Leeds University Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
BJOG. 2010 Jan;117(1):5-19. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02351.x.
Trial of vaginal birth after Caesarean (VBAC) is considered acceptable after one caesarean section (CS), however, women wishing to have trial after two CS are generally not allowed or counselled appropriately of efficacy and complications.
To perform a systematic review of literature on success rate of vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC-2) and associated adverse maternal and fetal outcomes; and compare with commonly accepted VBAC-1 and the alternative option of repeat third CS (RCS).
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, HMIC Database, Grey Literature Databases (SIGLE, Biomed Central), using search terms Caesarean section, caesarian, Crean, Crian, and MeSH headings 'Vaginal birth after caesarean section', combined with second search string two, twice, second, multiple.
No randomised studies were available, case series or cohort studies were assessed for quality (STROBE), 20/23 available studies included.
Two independent reviewers selected studies and abstracted and tabulated data and pooled estimates were obtained on success rate, uterine rupture and other adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan-5 to compare VBAC-1 versus VBAC-2 and VBAC-2 versus RCS.
VBAC-2 success rate was 71.1%, uterine rupture rate 1.36%, hysterectomy rate 0.55%, blood transfusion 2.01%, neonatal unit admission rate 7.78% and perinatal asphyxial injury/death 0.09%. VBAC-2 versus VBAC-1 success rates were 4064/5666 (71.1%) versus 38 814/50 685 (76.5%) (P < 0.001); associated uterine rupture rate 1.59% versus 0.72% (P < 0.001) and hysterectomy rates were 0.56% versus 0.19% (P = 0.001) respectively. Comparing VBAC-2 versus RCS, the hysterectomy rates were 0.40% versus 0.63% (P = 0.63), transfusion 1.68% versus 1.67% (P = 0.86) and febrile morbidity 6.03% versus 6.39%, respectively (P = 0.27). Maternal morbidity of VBAC-2 was comparable to RCS. Neonatal morbidity data were too limited to draw valid conclusions, however, no significant differences were indicated in VBAC-2, VBAC-1 and RCS groups in NNU admission rates and asphyxial injury/neonatal death rates (Mantel-Haenszel).
Women requesting for a trial of vaginal delivery after two caesarean sections should be counselled appropriately considering available data of success rate 71.1%, uterine rupture rate 1.36% and of a comparative maternal morbidity with repeat CS option.
剖宫产后阴道分娩(VBAC)试验在一次剖宫产(CS)后被认为是可以接受的,然而,通常不允许或适当告知希望在两次 CS 后进行试验的妇女其效果和并发症。
对两次剖宫产(VBAC-2)后的阴道分娩成功率和相关母婴不良结局进行系统评价;并与通常接受的 VBAC-1 和重复第三次 CS(RCS)的替代方案进行比较。
我们使用了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、Cochrane 图书馆、当前对照试验、HMIC 数据库、灰色文献数据库(SIGLE、Biomed Central),使用了剖宫产、剖腹产、剖腹产、剖腹产和 MeSH 标题“剖宫产后阴道分娩”的搜索词,结合第二个搜索字符串两次、两次、第二次、多次。
没有随机研究可用,对病例系列或队列研究进行了质量评估(STROBE),评估了 23 项可用研究中的 20 项。
两名独立评审员选择了研究,并提取和制表了数据,并获得了成功率、子宫破裂和其他母婴不良结局的汇总估计值。使用 RevMan-5 进行了荟萃分析,以比较 VBAC-1 与 VBAC-2 以及 VBAC-2 与 RCS。
VBAC-2 的成功率为 71.1%,子宫破裂率为 1.36%,子宫切除术率为 0.55%,输血率为 2.01%,新生儿病房入院率为 7.78%,围产期窒息性损伤/死亡为 0.09%。VBAC-2 与 VBAC-1 的成功率分别为 4064/5666(71.1%)与 38814/50685(76.5%)(P<0.001);相关的子宫破裂率分别为 1.59%与 0.72%(P<0.001),子宫切除术率分别为 0.56%与 0.19%(P=0.001)。比较 VBAC-2 与 RCS,子宫切除术率分别为 0.40%与 0.63%(P=0.63),输血率分别为 1.68%与 1.67%(P=0.86),发热发病率分别为 6.03%与 6.39%(P=0.27)。VBAC-2 的产妇发病率与 RCS 相当。新生儿发病率数据太少,无法得出有效结论,但 VBAC-2、VBAC-1 和 RCS 组在新生儿病房入院率和窒息性损伤/新生儿死亡率方面没有显著差异(Mantel-Haenszel)。
对于要求进行两次剖宫产试验的妇女,应根据可用的成功率 71.1%、子宫破裂率 1.36%和与重复 CS 选择相比的可比产妇发病率数据,适当告知。