing a VBAC was associated with higher rates of instrumental delivery and PPH, oxytocin augmentation and a longer second stage of labor compared with women without EA. However, neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.