Science News

Predicting Which Cesarean Births Could Cause Uterine Rupture

ScienceDaily (Feb. 1, 2009) — In a study to be presented January 30 at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine's (SMFM) annual meeting, researchers will unveil findings that show that by using a sonogram to measure the lower uterine segment (LUS) thickness, they can predict uterine scar defects in women who had previous cesarean deliveries and anticipate which patients are at risk for subsequent uterine rupture if they have a trial of labor.

The Centers for Disease Control's Web site lists statistics from the National Vital Statistics System that show that there has been a sharp increase in the number of cesarean births. "Preliminary data for 2005 indicate that 30.2% of all live births in the United States were cesarean deliveries, marking the highest U.S. total cesarean rate ever reported. Since 1996, the total cesarean rate has increased by 46%, driven by both an increase in the percentage of all women having a first cesarean and a decline in the percentage of women delivering vaginally after a previous cesarean."

Repeat cesarean deliveries are an obvious concern. "There is a growing concern about the increase in cesarean births because there is a body of evidence showing that they are associated with higher rates of maternal and infant complications," said Emmanuel Bujold, M.D., with the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universite Laval, Quebec. "There are far fewer complications to the mother and infants as a result of a vaginal birth," he continued, "So it is important to determine when a patient with a history of prior cesarean section can have a vaginal birth safely."

The study looked at 236 women who had a prior cesarean delivery. Their LUS thickness was measured between 35 and 38 weeks of gestation. Three cases of complete uterine rupture and six cases of uterine scar dehiscence were reported. Analysis demonstrated significant associations between the risk of uterine rupture during trials of labor and full LUS thickness. The combination of full LUS thickness under 2.3mm and a single-layer muscular closure was significantly associated with uterine rupture (relative risk: 21.8, 95% CI: 2.1-222, p,<0.0001) during labor.

"The study results will help us predict, for patients who have given birth through cesarean section before, which ones are at high risk for uterine rupture during labor in a subsequent pregnancy," said Dr. Bujold. "That will help us better advise women about having a vaginal birth the next time."

These findings add to the evidence initially presented by a study of Rozenberg and colleagues published in the Lancet in 1996 and may allow obstetricians to encourage patients who have a reassuring LUS thickness to have a vaginal delivery.

The study was authored by Nicole Jastro, M.D., Robert J. Gauthier, M.D., Jessica Simoneau, Suzanne Brunet, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Montreal; and Emmanuel Bujold, M.D., Universite Laval Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Quebec.

Email or share this story:
| More

Story Source:

Adapted from materials provided by Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

APA

MLA

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 78,027

Find with keyword(s):
 
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily's archives for related news topics,
the latest news stories, reference articles, science videos, images, and books.

 

Science Video News


Shedding Light on Heart Plaque

So-called vulnerable plaque is the most dangerous type of build-up in the coronary arteries. A new technique, called laser-induced fluorescence. ...  > full story

Breaking News

... from NewsDaily.com

In Other News ...

Copyright Reuters 2008. See Restrictions.

Free Subscriptions

... from ScienceDaily

Get the latest science news with our free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Feedback

... we want to hear from you!

Tell us what you think of the new ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
Post this page to your favorite social bookmarking site:
close
Include this item in your blog or web site:
close
Cite this article in your essay, paper, or report:
close
Email this page's link to a friend or colleague:
close