Trial of labour versus elective caesarean delivery for estimated large for gestational age foetuses after prior caesarean delivery: a multicenter retrospective study

Author:

Chamagne Matthieu,Richard Maêva Bôle,Vallee Alexandre,Tahiri Jellila,Renevier Bruno,Dahlhoff Sandra,Garcia Diane,Vivanti Alexandre,Ayoubi Jean Marc

Abstract

Abstract Background Lower rates of successful trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) in association with fetal macrosomia were previously reported. This study aimed to compare TOLAC to elective caesarean delivery (CD) in women with estimated fetal weight large for gestational age (eLGA) and a prior CD. Primary outcome was to analyse the mode of delivery in case of TOLAC. Secondary outcome was to compare maternal and foetal morbidity. Methods We conducted a retrospective, descriptive, multicentric, cohort study in five maternity units between January and December 2020. Inclusion criteria were: women with a single prior CD and eLGA or neonatal weight > 90th percentile with singleton pregnancy and gestational age ≥ 37 weeks. Main outcome measures: rate of vaginal delivery, maternal and fetal morbidity including: shoulder dystocia, neonatal hospitalization, fetal trauma, neonatal acidosis, uterine rupture, 3rd and 4th perineal tears, post-partum hemorrhage, and a need for blood transfusion. Results Four hundred forty women met inclusion criteria, including 235 (53.4%) eLGA. 170 (72.3%) had a TOLAC (study group) and 65 (27.7%) an elective CD (control). 117 (68.82%) TOLAC had a vaginal delivery. No significant differences were found between the two groups in the rates of: postpartum haemorrhage, transfusion, Apgar score, neonatal hospitalization, and foetal trauma. Cord lactate was higher in the case of TOLAC (3.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Median fetal weight was 3815 g (3597–4085) vs. 3865 g (3659–4168): p = 0.068 in the study vs. controls group respectively. Conclusion TOLAC for eLGA fetuses is legitimate because there is no difference in maternal–fetal morbidity, and the CD rate is acceptable.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Reference31 articles.

1. Lepercq J, Timsit J, Hauguel-de Mouzon S. Étiopathogénie de la macrosomie fœtale. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod. 2000;1089(1):9.

2. Zhang X, Decker A, Platt RW, Kramer MS. How big is too big? The perinatal consequences of fetal macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):517.e1-517.e6.

3. Chauhan SP, Rice MM, Grobman WA, Bailit J, Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, et al. Neonatal Morbidity of Small- and Large-for-Gestational-Age Neonates Born at Term in Uncomplicated Pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(3):5119.

4. Turkmen S, Johansson S, Dahmoun M. Foetal Macrosomia and Foetal-Maternal Outcomes at Birth. J Pregnancy. 2018;8(2018):4790136.

5. Santé publique France. Enquête nationale périnatale 2021 : https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/etudes-et-enquetes/enquete-nationale-perinatale-2021. Accessed 6 Oct 2022.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3