Skip to main content
Download PDF

Trial of labour versus elective caesarean delivery for estimated large for gestational age foetuses after prior caesarean delivery: a multicenter retrospective study

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 23, Article number: 388 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Lower rates of successful trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) in association with fetal macrosomia were previously reported. This study aimed to compare TOLAC to elective caesarean delivery (CD) in women with estimated fetal weight large for gestational age (eLGA) and a prior CD. Primary outcome was to analyse the mode of delivery in case of TOLAC. Secondary outcome was to compare maternal and foetal morbidity.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, descriptive, multicentric, cohort study in five maternity units between January and December 2020. Inclusion criteria were: women with a single prior CD and eLGA or neonatal weight > 90th percentile with singleton pregnancy and gestational age ≥ 37 weeks. Main outcome measures: rate of vaginal delivery, maternal and fetal morbidity including: shoulder dystocia, neonatal hospitalization, fetal trauma, neonatal acidosis, uterine rupture, 3rd and 4th perineal tears, post-partum hemorrhage, and a need for blood transfusion.

Results

Four hundred forty women met inclusion criteria, including 235 (53.4%) eLGA. 170 (72.3%) had a TOLAC (study group) and 65 (27.7%) an elective CD (control). 117 (68.82%) TOLAC had a vaginal delivery. No significant differences were found between the two groups in the rates of: postpartum haemorrhage, transfusion, Apgar score, neonatal hospitalization, and foetal trauma. Cord lactate was higher in the case of TOLAC (3.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Median fetal weight was 3815 g (3597–4085) vs. 3865 g (3659–4168): p = 0.068 in the study vs. controls group respectively.

Conclusion

TOLAC for eLGA fetuses is legitimate because there is no difference in maternal–fetal morbidity, and the CD rate is acceptable.

Peer Review reports

Background

Macrosomia is classically defined as a birth weight greater than 4000 g at term. Currently, a foetus is considered macrosomic when its weight is greater than the 90th percentile for gestational age according to reference curves for a given population [1,2,3,4]. The incidence of macrosomia ranges from 5 to 10% [1,2,3,4]. In France, according to the 2021 National Perinatal Survey, the rate of suspected foetal macrosomia is estimated to be 8,7% [5]. Obstetricians are increasingly dealing with the delivery of suspected macrosomic foetuses. Weiner et al. noted that the caesarean delivery (CD) rate is doubled when macrosomia is suspected before delivery [6].

The 2021 French National Perinatal Survey found a proportion of multiparous women with a history of CD of 20.7%. Trial of labour after caesarean deliveries (TOLAC) is attempted in 68.9% of patients, 73.3% of whom actually give birth vaginally. Previous studies have found that the risk of CD in case of macrosomia was increased [7,8,9] but there are few recent publications [10, 11]. The CD rate has been stable since 2010 in France. It was evaluated at 21.4% according to the 2021 Perinatal Survey. In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended a percentage of CD between 10 and 15% based on the fact that CD was effective in reducing maternal and foetal mortality but only when medically justified. CD rates above 10% were not associated with a reduction in maternal and neonatal mortality rates.

The latest French recommendations for the scarred uterus were established by the Collège National des Gynécologues Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) in 2012. They report an increased failure rate of vaginal delivery attempt and a doubled risk of uterine rupture in case of macrosomia. However, due to an estimated success rate of over 60% in this situation, the recommendations allow a vaginal delivery attempt for an estimated foetal weight up to 4500 g.

The question the obstetrician faces is whether to accept a TOLAC or to schedule a CD in case of eLGA and a scarred uterus. Literature regarding the preferred mode of delivery in this situation is scarce.

Because of the independent increase in the risk of CD in cases of macrosomia and a scarred uterus, it appears interesting to analyse the mode of delivery of patients with a scarred uterus and estimated foetal weight large for gestational age (eLGA) as well as the associated maternal-foetal morbidity [7, 12]. This study aimed to compare maternal and neonatal morbidity of TOLAC to an elective CD in women with eLGA and a prior caesarean delivery. The secondary purpose was to identify risk factors for failed TOLAC in case of eLGA.

Material and methods

A retrospective, descriptive, multicentric, cohort study was conducted in five maternity units (three tertiary care centers and two level II centers) between January and December 2020. All women with a scarred uterus and eLGA or neonatal weight > 90th percentile were included. Inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancy, and gestational age > 37 weeks for delivery. Women with a history of multi-scar uterus, non-cephalic presentation, multiple pregnancy, intrauterine foetal demise, or maternal contra indication for TOLAC, uterine scars other than caesarean section (uterine surgery), and corporeal incisions were excluded. 

eLGA was suspected by sonography which was performed between 36 and 41 weeks. Estimation of foetal weight was calculated using the Hadlock equation (head circumference, femur length and abdominal circumference). Suspected large estimation of foetal weight was defined as a foetal weight above the 90th percentile using the « Collège Français d’Echographie Fœtale» (CFEF) curves [13].

TOLAC was accepted in case of estimated foetal weight < 4500 g in accordance with the French recommendation of the CNGOF. Failure to progress was decided after 3 h at the same dilatation (with active management defined as uterine contractions and membrane rupture) in the active phase of labour. In the case of labour induction, cervical ripening was achieved by a Foley catheter or a Cook balloon.

Indication of elective CD was rejection of TOLAC by the patient or an unfavorable cervix with a medical decision not to attempt a TOLAC.

The primary outcome was the mode of delivery in case of TOLAC. Secondary outcomes were maternal and foetal morbidity including shoulder dystocia, neonatal hospitalization, foetal trauma, neonatal acidosis, uterine rupture, 3rd and 4th perineal tears, post-partum haemorrhage, and a need for blood transfusion. This was not a composite criterion. These data were obtained from the patients' pregnancy and delivery records.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables are presented as median + interquartile range (IQR) and were compared using an independent T-test or Mann–Whitney test. Categorical variables are presented as n (%) and were compared using a Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test. Variables associated with p values lower than 0.20 were included in a multiple stepwise regression with forward—backward method. The ability of the multiple logistic regression models to allow discrimination was quantified by the area under the ROC curve (AUC). P value < 0.05 was considered as significant. All analyses were performed using SAS software (version9.4; SAS Institute, Carry, NC).

The study protocol was approved by the « Foch hospital ethical committee», Suresnes, France (1/4/2021). Protocol number: IRB00012437. Because of the retrospective nature of the study, a non-opposed consent was obtained from patients. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Results

There were 17,675 births total in the five centers during the year 2020. 440 women met the inclusion criteria; the global caesarean section rate was 45.2% [40.6 – 49.9] (Fig. 1: Flow chart). During the study period, the rate of CD in the five centers were respectively 19; 20.7, 22, 22 and 25.8% (all births included).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart

Full size image

Two hundred and thirty five patients (53.4%) had eLGA: 170 (72.3%) had a TOLAC (study group) and 65 (27.7%) an elective CD (control). The main indication of the prior CD in the study group were cardio-tocographic (CTG) abnormality (68.82%) and stagnation (16.47%). In the control group, the main indications were stagnation (75.38%) and CTG abnormality (21.54%). The women’s characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Patients characteristics
Full size table

One hundred and seventeen (68.82%) women with a TOLAC and eLGA had a vaginal delivery (vaginal birth after caesarean: VBAC). No significant differences between the two groups were found in the rate of uterine rupture, postpartum haemorrhage, transfusion, Apgar score, neonatal hospitalization, and foetal trauma. Cord lactate was higher in the case of TOLAC (3.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Estimated foetal weight above 4000 g was more frequent in the elective C-section group (p = 0.011) but there was no significant difference concerning birthweight between the two groups (p = 0.068) (Table 2).

Table 2 Comparison of Maternal and Perinatal Outcome between elective caesarean section and TOLAC in case of eLGA
Full size table

Patients who had a successful VBAC were significantly taller (1.65 vs 1.63 m p = 0.01), had a smaller fundal height (33 vs 34 cm p = 0.04) and had had a prior vaginal delivery (p < 0.001). The main indication for CD was a failure of progress (75.3%). In multivariate analysis including prior vaginal delivery, fundal height, parity and gestational age, the predictive factors for failed TOLAC were fundal height > 34 cm and no prior vaginal delivery (Fig. 2: Receiver operative characteristics (ROC) curve for predicting vaginal birth after caesarean section in case of eLGA. AUC = 0.611).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Receiver operative characteristics (ROC) curve for predicting vaginal birth after caesarean section in case of eLGA. AUC = 0.611

Full size image

The rate of operative vaginal delivery was 20% with a failure rate of 8.8% (indicating a CD).

There was no significant difference in the rate of successful delivery whether or not macrosomia was suspected (68.8 vs 68.2% p = 0.9).

Discussion

This study showed that 69% of women with eLGA who underwent a TOLAC had a vaginal delivery. Such figures remain consistent with known data about trial of labour after a caesarean section (CS) [14, 15]. According to a 2023 nationwide register-based cohort study in Finland, the rate for VBAC was 67% [16]. But it varies from country to country: 39 to 70% in the United States [17].

With respect to the complications in the case of TOLAC versus an elective CS, no differences were highlighted in case of eLGA. The usual complications of TOLAC, which are notably uterine rupture, hysterectomy, low APGAR score, foetal trauma, and neonatal hospitalization [18,19,20,21,22,23], were not more frequent in case of eLGA in a recent retrospective study except for the rate of post-partum haemorrhage [24].

Thus, there were no hysterectomies or transfusions among the patients in this study, compared with a rate of hysterectomy of 0.2%, and a rate of transfusion of 1.7% in the Rossi meta-analysis [25].

However, three of the 352 patients who underwent a TOLAC (0.85%) had a uterine rupture while the rate was 0.6% in the Chauhan meta-analysis with 142,075 patients with undefined estimated foetal weight [26]. The three cases of uterine rupture concerned unsuspected macrosomic infants. This could mean that the obstetrical team was more careful in case of eLGA.

In our study, there was no significant difference regarding the mode of delivery between actual macrosomia and eLGA in case of ‘real’ LGA. Unlike Weiner et al. [5], eLGA does not appear as a risk factor for CD in our study.

Furthermore, as identified in the Vikhareva study, the main indication for CD after TOLAC was the failure of progression of labor [27].

The odds of TOLAC were affected by previous vaginal delivery, maternal height, and fundal height in the univariate analysis. Numerous studies confirm the notion of previous vaginal delivery as a positive predictive factor as shown in the Wu meta-analysis [28]. The fundal height is analysed as a negative predictive factor in other studies such as the Iglesias-Benavides study [29]. In contrast, maternal height is not a frequently reported predictive factor: no difference in height is noted in the Levin study between successful and failed TOLAC [30], while Grobman’s results are consistent with this study [31].

Conclusion

In case of eLGA, TOLAC is a safe option since there is no difference in maternal-foetal morbidity. The CD rate is reasonable.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

CD:

Caesarean delivery

TOLAC:

Trial of labour after caesarean delivery

WHO:

World health organization

eLGA:

Estimated foetal weight large for gestational age

CFEF:

Collège Français d’échographie foetale

CNGOF:

Collège national des gynécologues obstétriciens français

IQR:

Interquartile range

ROC:

Receiver operative characteristics

AUC:

Area under curve

References

  1. Lepercq J, Timsit J, Hauguel-de Mouzon S. Étiopathogénie de la macrosomie fœtale. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod. 2000;1089(1):9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang X, Decker A, Platt RW, Kramer MS. How big is too big? The perinatal consequences of fetal macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):517.e1-517.e6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chauhan SP, Rice MM, Grobman WA, Bailit J, Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, et al. Neonatal Morbidity of Small- and Large-for-Gestational-Age Neonates Born at Term in Uncomplicated Pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(3):5119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Turkmen S, Johansson S, Dahmoun M. Foetal Macrosomia and Foetal-Maternal Outcomes at Birth. J Pregnancy. 2018;8(2018):4790136.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Santé publique France. Enquête nationale périnatale 2021 : https://www.santepubliquefrance.fr/etudes-et-enquetes/enquete-nationale-perinatale-2021. Accessed 6 Oct 2022.

  6. Weiner Z, Ben-Shlomo I, Beck-Fruchter R, Goldberg Y, Shalev E. Clinical and ultrasonographic weight estimation in large for gestational age fetus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;105(1):204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Onwude JL, Rao S, Selo-Ojeme DO. Large babies and unplanned Caesarean delivery. 2005. p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Flamm B, Goings J. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: is suspected fetal macrosomia a contraindication? Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1990;32(2):191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Peaceman AM, Gersnoviez R, Landon MB, Spong CY, Leveno KJ, Varner MW, et al. The MFMU Cesarean Registry: Impact of fetal size on trial of labor success for patients with previous cesarean for dystocia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(4):1127–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Modzelewski J, Pokropek A, Jakubiak-Proć M, Muzyka-Placzyńska K, Filipecka-Tyczka D, Kajdy A, et al. Large-for-gestational-age or macrosomia as a classifier for risk of adverse perinatal outcome: a retrospective cross-sectional study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2021;1:8.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Macrosomia: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 216. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(1):e18-e35.

  12. Trojano G, Damiani GR, Olivieri C, Villa M, Malvasi A, Alfonso R, et al. VBAC: antenatal predictors of success. Acta Bio Medica Atenei Parm. 2019;90(3):300–9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Massoud M, Duyme M, Fontanges M, Combourieu D. Courbe d’estimation de poids fœtal 2014 par le Collège français d’échographie fœtale (CFEF). J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod. 2016;45(1):80–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cheng YW, Eden KB, Marshall N, Pereira L, Caughey AB, Guise JM. Delivery after prior cesarean: maternal morbidity and mortality. Clin Perinatol. 2011;38(2):297–309.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Vercoustre L, Roman H. Essai de travail en cas de césarienne antérieure. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod. 2006;35(1):35–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vaajala M, Liukkonen R, Ponkilainen V, Kekki M, Mattila VM, Kuitunen I. The rates of vaginal births after cesarean section have increased during the last decades: a nationwide register-based cohort study in Finland. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023;308(1):157–62.

  17. Uddin SF, Simon AE. Rates and success rates of trial of labor after cesarean delivery in the United States, 1990–2009. Matern Child Health J. 2013;17(7):1309–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Beucher G, Dolley P, Lévy-Thissier S, Florian A, Dreyfus M. Bénéfices et risques maternels de la tentative de voie basse comparée à la césarienne programmée en cas d’antécédent de césarienne. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod. 2012;41(8):708–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. C Suresh S, Dude A. Neonatal outcomes in trial of vaginal birth versus repeat caesarean delivery in preterm pregnancies: a prospective cohort study. BJOG. 2022;129(8):1319–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Studsgaard A, Skorstengaard M, Glavind J, Hvidman L, Uldbjerg N. Trial of labor compared to repeat cesarean section in women with no other risk factors than a prior cesarean delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(11):1256–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(1):3–8.

  22. Takeya A, Adachi E, Takahashi Y, Kondoh E, Mandai M, Nakayama T. Trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) in Japan: rates and complications. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020;301(4):995–1001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Macones GA, Peipert J, Nelson DB, Odibo A, Stevens EJ, Stamilio DM, Pare E, Elovitz M, Sciscione A, Sammel MD, Ratcliffe SJ. Maternal complications with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(5):1656–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mohr-Sasson A, Bercovich O, Goichberg Z, Watad H, Salim K, Mazaki-Tovi S, ... , Hendler I. Trial of labor after Cesarean delivery for estimated large for gestational age fetuses: a retrospective cohort study. 2020. Authorea Preprints.

  25. Rossi AC, D’Addario V. Maternal morbidity following a trial of labor after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(3):224–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chauhan SP, Martin JN, Henrichs CE, Morrison JC, Magann EF. Maternal and perinatal complications with uterine rupture in 142,075 patients who attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a review of the literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(2):40817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vikhareva O, Nedopekina E, Kristensen K, Dahlbäck C, Pihlsgård M, Rickle GS, et al. Strategies to increase the rate of vaginal deliveries after cesarean without negative impact on outcomes. Midwifery. 2022;106:103247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wu Y, Kataria Y, Wang Z, Ming WK, Ellervik C. Factors associated with successful vaginal birth after a cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):360.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Iglesias-Benavides JL, Cedeño-Morales VM, Guerrero-González G, Guzmán-López A. Labor trials in 300 patients with a previous cesarean section. Medicina Universitaria. 2017;19(77):166–69.

  30. Levin G, Meyer R, Mor N, Yagel S, David M, Yinon Y, et al. Trial of labor after cesarean in adolescents – a multicenter study. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020;33(4):398–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Grobman WA, Sandoval G, Rice MM, Bailit JL, Chauhan SP, Costantine MM, et al. Prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in term gestations: a calculator without race and ethnicity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225(6):664.e1-664.e7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank to all the participants and researchers involved in this study.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Foch Hospital, 92150, Suresnes, France

    Matthieu Chamagne, Maêva Bôle Richard, Diane Garcia & Jean Marc Ayoubi

  2. Department of Clinical Research and Innovation, Foch Hospital, 92150, Suresnes, France

    Alexandre Vallee

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Hôpital Archet II, Pôle “Femme-Mère-Enfant’’, Nice, France

    Jellila Tahiri

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, André Grégoire Hospital, 93100, Montreuil, France

    Bruno Renevier

  5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mercy Hospital, 57530, Ars-Laquenexy, France

    Sandra Dahlhoff

  6. Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, DMU Santé Des Femmes Et Des Nouveau-Nés, Antoine Béclère Hospital, Paris Saclay University, AP-HP, 92140, Clamart, France

    Alexandre Vivanti

Authors
  1. Matthieu Chamagne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maêva Bôle Richard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexandre Vallee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jellila Tahiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bruno Renevier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sandra Dahlhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Diane Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alexandre Vivanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jean Marc Ayoubi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.C and M.BR wrote the main manuscript text. A.Vallee and A.Vivanti contributed to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data. All authors reviewed and provided feedback on the draft paper. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthieu Chamagne.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by the « Foch hospital ethical committee», Suresnes, France (1/4/2021). Protocol number: IRB00012437. Because of the retrospective nature of the study, a non-opposed consent was obtained from patients. This non-opposed consent was also approved by the « Foch hospital ethical committee», Suresnes, France (1/4/2021). All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chamagne, M., Richard, M.B., Vallee, A. et al. Trial of labour versus elective caesarean delivery for estimated large for gestational age foetuses after prior caesarean delivery: a multicenter retrospective study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 23, 388 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05688-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05688-1

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us