ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ
خرید پکیج
تعداد آیتم قابل مشاهده باقیمانده : 3 مورد
نسخه الکترونیک
medimedia.ir

Cervical ripening and induction of labor after a prior cesarean birth

Cervical ripening and induction of labor after a prior cesarean birth
Literature review current through: Jan 2024.
This topic last updated: Dec 12, 2022.

INTRODUCTION — Patients who are planning a trial of labor after a previous cesarean (TOLAC) occasionally must give birth before the onset of spontaneous labor because of maternal or fetal conditions. In this population, concerns have been raised that labor induction with or without cervical ripening may reduce the chances of a successful vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) and may increase the risk for uterine rupture.

The cervical ripening and labor induction methods that lead to the highest chance of vaginal birth and the lowest chance of uterine rupture in this population have not been established [1]. Available evidence is inconclusive because no randomized trials have compared the outcome of labor induction after a prior cesarean with the outcome of either planned repeat cesarean birth or expectant management. Data are limited to findings from observational studies, which have several limitations, including inconsistent definitions of uterine rupture and dehiscence, wide variation in induction protocols (eg, timing and dose of prostaglandins and/or oxytocin administration), heterogeneity in patient populations, and inconsistency in primary outcome measures [2].

Induction of labor with or without cervical ripening in patients attempting TOLAC will be reviewed here. Other issues related to TOLAC and issues related to repeat cesarean birth are discussed separately:

(See "Choosing the route of delivery after cesarean birth" and "Trial of labor after cesarean birth: Intrapartum management".)

(See "Repeat cesarean birth".)

LIKELIHOOD OF VBAC — A prior vaginal birth is the factor most associated with induction resulting in a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). In a study including over 3200 inductions after a prior cesarean, VBAC rates for those with versus without a prior vaginal birth were 83 and 51 percent, respectively [3]. A favorable cervix also appeared to play a role:

For patients with a favorable cervix (Bishop score ≥6), VBAC rates with versus without a prior vaginal birth were 91 and 69 percent, respectively.

For patients with an unfavorable cervix, VBAC rates with versus without a prior vaginal birth were 77 and 45 percent, respectively. A minority of these patients received a prostaglandin for cervical ripening/labor induction.

The VBAC rate in induced labors appears to be similar whether the patients has had one versus two prior cesareans (69 versus 65 percent in one study [4]).

Induction itself does not appear to reduce the chances of VBAC when compared with expectant management. In a study of over 12,000 patients with singleton gestations ≥39 weeks and one low transverse cesarean birth, those undergoing induction at 39+0 to 39+3 weeks without an acute obstetric/medical indication actually had a higher VBAC rate than those managed expectantly (73.8 versus 61.3 percent, odds ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.03-1.67) [5].

INDUCTION-RELATED RISK OF RUPTURE — In patients with a prior cesarean, the body of evidence suggests induction (any method) is associated with a statistically higher rate of uterine rupture than spontaneous labor or expectant management.

The 2010 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean reported that the frequency of uterine rupture in those with term pregnancies undergoing induction was nearly twofold higher than that in those in spontaneous labor (1.5 versus 0.8 percent) [6].

A study comparing uterine rupture rates in those induced in the 39th, 40th, and 41st week of gestation (n = 1603) with those undergoing expectant management (n = 11,072) also reported a higher frequency of uterine rupture in the induction group (1.4 versus 0.5, 1.3 versus 0.6, and 1.3 versus 0.4 percent, respectively) [5].

Risk factors for rupture during induction — Factors that have been associated with an increased risk of rupture during induction after a previous cesarean (TOLAC) include:

No previous vaginal birth – No prior vaginal birth appears to be a factor associated with a higher chance of rupture [3,7]. As an example, in one study, the risks of rupture during induced TOLAC in patients with no previous vaginal birth versus a prior vaginal birth were 1.5 and 0.6 percent, respectively [3].

Unfavorable cervix – An unfavorable cervix appears to be associated with a higher risk of rupture compared with a favorable cervix. In a nested case-control study including over 13,000 patients undergoing TOLAC, induction with an unfavorable cervix (defined as initial cervical dilation <2 cm) was associated with an increased risk of rupture compared with spontaneous labor (hazard ratio [HR] 4.09, 95% CI 1.82-9.17), whereas induction with a favorable cervix (defined as initial cervical dilation >4 cm) was not associated with a statistically increased risk of rupture compared with spontaneous labor (HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.97-2.36) [7].

It should be noted, however, that this association has not been reported consistently: In a study including over 6,000 patients with no prior vaginal birth undergoing TOLAC, an unfavorable cervix at the time of labor induction was not associated with an increased risk of uterine rupture compared with a favorable cervix [3].

Use of prostaglandins – Induction with prostaglandins appears to be associated with a higher risk for uterine rupture than induction with oxytocin or cervical ripening with mechanical methods followed by oxytocin administration. These data are described below. (See 'Use of prostaglandins' below.)

MANAGEMENT OF INDUCTION

Our approach — Based on the data described below and our own experience, we approach induction in patients who wish to undergo a trial of labor after a previous cesarean (TOLAC) as follows:

For patients with maternal or fetal indications for induction, we discuss the risks and benefits of induction versus planned repeat cesarean birth, as well as the risks associated with waiting for spontaneous labor, individualizing the discussion based on the specific clinical scenario and a person-centered approach.

Clinical decision-making as to whether to administer oxytocin should take into account a number of different personal factors, including presence or absence of antecedent uterine activity, cervical favorability, gestational age, past history of vaginal births, and the indication for which the induction is being undertaken. These factors are associated with the duration of induction, probability of a vaginal birth after cesarean, and risk of uterine rupture. (See 'Risk factors for rupture during induction' above and "Choosing the route of delivery after cesarean birth", section on 'Predicting the probability of VBAC'.)

For patients with a favorable cervix who choose to be induced, we perform amniotomy and administer oxytocin. There is no universally accepted definition of favorable or unfavorable cervix, although many obstetricians use a Bishop score ≥6 as the criterion for a favorable cervix (table 1). (See 'Issues related to use of oxytocin' below and "Induction of labor with oxytocin", section on 'Oxytocin administration' and 'Issues related to amniotomy' below.)

For patients with an unfavorable cervix who choose to be induced, we use mechanical cervical ripening (insertion of balloon catheter) followed by amniotomy and oxytocin administration. Many clinicians consider a Bishop score <6 indicative of an unfavorable cervix and the need for a ripening agent, while others use a lower threshold (eg, ≤3 or 4). Mechanical cervical ripening may shorten the duration of labor and avoid the possible increase in risk of uterine rupture with prostaglandin ripening agents. The risk of rupture is not eliminated; rupture can occur before the onset of labor. (See 'Issues related to use of mechanical methods of cervical ripening' below and 'Issues related to use of oxytocin' below and 'Issues related to amniotomy' below.)

Although the combined use of a balloon catheter and oxytocin is sometimes employed in patients without a prior cesarean to decrease the time to delivery, safety and efficacy data of this approach in patients undergoing TOLAC are not available.

Issues related to use of oxytocin

Risk of rupture associated with oxytocin use – Available data do not allow a definitive conclusion as to whether use of oxytocin for induced TOLAC is causally associated with an increased risk of uterine rupture. It should also be noted that, even in studies in which increases in risk of rupture for oxytocin induction versus spontaneous labor or expectant management were statistically significant, the absolute increases were relatively small, as shown by the prospective study described below. Thus, we use oxytocin for induction of labor in patients desiring a TOLAC who have a standard obstetric indication for induced delivery. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) acknowledges that induction of labor is an acceptable option for individuals undergoing TOLAC [8]. They advise counseling patients as to the risks and benefits of oxytocin induction in this setting. (See "Choosing the route of delivery after cesarean birth".)

A large prospective Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network study reported the absolute risk of uterine rupture by labor status in patients with one or more cesarean births (n = 17,898 TOLACs and 15,801 planned repeat cesarean births) [9]. In this study, patients who underwent induction with oxytocin alone had a threefold higher risk of uterine rupture compared with those in spontaneous labor (odds ratio [OR] 3.01, 95% CI 1.66-5.46), but the absolute differences in frequency of rupture were relatively small:

Planned repeat cesarean birth without labor – 0

Spontaneous labor – 4 ruptures per 1000 spontaneously laboring patients

Augmented labor – 9 ruptures per 1000 augmented labors

Induced labor (oxytocin alone) – 11 ruptures per 1000 patients induced with oxytocin alone

Induced labor (mechanical dilation with or without oxytocin) – 9 ruptures per 1000 patients induced with mechanical dilation with or without oxytocin

Induced labor (any prostaglandin with or without oxytocin) – 14 ruptures per 1000 patients induced with prostaglandins with or without oxytocin

Recommendations for oxytocin dosing – No high-quality data are available as to the optimal oxytocin protocol (eg, starting dose and rate of increase) that should be used; dosing options are shown in the table (table 2). When oxytocin is used for labor induction, doses over 20 milliunits/minute should be administered with caution (ie, balancing the risks and benefits on a case-by case basis), based on findings from a nested case-control study that identified a dose-response relationship between increasing doses of oxytocin and uterine rupture [10]. In this study, doses exceeding 20 milliunits/minute were associated with an approximately fourfold increased risk for uterine rupture:

21 to 30 milliunits/minute – Hazard ratio (HR) 3.92, 95% CI 1.06-14.52

31 to 40 milliunits/minute – HR 4.57, 95% CI 1.00-20.82

(See "Induction of labor with oxytocin", section on 'Oxytocin administration'.)

Issues related to use of mechanical methods of cervical ripening

Risk of rupture associated with use of balloon catheters – Data on mechanical methods of cervical ripening in this population are limited by small sample size, retrospective analyses, and institutional variation in protocols.

In a 2016 meta-analysis of 16 studies (mostly retrospective) including a total of 1447 patients, the risk of uterine rupture was more than twofold higher in patients with a previous cesarean who had a balloon catheter placed as part of cervical ripening or labor induction compared with those who experienced spontaneous onset of labor (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.34-4.47, 18/1447 [1.2 percent] versus 45/6364 [0.7 percent]) [11]. However, nine of the ruptures occurred in a single study during active labor (not during cervical ripening), and when this study was excluded, the risk of uterine rupture was similar in the balloon catheter and the spontaneous labor groups.

The increased risk of rupture reported in some studies may be related to characteristics of patients who receive balloon catheters rather than to the device itself.

Recommendation on use of balloon catheters – Given the limitations of the data described above, use of a balloon catheter is reasonable in a patient with a previous cesarean who is a candidate for medically indicated early delivery but who has an unfavorable cervix. The choice of balloon catheter is based on clinician preference as comparative safety and efficacy data (single versus double balloon, 30 versus 80 mL of fluid) are limited [12]. The procedure for utilizing mechanical methods of cervical ripening is described separately and is not modified for patients with a previous cesarean birth. (See "Induction of labor: Techniques for preinduction cervical ripening", section on 'Mechanical methods'.)

The guidelines of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) state "a balloon catheter may be safely used to ripen the cervix in a patient planning a trial of labor (TOL) after cesarean birth" [13]. ACOG's position is "given the lack of compelling data suggesting increased risk with mechanical dilation and transcervical catheters, such interventions may be an option for TOLAC candidates with an unfavorable cervix" [8].

Outpatient cervical ripening in patients undergoing TOLAC is generally contraindicated because of concern that an individual with a prior cesarean is at greater risk (regardless of ripening approach) for uterine rupture. Consequently, these patients have often been excluded from studies on outpatient cervical ripening, so available safety and outcome data are inadequate.

Issues related to amniotomy — Amniotomy is performed if the fetal head is well apposed to the cervix; if not, it is delayed until the head is well apposed to reduce the risk of cord prolapse. Although amniotomy has not been extensively studied in patients undergoing induction after a previous cesarean birth, in meta-analyses of randomized trials primarily in the general obstetric population, routine early amniotomy after cervical ripening reduced the interval from induction to delivery compared with usual care (mean reduction -4.95 hours, 95% CI -8.12 to -1.78 hours) [14], and the combination of oxytocin plus amniotomy reduced the chances of not achieving a vaginal birth within 24 hours compared with use of either oxytocin or amniotomy alone [15,16].

Controversial approaches

Use of prostaglandins

Risk of rupture with use of prostaglandins – There are no data from large randomized trials and a paucity of data from good-quality observational studies regarding the effects of prostaglandins alone or in combination with other agents for cervical ripening in the setting of TOLAC. Much of the data on use of prostaglandins in patients with a prior cesarean birth were derived from observational studies in which misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) was used, and reports on use of other prostaglandins, such as prostaglandin E2, are limited by their small size, the coadministration of other agents, and the lack of stratification by prior vaginal birth.

Unspecified prostaglandin – Concern regarding the use of prostaglandins was stimulated after publication of a population-based retrospective cohort study that analyzed data from 20,095 primiparous patients who gave birth after a single prior cesarean [17]. In this study, the rate of uterine rupture was similar for patients in spontaneous labor and those who were induced without the use of a prostaglandin, but was significantly higher in patients induced with prostaglandins (type not available). Specifically, the rate of uterine rupture by category was:

-Planned repeat cesarean birth without labor – 1.6 ruptures per 1000 planned repeat cesarean births.

-Spontaneous labor – 5.2 ruptures per 1000 spontaneous labors.

-Induced labor (no prostaglandins) – 7.7 ruptures per 1000 induced labors without use of prostaglandins.

-Induced labor (with prostaglandins) – 24.5 ruptures per 1000 induced labors with use of prostaglandins. Compared with planned repeat cesarean birth, the relative risk of rupture with use of prostaglandins was 15.6 (95% CI 8.1-30.0).

However, all of the information in this study was derived from a database using hospital discharge coding and birth certificates; individual chart reviews were not performed to verify the uterine ruptures or medications administered. Thus, there is a significant potential for missing and inaccurate data [18].

The high risk of uterine rupture reported in this retrospective study was not confirmed in the large prospective Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network study discussed above [9]. In that study, the uterine rupture rate among patients induced with a prostaglandin with or without oxytocin was much lower: 14 per 1000 induced labors. (See 'Issues related to use of oxytocin' above.)

The conflicting findings in these two studies may be due to heterogeneous approaches to prostaglandin use for cervical ripening (including the type of prostaglandin used) and to oxytocin administration. In addition, the increased risk of rupture may be related to characteristics of patients who receive prostaglandins rather than to the medication itself; as an example, patients who receive prostaglandins are much more likely to have an unfavorable cervix than those induced with oxytocin alone or who enter labor spontaneously. Although some studies describe outcomes for labors induced with oxytocin alone, few describe outcomes with use of prostaglandins alone. In one such study, prostaglandins alone were not associated with uterine rupture, but sequential use of prostaglandin and oxytocin was associated with uterine rupture (OR 3.07, 95% CI 0.98-9.88) [19].

PGE2 – A meta-analysis of studies of uterine rupture among patients with one prior low-transverse cesarean birth undergoing labor induction with PGE2 estimated a pooled prevalence of five uterine ruptures per 1000 labor inductions (95% CI 2-9 per 1000), which is similar to historic rates reported for labor induction among patients with one prior low transverse cesarean [20]. Limitations included moderate heterogeneity among studies and lack of analysis of whether the prevalence differed substantially by specific characteristics, such as among those with versus without a prior vaginal birth.

Misoprostol (PGE1) – A randomized trial on use of misoprostol for cervical ripening for labor induction in patients with previous cesarean births was stopped early because of safety concerns [21]. This trial and several case reports have led some investigators to conclude that misoprostol may be associated with a higher risk of uterine rupture than other prostaglandins and, therefore, should not be used in patients attempting TOLAC [21-25].

Recommendations on use of prostaglandins — We do not use misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) or prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening in patients with a previous cesarean birth, given that mechanical methods are readily available, are effective, and may be safer.

ACOG advises that misoprostol not be used for cervical ripening or labor induction in patients at term with prior uterine incisions [8] and does not address use of prostaglandin E2.

SOGC came to similar conclusions regarding the use of misoprostol. They allowed the use of prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) but only in rare circumstances and after appropriate counseling [13].

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom concluded that, if delivery is indicated, patients who have had a previous cesarean may be offered induction of labor with vaginal prostaglandin E2 [26].

Ineffective interventions

Available evidence does not support use of an intrauterine pressure catheter as a means to identify uterine activity patterns that can be used to predict rupture. As an example, a study that calculated Montevideo units in patients undergoing TOLAC found no association between number of Montevideo units and risk of uterine rupture [27]. (See "Use of intrauterine pressure catheters", section on 'Clinical uses'.)

CERVICAL RIPENING AND INDUCTION IN SPECIAL SITUATIONS

Fetal demise — The overall risks and benefits of induction in the setting of a prior cesarean birth are different when there has been a fetal demise and thus the fetus is not at risk of harm from uterine rupture. Management of fetal demise in a patient with a prior cesarean birth is reviewed separately. (See "Stillbirth: Maternal care".)

Pregnancies undelivered at 41 weeks of gestation — We suggest intervention for individuals who remain undelivered at 41 weeks of gestation (see "Postterm pregnancy"). Our approach in these cases is the same as that described above for labor induction (see 'Our approach' above). Patients with a favorable cervix are offered induction with amniotomy and oxytocin or repeat cesarean birth; patients with an unfavorable cervix are offered cervical ripening with a balloon catheter followed by amniotomy and oxytocin or repeat cesarean birth. As noted above, counseling should take into account a variety of factors, including chances of vaginal birth after cesarean and future reproductive plans.

DURATION AND PROGRESSION OF LABOR — In patients with a previous cesarean birth, the overall duration of labor appears to be approximately two hours longer for induction than for spontaneous labor [28], primarily related to a longer latent phase [29]. Therefore, when assessing labor progression in patients undergoing induced trial of labor after a previous cesarean, it is reasonable for clinicians to apply the same criteria for making the diagnosis of a protraction or arrest disorder in the active phase or in the second stage as in patients without a previous cesarean birth undergoing induction. (See "Labor: Overview of normal and abnormal progression", section on 'Normal progression in induced labors' and "Labor: Overview of normal and abnormal progression", section on 'Overview of protraction and arrest disorders'.)

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Cesarean birth".)

INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS — UpToDate offers two types of patient education materials, "The Basics" and "Beyond the Basics." The Basics patient education pieces are written in plain language, at the 5th to 6th grade reading level, and they answer the four or five key questions a patient might have about a given condition. These articles are best for patients who want a general overview and who prefer short, easy-to-read materials. Beyond the Basics patient education pieces are longer, more sophisticated, and more detailed. These articles are written at the 10th to 12th grade reading level and are best for patients who want in-depth information and are comfortable with some medical jargon.

Here are the patient education articles that are relevant to this topic. We encourage you to print or e-mail these topics to your patients. (You can also locate patient education articles on a variety of subjects by searching on "patient info" and the keyword(s) of interest.)

Basics topics (see "Patient education: Vaginal birth after a cesarean (The Basics)")

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Success rate – In a general population, at least 60 percent of inductions in patients with one or two prior cesarean births results in a vaginal birth, with the highest chance of success in patients with a prior vaginal birth and favorable cervix. (See 'Likelihood of VBAC' above.)

Risk of rupture – Induced labor appears to be associated with a higher rate of uterine rupture than spontaneous labor, but the absolute difference is low. Inductions in patients with a previous vaginal birth appear to be associated with a lower risk of rupture than in those with no prior vaginal birth. (See 'Risk factors for rupture during induction' above.)

Procedure – Based on the data described above and our own experience, we approach induction in patients who desire a trial of labor after previous cesarean (TOLAC) as follows (see 'Our approach' above):

Counseling – For patients with maternal or fetal indications for induction, we discuss the risks and benefits of induction versus repeat cesarean birth as well as the risks associated with waiting for spontaneous labor in this setting. Such counseling takes into account individual characteristics (eg, chance of vaginal birth after cesarean [VBAC]). (See "Choosing the route of delivery after cesarean birth", section on 'Risks/benefits of TOLAC versus PRCB' and "Choosing the route of delivery after cesarean birth", section on 'Predicting the probability of VBAC'.)

Method

-For patients with a favorable cervix who choose to be induced, we suggest amniotomy and administration of oxytocin rather than oxytocin alone (Grade 2C). (See 'Issues related to use of oxytocin' above and 'Our approach' above.)

-For patients with an unfavorable cervix who choose to be induced, we use mechanical cervical ripening with a balloon catheter followed by oxytocin and amniotomy. (See 'Issues related to use of mechanical methods of cervical ripening' above and 'Issues related to use of oxytocin' above and 'Use of prostaglandins' above.)

-We recommend not using misoprostol in patients with prior cesarean births (Grade 1C). We and other providers in the United States do not use vaginal prostaglandin E2 in this patient population, but it is considered an option in some other countries. (See 'Use of prostaglandins' above.)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT — The editorial staff at UpToDate would like to acknowledge Deborah A Wing, MD, MBA, who contributed to an earlier version of this topic review.

  1. Jozwiak M, Dodd JM. Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; :CD009792.
  2. Kayani SI, Alfirevic Z. Induction of labour with previous caesarean delivery: where do we stand? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 18:636.
  3. Grobman WA, Gilbert S, Landon MB, et al. Outcomes of induction of labor after one prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109:262.
  4. Miller ES, Grobman WA. Obstetric outcomes associated with induction of labor after 2 prior cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213:89.e1.
  5. Palatnik A, Grobman WA. Induction of labor versus expectant management for women with a prior cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212:358.e1.
  6. https://consensus.nih.gov/2010/images/vbac/vbac_statement.pdf (Accessed on September 12, 2016).
  7. Harper LM, Cahill AG, Boslaugh S, et al. Association of induction of labor and uterine rupture in women attempting vaginal birth after cesarean: a survival analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206:51.e1.
  8. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133:e110.
  9. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:2581.
  10. Cahill AG, Waterman BM, Stamilio DM, et al. Higher maximum doses of oxytocin are associated with an unacceptably high risk for uterine rupture in patients attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199:32.e1.
  11. Kehl S, Weiss C, Rath W. Balloon catheters for induction of labor at term after previous cesarean section: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 204:44.
  12. Manish P, Rathore S, Benjamin SJ, et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing 30 mL and 80 mL in Foley catheter for induction of labour after previous Caesarean section. Trop Doct 2016; 46:205.
  13. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC clinical practice guidelines. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous caesarean birth. Number 155 (Replaces guideline Number 147), February 2005. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 89:319.
  14. De Vivo V, Carbone L, Saccone G, et al. Early amniotomy after cervical ripening for induction of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 222:320.
  15. Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, et al. Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. BJOG 2016; 123:1462.
  16. Howarth GR, Botha DJ. Amniotomy plus intravenous oxytocin for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; :CD003250.
  17. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:3.
  18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Use of hospital discharge data to monitor uterine rupture--Massachusetts, 1990-1997. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2000; 49:245.
  19. Macones GA, Peipert J, Nelson DB, et al. Maternal complications with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193:1656.
  20. Chiossi G, D'Amico R, Tramontano AL, et al. Prevalence of uterine rupture among women with one prior low transverse cesarean and women with unscarred uterus undergoing labor induction with PGE2: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0253957.
  21. Wing DA, Lovett K, Paul RH. Disruption of prior uterine incision following misoprostol for labor induction in women with previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91:828.
  22. Sanchez-Ramos L, Gaudier FL, Kaunitz AM. Cervical ripening and labor induction after previous cesarean delivery. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000; 43:513.
  23. Sciscione AC, Nguyen L, Manley JS, et al. Uterine rupture during preinduction cervical ripening with misoprostol in a patient with a previous Caesarean delivery. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 38:96.
  24. Plaut MM, Schwartz ML, Lubarsky SL. Uterine rupture associated with the use of misoprostol in the gravid patient with a previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180:1535.
  25. Aslan H, Unlu E, Agar M, Ceylan Y. Uterine rupture associated with misoprostol labor induction in women with previous cesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004; 113:45.
  26. NICE Guidance. Inducing labour. Clinical guideline CG70. July 2008. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg70/chapter/1-Guidance#ftn.footnote_3 (Accessed on November 03, 2020).
  27. Maggio L, Forbes J, Carey LL, et al. Association of Montevideo units with uterine rupture in women undergoing a trial of labor. J Reprod Med 2014; 59:464.
  28. Grantz KL, Gonzalez-Quintero V, Troendle J, et al. Labor patterns in women attempting vaginal birth after cesarean with normal neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213:226.e1.
  29. Sondgeroth KE, Stout MJ, Graseck AS, et al. Progress of induced labor in trial of labor after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213:420.e1.
Topic 4451 Version 51.0

References

آیا می خواهید مدیلیب را به صفحه اصلی خود اضافه کنید؟