A comparative study for feto-maternal outcome of trial of labour after caesarean: spontaneous versus induction

IF 0.6 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Perinatal Education Pub Date : 2023-08-01 DOI:10.59215/prn.23.0312007
Antima Singh, R. Mahendru, Shivani, V. Sangwan, Pinkey Lakra, M. Upadhyay
{"title":"A comparative study for feto-maternal outcome of trial of labour after caesarean: spontaneous versus induction","authors":"Antima Singh, R. Mahendru, Shivani, V. Sangwan, Pinkey Lakra, M. Upadhyay","doi":"10.59215/prn.23.0312007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the foeto-maternal outcome of trial of labour after previous one lower segment caesarean section in spontaneous and induced labour and to ascertain the success rate of VBAC.(Vaginal birth after cesarean section) Methods It was a prospective study conducted from May2019-November2020.The pregnant women admitted in BPSGMC (BPS Government Medical College), labour ward who had previous one caesarean section undergoing trial of labour after either spontaneous onset or induction of labour, were included in the study. Results Total patients were 130, [65 each, in group I(spontaneous) and group II (induced)]. Successful TOLAC (Trial of labour after cesarean section) happened in 80% in spontaneous labour (gp I) patients and 66.2 % women in induced patients (group II), (p value-0.075). There was no significant difference in age, parity and gestational age (p value >0.05), APGAR score and NICU (Neonatal intensive care unit) admissions in both spontaneous labour(gp I) and induced patients (gp II). There incidence of fetal distress was not statistically significant in spontaneous (group I) and induced patients (group II), (p value-0.744). Indication of primary LSCS (Lower segment cesarean section) showed no significant effect on outcome of TOLAC in spontaneous and induced group patients. History of prior vaginal delivery had more chances of VBAC. Hospital stay and PPH was more in induced patients(group II). The dfference of scar dehiscence in group I(spontaneous) and II (induced) were not statistically significant (p value=0.721). There were no cases of scar rupture in both the groups. Conclusion Induction of labour and spontaneous labour both have almost similar VBAC success rates. Also with fewer scar dehiscence and no rupture, IOL (Induction of labour) is a good option in previous one cesarean patients.","PeriodicalId":46449,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perinatal Education","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perinatal Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59215/prn.23.0312007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the foeto-maternal outcome of trial of labour after previous one lower segment caesarean section in spontaneous and induced labour and to ascertain the success rate of VBAC.(Vaginal birth after cesarean section) Methods It was a prospective study conducted from May2019-November2020.The pregnant women admitted in BPSGMC (BPS Government Medical College), labour ward who had previous one caesarean section undergoing trial of labour after either spontaneous onset or induction of labour, were included in the study. Results Total patients were 130, [65 each, in group I(spontaneous) and group II (induced)]. Successful TOLAC (Trial of labour after cesarean section) happened in 80% in spontaneous labour (gp I) patients and 66.2 % women in induced patients (group II), (p value-0.075). There was no significant difference in age, parity and gestational age (p value >0.05), APGAR score and NICU (Neonatal intensive care unit) admissions in both spontaneous labour(gp I) and induced patients (gp II). There incidence of fetal distress was not statistically significant in spontaneous (group I) and induced patients (group II), (p value-0.744). Indication of primary LSCS (Lower segment cesarean section) showed no significant effect on outcome of TOLAC in spontaneous and induced group patients. History of prior vaginal delivery had more chances of VBAC. Hospital stay and PPH was more in induced patients(group II). The dfference of scar dehiscence in group I(spontaneous) and II (induced) were not statistically significant (p value=0.721). There were no cases of scar rupture in both the groups. Conclusion Induction of labour and spontaneous labour both have almost similar VBAC success rates. Also with fewer scar dehiscence and no rupture, IOL (Induction of labour) is a good option in previous one cesarean patients.
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
剖宫产后分娩试验胎母结局的比较研究:自然分娩与引产
目的比较顺产和引产前1次下段剖宫产后试产的胎母结局,探讨VBAC的成功率。方法前瞻性研究于2019年5月- 2020年11月进行。本研究纳入了在BPSGMC (BPS政府医学院)产房接受过一次剖腹产手术的孕妇,这些孕妇在自然分娩或引产后进行了试产。结果患者130例,自发组65例,诱导组65例。剖宫产后试产(TOLAC)成功率在自然分娩组(gp I)中为80%,在引产组(II组)中为66.2%,差异有统计学意义(p值0.075)。顺产组(gp I)与引产组(gp II)在年龄、胎次、胎龄、APGAR评分、新生儿重症监护病房入院率方面差异均无统计学意义(p值0.05),顺产组(I组)与引产组(II组)胎儿窘迫发生率差异均无统计学意义(p值0.744)。自发性组和诱导组的适应症中,原发性LSCS(下段剖宫产)对TOLAC的预后无显著影响。有阴道分娩史者发生VBAC的可能性较大。诱导组(II组)患者住院时间和PPH均高于诱导组(II组),自发组(I组)与诱导组(II组)瘢痕开裂差异无统计学意义(p值=0.721)。两组均无瘢痕破裂病例。结论引产和自然分娩的VBAC成功率相近。此外,由于瘢痕开裂少,无破裂,IOL(引产)是既往剖宫产患者的良好选择。
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
Journal of Perinatal Education
Journal of Perinatal Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: The Journal of Perinatal Education (JPE) is the leading peer-reviewed journal specifically for childbirth educators. Through evidence-based articles, the JPE advances the knowledge of aspiring and seasoned educators in any setting-independent or private practice, community, hospital, nursing or midwifery school-and informs educators and other health care professionals on research that will improve their practice and their efforts to support natural, safe, and healthy birth. The JPE also publishes features that provide practical resources and advice health care professionals can use to enhance the quality and effectiveness of their care or teaching to prepare expectant parents for birth. The journal''s content focuses on pregnancy, childbirth, the postpartum period, breastfeeding, neonatal care, early parenting, and young family development. In addition to childbirth educators, the JPE''s readers include nurses, midwives, physicians, and other professionals involved with perinatal education and maternal-child health care.
期刊最新文献
A 62-Year-Old Organization Battling the Maternal Health Crisis: The Lamaze of Today. Improving Online Childbirth Education: A Role for Active Learning. Strategies to Integrate Content on Consensual Nonmonogamy and the Transition to Parenthood Into Perinatal Education Practice. The Effect of Spinning Babies® Education on Confidence in Implementing Techniques and Knowledge Regarding Safety Related to Labor Positioning Among Birth Professionals. The Philosophy That Enables the Return to Our Essence in Breastfeeding: HypnoBreastfeeding.
×
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