Title: Reproductive outcomes in
women after Caesarean section for breech presentation: The experience of a
regional Australian centre
S. Craig1, S. Ooi2
1
Albury-Wodonga Health, Wodonga, Australia
2
Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia
Aims: To retrospectively identify all women having
a Caesarean section (CS) for a breech presentation and assess mode of delivery
and maternal recollections of delivery options in the next pregnancy with a
cephalic presentation.
Methods: This study identified every woman who had a
CS for a breech presentation after 34 weeks, between 1998 and 2012, and then
had a subsequent pregnancy by 2014. A questionnaire was sent to each woman
inquiring about the deliveries, recollections of delivery options given, and
maternal desires for mode of delivery after the index pregnancy.
Results: A total of 427 women had a CS for a breech,
and of these 183 had further pregnancies with a cephalic presentation at term,
thus meting our study criteria. 112 (61%) were delivered by ERCS while 71 (39%)
attempted a VBAC. The VBAC success rate
was 87% overall. There was no difference in birth weight between the ERCS and
VBAC groups. 38% of women wanted a VBAC but were delivered by ERCS. 58% of women who were delivered by ERCS
believed that this was a safer option than VBAC.
Conclusion: Women who have had one CS for a breech are
often excellent VBAC candidates. Many women prefer delivery by ERCS due to
concerns over safety, whilst others interested in VBAC were not offered it,
perhaps highlighting a need for improvement in the delivery planning and
counselling process.
References
1. Hehir
MP. J Epidemiol Comm Health 2015;0;1-3.
2. Walker
SP, McCarthy EA, Ugoni A, Lee A, Lim S, Permezel M. Cesarean delivery or vaginal birth: A survey
of patient and clinician thresholds. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:67-72.
3. Lee
YY, Roberts CL, Patterson JA, Simpson JM, Nicholl MC, Morris JM et al.
Unexplained variation in hospital caesarean section rates. MJA
2013;199:348-353.
4. Metz,
Stoddard How do good candidates for trial of labor after caesarean (TOLAC) who
undergo repeat caesarean differ from those who choose TOLAC? Am J Obstet
Gynecol 2013;208:458e1-6.
5. Shipp
TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, Cohen A, Caughey AB, Lieberman E. Labor after previous
caesarean: Influence of prior indication and parity. Obstet Gynecol
2000;95:913-6.
6. Hannah
ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S, Willan AR. Planned caesarean
section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised
multicentre trial. Lancet 2000;356:1375-83.
7. McDorman
MF, Declerq E, Menacker F. Recent trends
and patterns in caesarean and vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) deliveries
in the United States. Clin Perinatol 2011;38:179-92.
8. McMahon
MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA, Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an
elective second caesarean section. NEJM 1996;335:689-95.
9. Taylor
LK, Simpson JM, Roberts CL, Olive EC, Henderson-Smart DJ. Risk of complications
in a second pregnancy following caesarean section in the first pregnancy: a
population-based study. MJA 2005;183:515-19.
10. Landon
MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Leindecker S, Varner MW et al. Maternal and
perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior caesarean
delivery. NEJM 2004;351:2581-9.
11. Brill
Y, Windrim R. Vaginal birth after caesarean section: review of antenatal
predictors of success. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003;25(4):275-86.
12. Grobman
WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ et al. Development of as
nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after caesarean delivery. Obstet
Gynecol 2007;109:806-12.
13. Grobman
WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ et al. Can a prediction
model for vaginal birth after caesarean also predict the probability of
morbidity related to a trial of labour? Am J Obstet Gynecol
2009;200:56.e1-56.e6.
14. Chaillet
N, Bujold E, Dube E, Grobman WA. Validation of a prediction model for
predicting the probability of morbidity related to a trial of labour in Quebec.
J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2012;34(9):820-825.
15. Silver
RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, et al. Maternal
morbidity associated with multiple repeat caesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol
2006;107:1226-32.
16. Pare
E, Quinones JN, Macones GA. Vaginal birth after caesarean section versus elective
repeat caesarean section: assessment of maternal downstream health outcomes.
BJOG 2006;113:75-85.
17. Gilbert
SA, Grobman WA, Landon MB, Varner MW, Wapner RJ, Sorokin Y, et al. Lifetime
Cost-effectiveness of trial of labor after caesarean in the United States.
Value in Health 2013;16:953-64.
18. Emmett
CL, Shaw ARG, Montgomery AA, Murphy DJ. Women’s experience of decision making
about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section: the role of health
professionals and information about health risks. BJOG 2006;113:1438-45.
19. Dodd
J, Pearce E, Crowther C. Women’s experiences and preferences following
caesarean birth. ANZJOG 2004;44:521-24.
20. Asch
DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA.
Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol
1997;50;10:1129-1136.
21. Kwee
A, Bots ML, Visser GH, Bruinse HW. Obstetric management and outcome of
pregnancy in women with a history of caesarean section in the Netherlands. Eur
J Obst Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007;132(2):171-6.