X-ray Pelvimetry Has No Impact on the Outcomes of Trial of Labor after Cesarean Delivery: A Retrospective Single-center Study.

Q3 Medicine Kobe Journal of Medical Sciences Pub Date : 2024-06-19 DOI:10.24546/0100490211
Maya Komatsu, Yoshitsugu Chigusa, Ryusuke Murakami, Masahito Takakura, Masaki Mandai, Haruta Mogami
{"title":"X-ray Pelvimetry Has No Impact on the Outcomes of Trial of Labor after Cesarean Delivery: A Retrospective Single-center Study.","authors":"Maya Komatsu, Yoshitsugu Chigusa, Ryusuke Murakami, Masahito Takakura, Masaki Mandai, Haruta Mogami","doi":"10.24546/0100490211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Few studies have examined the relationship between pelvic size and the success or failure of trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC). Here we aimed to determine whether pelvic size and morphological data obtained from radiography contribute to the first successful TOLAC. This retrospective single-center observational study enrolled pregnant women who underwent TOLAC between 2010 and 2021. The results of X-ray pelvimetry data, including obstetric conjugate (OC), transverse diameter of the pelvic inlet (TD), anteroposterior diameter of the pelvic inlet (APD), shape of the pelvic inlet, and other obstetrical clinical data, were compared between the success and failure groups. Seventy-five patients in successful group after excluding 35 patients with previous successful TOLAC, and 21 patients in failure group were eligible. The failure group had a higher rate of previous cesarean sections due to failed labor trials (p = 0.042) and heavier newborns (p = 0.014). OC, TD, and APD on X-ray pelvimetry did not differ significantly between the two groups nor did the shape of the pelvic inlet affect the success rate for TOLAC. The generalized linear model identified a history of failed trials of labor as a significant predictor of failed TOLAC (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval 0.071-0.923; p = 0.037), whereas no pelvimetric parameters were found. Pelvic size and morphological findings have no discernible impact on the outcomes of TOLAC. The universal application of X-ray pelvimetry in all women attempting TOLAC may not have significant clinical relevance.</p>","PeriodicalId":39560,"journal":{"name":"Kobe Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":"70 2","pages":"E70-E76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11216657/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kobe Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24546/0100490211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Few studies have examined the relationship between pelvic size and the success or failure of trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC). Here we aimed to determine whether pelvic size and morphological data obtained from radiography contribute to the first successful TOLAC. This retrospective single-center observational study enrolled pregnant women who underwent TOLAC between 2010 and 2021. The results of X-ray pelvimetry data, including obstetric conjugate (OC), transverse diameter of the pelvic inlet (TD), anteroposterior diameter of the pelvic inlet (APD), shape of the pelvic inlet, and other obstetrical clinical data, were compared between the success and failure groups. Seventy-five patients in successful group after excluding 35 patients with previous successful TOLAC, and 21 patients in failure group were eligible. The failure group had a higher rate of previous cesarean sections due to failed labor trials (p = 0.042) and heavier newborns (p = 0.014). OC, TD, and APD on X-ray pelvimetry did not differ significantly between the two groups nor did the shape of the pelvic inlet affect the success rate for TOLAC. The generalized linear model identified a history of failed trials of labor as a significant predictor of failed TOLAC (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval 0.071-0.923; p = 0.037), whereas no pelvimetric parameters were found. Pelvic size and morphological findings have no discernible impact on the outcomes of TOLAC. The universal application of X-ray pelvimetry in all women attempting TOLAC may not have significant clinical relevance.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
X 射线骨盆测量对剖宫产后试产的结果没有影响:一项回顾性单中心研究
很少有研究探讨骨盆大小与剖宫产术后试产(TOLAC)成败之间的关系。在此,我们旨在确定骨盆大小和通过放射摄影获得的形态学数据是否有助于首次 TOLAC 的成功。这项回顾性单中心观察研究招募了2010年至2021年间接受TOLAC的孕妇。在成功组和失败组之间比较了 X 射线骨盆测量数据的结果,包括产科共轭(OC)、骨盆入口横径(TD)、骨盆入口前后径(APD)、骨盆入口形状和其他产科临床数据。成功组有 75 名患者,排除了 35 名曾成功实施过 TOLAC 的患者;失败组有 21 名患者。失败组患者曾因分娩试验失败而进行剖宫产的比例更高(P = 0.042),新生儿体重更大(P = 0.014)。X光骨盆测量的OC、TD和APD在两组之间没有显著差异,骨盆入口的形状也不影响TOLAC的成功率。广义线性模型发现,试产失败史是TOLAC失败的重要预测因素(几率比0.26;95%置信区间0.071-0.923;P = 0.037),而骨盆测量参数未发现任何影响因素。骨盆大小和形态学结果对 TOLAC 的结果没有明显影响。在所有尝试 TOLAC 的女性中普遍应用 X 射线骨盆测量法可能没有显著的临床意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Kobe Journal of Medical Sciences
Kobe Journal of Medical Sciences Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Liver Fibrosis Using Shear Wave Elastography after Surgery for Congenital Biliary Dilatation. Role of a Home-visit Nursing Agency in Supporting Patients with Heart Failure on Continuous Catecholamine Infusion: A Case Series Study. A Japanese Case of Food Protein-induced Enterocolitis Syndrome Caused by Multiple Seafoods. Comparison over Time of Adverse Drug Reactions in Diabetes Patients Treated with Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors. Difficulty in Removing a Ureteral Stent post Childbirth due to Encrustation: A Case Report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1