Skip to main content
Download PDF

Short stature and vaginal dinoprostone as independent predictors of composite maternal-newborn adverse outcomes in induction of labor after one previous cesarean: a retrospective cohort study

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 24, Article number: 455 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The rates of labor induction and cesarean delivery is rising worldwide. With the confluence of these trends, the labor induction rate in trials of labor after cesarean can be as high as 27-32.7%. Induction of labor after one previous cesarean (IOLAC) is a high-risk procedure mainly due to the higher risk of uterine rupture. Nevertheless, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists considers IOLAC as an option in motivated and informed women in the appropriate care setting. We sought to identify predictors of a composite of maternal and newborn adverse outcomes following IOLAC.

Methods

The electronic medical records of women who delivered between January 2018 to September 2022 in a Malaysian university hospital were screened to identify cases of IOLAC. A case is classified as a composite adverse outcome if at least one of these 11 adverse outcomes of delivery blood loss ≥ 1000 ml, uterine scar complications, cord prolapse or presentation, placenta abruption, maternal fever (≥ 38 0C), chorioamnionitis, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, Apgar score < 7 at 5 min, umbilical artery cord artery blood pH < 7.1 or base excess ≤-12 mmol/l, and neonatal ICU admission was present. An unplanned cesarean delivery was not considered an adverse outcome as the practical management alternative for a clinically indicated IOLAC was a planned cesarean. Bivariate analysis of participants’ characteristics was performed to identify predictors of their association with composite adverse outcome. Characteristics with crude p < 0.10 on bivariate analysis were incorporated into a multivariable binary logistic regression analysis model.

Results

Electronic medical records of 19,064 women were screened. 819 IOLAC cases and 98 cases with composite adverse outcomes were identified. Maternal height, ethnicity, previous vaginal delivery, indication of previous cesarean, indication for IOLAC, and method of IOLAC had p < 0.10 on bivariate analysis and were incorporated into a multivariable binary logistic regression analysis. After adjustment, only maternal height and IOLAC by vaginal dinoprostone compared to Foley balloon remained significant at p < 0.05. Post hoc adjusted analysis that included all unplanned cesarean as an added qualifier for composite adverse outcome showed higher body mass index, short stature (< 157 cm), not of Chinese ethnicity, no prior vaginal delivery, prior cesarean indicated by labor dystocia, and less favorable Bishop score (< 6) were independent predictors of the expanded composite adverse outcome.

Conclusion

Shorter women and IOLAC by vaginal dinoprostone compared to Foley balloon were independently predictive of composite of adverse outcome.

Synopsis

Shorter stature and dinoprostone labor induction are independent predictors of a composite maternal-newborn adverse outcome excluding unplanned cesarean delivery.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Data on the cesarean rate from 154 countries from 1990 to 2018 shows that the global cesarean delivery rate is rising in all regions, with the greatest increase of 44.9% in Eastern Asia [1]. National Health Service (NHS) England maternity statistics data shows induction of labor (IOL) rates have also increased, from 18.3% in 1989-90 to 34.4% by 2020 − 21 [2]. With the confluence of these trends, the IOL rate in trials of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) can be as high as 27-32.7% [3, 4].

Induction of labor after one previous cesarean (IOLAC) is a high-risk procedure mainly due to the higher risk of uterine rupture; the scar rupture rate is as high as 2.5% with the use of prostaglandins compared to a rate of 0.5% with spontaneous onset of labor and of 0.2% without a trial of labor [5]. Nevertheless, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) considers IOLAC as an option in motivated and informed women in the appropriate care setting [6].

Findings of recent trials show that the unplanned cesarean rate can be as high as 59% [7] to 69% [8] after IOLAC. The adverse outcomes associated with TOLAC, and more so IOLAC, is an area of concern.

Several factors have been widely reported in the literature for having higher risk of morbidity following TOLAC. Among these are previous uterine rupture [9,10,11,12,13,14], myomectomy involving entry into the endometrial cavity [15, 16], inter-delivery interval < 16 months [17,18,19,20], grandmultiparity [21,22,23,24,25,26,27], labor induction especially with prostaglandins [5, 28,29,30,31,32], and labor dystocia [33,34,35,36]. Oxytocin use during TOLAC was not associated with worse maternal or neonatal outcomes in patients that had uterine rupture [37]. Risk calculators have been developed to predict uterine rupture in TOLAC however none are clinically reliable at present [38]. Studies specifically addressing IOLAC are sparse.

We aim to describe a contemporary cohort of women who underwent IOLAC and to identify independent risk factors for the occurrence of a composite of adverse maternal-newborn outcomes. Identifying these factors that exclude the unplanned but otherwise uncomplicated caesarean from consideration could assist in the counseling of women who are especially motivated to achieve VBAC. The results could also inform care providers on the selection of women for IOLAC and on the method to induce labor. The findings should enhance patient-provider shared decision making to undertake IOLAC.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective cohort study. All women who delivered at University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) from January 1, 2018 to September 30, 2022 had their electronic medical record (hospital chart) individually reviewed by investigator SBB to identify cases of IOLAC. IOLAC cases had their data retrieved and transferred onto a Case Report Form. Electronic medical records of IOLAC cases with incomplete information on the required study data are excluded. This study was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC-MREC) on February 8, 2022 (reference number 202,215 − 10,901). Individual consent was not required by the review board.

UMMC is a tertiary, state-funded, full-services hospital, with care provided free-of-charge or heavily subsidised. Our center is located in urban Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, a middle-income and multi-ethnic Asian country. We have a delivery rate of 4–5 thousand births a year with cesarean delivery rate of 35–40% and labor induction rate of 25–30%.

In our center, if the membrane is intact and the cervix unfavourable (Bishop score ≤5), cervical ripening is predominantly by the use of the Foley balloon that is left in place for up to 24 h from insertion. The vaginal 3 mg dinoprostone tablet is sometimes used depending on the provider; with a maximum daily dose of 6 mg (two doses, at least six hours apart). If a favorable cervix has not been achieved a third dose may be inserted the following day, after discussion with the patient. With spontaneous membrane rupture and an unfavourable cervix, titrated oxytocin infusion or vaginal dinoprostone tablet is used. The oxytocin infusion solution is prepared by diluting 10 units of oxytocin in 500 ml Hartmann’s solution (oxytocin concentration of 20 milliunits/ml) The infusion rate is started at 2 milliunits/hour and the rate doubled every half an hour until a contraction rate of 3 to 4 every 10 min is achieved, after which the infusion rate is maintained to sustain an optimal contraction rate of 3 to 4 moderate to strong contractions at each 10 min interval. Our maximum oxytocin infusion rate is 16 milliunits/hour in women with a previous cesarean delivery. In the event of uterine tachysystole, hypertonus or hyperstimulation syndrome with associated concerning fetal heart rate, the infusion rate will be reduced or even stopped. In our center, the concurrent use of Foley balloon, dinoprostone, or oxytocin for IOL is not standard care and rarely done. Oxytocin to initiate or augment contractions is typically only started after rupture of membranes.

The inclusion criteria were one previous cesarean section, underwent IOL, term (≥ 37 weeks), singleton, live, and cephalic fetus at induction, and maternal age ≥ 18 years. In our center, a repeat cesarean was recommended for women with two or more previous cesareans.

The retrieved data of IOLAC cases was transcribed onto a Case Report Form. The Case Report Form’s data selection were guided by known predictors of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) [39] after a trial of labor (typically after spontaneous labor). Short maternal stature was defined as height of less than 157 cm, the median height for our population. The selected adverse maternal outcomes for the composite, were delivery blood loss ≥ 1000 ml [40], intensive care unit admission, uterine scar rupture and dehiscence, hysterectomy, umbilical cord prolapse, fever, chorioamnionitis, placental abruption and neonatal outcomes of admission to neonatal intensive care unit and the indication for admission, cord artery blood pH and base excess, and Apgar score at 5 min. These outcomes were systematically retrieved, verified and abstracted onto the Case Report Forms.

As planned cesarean delivery was the logical alternative to a medically indicated IOLAC [41], arguably a straightforward, albeit unplanned cesarean delivery without complication need not be considered as an adverse event. In this study, cases of unplanned cesarean delivery were excluded from the composite of adverse maternal–newborn outcomes if they did not also have at least one other adverse outcome already included in the composite.

Our target sample size was justified thus: trials have reported an unplanned cesarean rate of 50–60% after Foley balloon IOLAC [7, 8]. We presumed a smaller 12.5% composite adverse outcome rate that excluded uncomplicated cesareans. We anticipated 10 independent variables for the multivariable binary logistic regression analysis. To fulfil the 10 events per variable rule [42, 43], we would need at least 100 composite adverse outcome cases which could be expected to be found in 100/0.125 = 800 IOLAC cases.

Data were entered into SPSS (Version 26, IBM, SPSS Statistics). To identify independent predictors of the composite of adverse outcomes, bivariate analyses using the t-test was used to compare means of normally distributed continuous data, the Mann-Whitney U test for ordinal, or non-normally distributed data and Chi-square test for categorical data, dichotomized to composite adverse outcome present or absent. Variables with p < 0.10 on bivariate analysis were then included for multivariable binary logistic regression analysis to identify independent risk factors. For the adjusted analyses, 2-sided p < 0.05 was taken as a level of significance.

Results

Figure 1 depicts the flow through the study. From January 1, 2018 to September 30, 2022, 19,064 deliveries were recorded in our center. 819 women who had IOLAC were identified, of whom 98 had at least one adverse outcome in the composite list.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart for a retrospective study on independent predictors of composite adverse outcome (excluding unplanned cesarean) following induction of labor after one cesarean

Full size image

Table 1 shows the characteristics for the entire study population of 819 IOLAC cases. Basic demographics, selected obstetric history, and obstetric information on the index IOLAC pregnancy are shown.

Table 1 Characteristics of women who had induction of labor after one previous cesarean
Full size table

Table 2 illustrates the incidence of maternal-newborn outcomes. There were 463/819 (56.5%) unplanned cesarean after IOLAC, with 391/463 (84.4%) of them without any of the 11 selected adverse outcomes within the composite. Postpartum hemorrhage (≥ 1000 ml) [40] occurred in 39/819 (4.8%), cord accidents in 3/819 (0.37%), maternal admission to the intensive care unit in 4/819 (0.5%), uterine scar complications in 4/819 (0.5%) of which 2/819 (0.2%) were full thickness scar rupture, hysterectomy in 2/819 (0.24%), Apgar score at 5 min < 7 in 3/819 (0.4%), cord arterial blood pH < 7.1 in 20/819 (2.4%), base excess ≤ -12 in 16/819 (2.0%), and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit in 32/819 (3.9%), mostly for respiratory distress due to transient tachypnoea of the newborn (14/32, 43.8%), presumed sepsis (8/32, 25.0%), and congenital pneumonia (6/32, 18.8%). There was a solitary newborn who had hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.

Table 2 Adverse outcomes following induction of labor after one previous cesarean
Full size table

Table 3 lists the variables for bivariate analysis. Five of these variables, maternal height, previous vaginal delivery, indication of previous cesarean, indication of IOLAC and method of IOLAC emerged with bivariate analysis p < 0.1. After adjusted analysis, two independent predictors of composite adverse outcomes remained (significance level set at p < 0.05), namely height < 157 cm and IOLAC by vaginal dinoprostone compared to Foley balloon.

Table 3 Risk factors for composite adverse maternal-newborn outcomes following induction of labor after one previous cesarean (IOLAC) on bivariate and after multivariable binary logistic regression analysis
Full size table

Post hoc analysis

Post hoc, we sought to evaluate independent predictors for composite adverse outcome after IOLAC that included unplanned cesareans as a component of the composite. With this analysis there were 489 cases positive for composite adverse outcomes. Of these, 463/489 (94.7%) had unplanned cesarean and only 72/463 (15.5%) were unplanned cesarean with at least one of the 11 other components of the composite. Following vaginal delivery after IOLAC, there were 26/356 (7.3%) cases positive for composite adverse outcomes.

Table 4 showed the bivariate and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses (variables with p < 0.1 incorporated into the model) for the expanded composite adverse outcomes that included all unplanned cesarean. Nine variables had p < 0.1 after bivariate analysis. Following adjustment, six variables (higher body mass index, short stature (< 157 cm), not of Chinese ethnicity, no prior vaginal delivery, prior cesarean indicated by labor dystocia and less favorable Bishop score (< 6) were independent predictors of the expanded composite adverse outcome. Maternal age, gestational age at IOLAC, and method of IOLAC were not significant (set at p < 0.05) after adjustment.

Table 4 Composite adverse outcomes including of unplanned cesarean
Full size table

In a previous analysis from the same study population, we have found that obesity, short stature, no prior vaginal delivery, previous cesarean indicated by failure to progress, unfavorable Bishop score and ethnicity were independent predictors for unplanned cesarean after IOLAC [44]. These post hoc findings (Table 4) were reflective of the numerical dominance of the unplanned cesarean subpopulation, overwhelming the 11 other adverse events in the composite.

Discussion

In our analysis on composite adverse maternal-newborn outcomes after IOLAC but specifically excluding uncomplicated cesarean deliveries, after multivariable binary logistic regression analysis, we identified two independent predictors for the composite adverse outcome; short maternal stature and labor induction using vaginal dinoprostone.

Short maternal stature (< 157 cm) was independently predictive of composite adverse outcome similarly to it being a risk factor for unplanned cesarean delivery after IOLAC [44, 45]. Our result corroborated the finding from a Swedish cohort study which reported maternal height of < 160 cm to be a risk factor of uterine rupture during TOLAC with OR 1.69 compared to patients > 160 cm tall [46]. In our study, short stature remained an independent predictor of the expanded composite adverse outcome that included all unplanned cesarean section. Machine learning models have also shown maternal height to significantly contribute to the prediction of successful VBAC [47].

Dinoprostone, compared to Foley induction, was also found to be predictive of the composite adverse outcomes after adjustment. Available research on IOLAC primarily centers on successful vaginal birth or risk of uterine rupture. Meta-analyses [39, 48] from sparse data on IOLAC methods did not reveal a superior induction method. A recent individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials however found balloon catheters for cervical ripening in labor induction led to fewer adverse perinatal events compared to prostaglandins, although no exclusion was made based on previous cesarean delivery status [48]. Our findings contribute to the limited data on risk factors specific to complications after IOLAC.

In our bivariate analysis, previous vaginal delivery, indication of previous cesarean and indication of IOLAC emerged as potential predictors of adverse outcomes, but these were not significant after adjustment. These variables were similarly not significant in TOLAC studies assessing morbidity, except for large-for-gestational-age fetuses having shown an association with uterine rupture following cesarean delivery [17, 27].

Previous analysis from the same study population showed previous cesarean indicated by failure to progress and no prior vaginal delivery to be independent predictors of unplanned cesarean after IOLAC [44]. Unplanned cesarean without complication was excluded as a component of the composite of adverse outcomes in our primary analysis. This exclusion could be controversial as adverse psychosocial outcomes, including post-traumatic stress, health-related quality of life, experiences, infant-feeding, satisfaction, and self-esteem were negatively impacted by emergency cesarean section [49]. Even in well-motivated women with extensive counseling on the risk of failed IOLAC and unplanned cesarean, a degree of disappointment was likely when unplanned cesarean occurred [50]. However, our novel approach of excluding unplanned cesarean without complication from the composite adverse outcomes classification as the practical alternative to IOLAC is a planned cesarean, would be of value for care providers and women open to a different approach when looking at information to help decide on IOLAC.

Research implication

Our findings of independent predictors of a composite adverse maternal-newborn outcomes add to the limited body of evidence on risk factors related to the performance and safety of IOLAC. Further very large scale confirmatory retrospective studies should increase the confidence on our findings and plausibly identify other risk factors missed as a result of Type 2 error. Large scale prospective studies with well-defined and consistently applied terms, focused on IOLAC subjects, will provide the highest quality data to identify independent predictors and allow for the development of robust calculators to give more precise estimates of the risk of adverse outcome to aid decision-making on IOLAC.

Strengths and limitations

As to strength, we had a relatively large contemporary set of 819 IOLAC cases, with data individually abstracted directly from their medical records and a sample sufficiently large for robust multivariable binary logistic regression analysis based on the 10-event per variable rule [43]. Our independent predictors of composite adverse outcome after IOLAC were likely to be robust as they concurred with extensive meta-analysis findings from TOLAC studies [39] and from sparser data on unplanned cesarean births after IOLAC [44, 45]. Our IOLAC cases were identified and their data abstracted by a single clinician-investigator (SBB) who reviewed all the birth records.

We were limited by the number of composite adverse outcome at only 98 cases, which could have resulted in Type 2 error due to underpowering. The use of dinoprostone in cases plausibly at lower-risk in our practice may lead to the underestimation of its true impact on adverse outcomes despite adjustment to reduce confounding. Prostaglandin as a method of IOLAC may be regarded as controversial in the absence of conclusive safety results [5] but meta-analyses [39, 48] on IOLAC methods did not reveal a superior IOLAC method although the available data is sparse. We also did not retrieve the number of prostaglandins used in cases of adverse outcomes. Obstetric sphincter injury (OASIS) was not explored in our study; previous cesarean section increases the risk of OASIS [51] but OASIS does not appear to be associated with IOL per se [52]. We used delivery blood loss ≥ 1000 ml as an adverse maternal outcome for the composite instead of the need for blood transfusion, which could be a more objective and clinically useful measure. With a retrospective chart review, even from electronic medical records, the data could still be inaccurately or incompletely documented.

Conclusion

Short maternal stature and vaginal dinoprostone tablet compared to Foley balloon induction are independent predictors of a composite of adverse maternal-newborn outcomes after IOLAC. These predictors could aid care providers and women in their shared decision making on IOLAC and on the method of induction, beyond the consideration of an unplanned cesarean as adverse outcome.

Data availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671

  2. NHS Maternity Statistics. England – 2020-21. Accessible via https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-maternity-statistics/2020-21. Last accessed 27 Jan 2023.

  3. Ravasia DJ, Wood SL, Pollard JK. Uterine rupture during induced trial of labor among women with previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183(5):1176–9. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2000.109037

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Vecchioli E, Cordier AG, Chantry A, Benachi A, Monier I. Maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with induction of labor after one previous cesarean delivery: a French retrospective study. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(8):e0237132. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237132

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 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;5(1):3–8. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200107053450101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205 summary: vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(2):393–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sulaiman S, Sivaranjani S, Razali N, Lim BK, Hamdan M, Tan PC. Foley catheter compared with controlled release dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction after one previous cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023;160(3):814–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14364

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hong JGS, Magalingam VD, Sethi N, Ng DSW, Lim RCS, Tan PC. Adjunctive membrane sweeping in Foley catheter induction of labor after one previous cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023;160(1):65–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Eshkoli T, Weintraub AY, Baron J, Sheiner E. The significance of a uterine rupture in subsequent births. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292(4):799–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3715-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Reyes-Ceja L, Cabrera R, Insfran E, Herrera-Lasso F. Pregnancy following previous uterine rupture. Study of 19 patients. Obstet Gynecol. 1969;34(3):387–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fox NS. Pregnancy outcomes in patients with prior uterine rupture or dehiscence: a 5-year update. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(1):211–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000003622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chibber R, El-Saleh E, Al Fadhli R, Al Jassar W, Al Harmi J. Uterine rupture and subsequent pregnancy outcome–how safe is it? A 25-year study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010;23(5):421–4. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767050903440489

  13. Jha N, Madhuri MS, Jha AK, Kubera NS. Subsequent pregnancy outcome in women with prior complete uterine rupture: a single tertiary care centre experience. Reprod Sci. 2022;29(5):1506–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-022-00906-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ritchie EH. Pregnancy after rupture of the pregnant uterus. A report of 36 pregnancies and a study of cases reported since 1932. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1971;78(7):642–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1971.tb00329.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Medically Indicated Late-Preterm and Early-Term Deliveries. ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 831. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;138(1):e35-e39. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000004447

  16. Pitter MC, Gargiulo AR, Bonaventura LM, Lehman JS, Srouji SS. Pregnancy outcomes following robot-assisted myomectomy. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(1):99–108. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Al-Zirqi I, Daltveit AK, Forsén L, Stray-Pedersen B, Vangen S. Risk factors for complete uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(2):165.e1-165.e8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bujold E, Jastrow N, Simoneau J, Brunet S, Gauthier RJ. Prediction of complete uterine rupture by sonographic evaluation of the lower uterine segment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(3):e3201–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bujold E, Gauthier RJ. Risk of uterine rupture associated with an interdelivery interval between 18 and 24 months. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(5):1003–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d992fb

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, Cohen A, Lieberman E. Interdelivery interval and risk of symptomatic uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(2):175–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(00)01129-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rahman J, Al-Sibai MH, Rahman MS. Rupture of the uterus in labor. A review of 96 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1985;64(4):311–5. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016348509155137

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Agrawal S, Agarwal A, Das V. Impact of grandmultiparity on obstetric outcome in low resource setting. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2011;37(8):1015–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01476.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Aziz-Karim S, Memon AM, Qadri N. Grandmultiparity: a continuing problem in developing countries. Asia Ocean J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;15(2):155–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.1989.tb00170.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Golan A, Sandbank O, Rubin A. Rupture of the pregnant uterus. Obstet Gynecol. 1980;56(5):549–54.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Fuchs K, Peretz BA, Marcovici R, Paldi E, Timor-Tritsh I. The grand multipara--is it a problem? A review of 5785 cases. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1985;23(4):321–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7292(85)90027-x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Shahida SM, Islam MA, Begum S, Hossain MA, Azam MS. Maternal outcome of grand multipara. Mymensingh Med J. 2011;20(3):381–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hesselman S, Högberg U, Ekholm-Selling K, Råssjö EB, Jonsson M. The risk of uterine rupture is not increased with single- compared with double-layer closure: a Swedish cohort study. Bjog. 2015;122(11):1535–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13015

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2004;16(25):2581–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa040405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lin C, Raynor BD. Risk of uterine rupture in labor induction of patients with prior cesarean section: an inner city hospital experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(5):1476–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.02.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Plaut MM, Schwartz ML, Lubarsky SL. Uterine rupture associated with the use of misoprostol in the gravid patient with a previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180(6 Pt 1):1535–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70049-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wing DA, Lovett K, Paul RH. Disruption of prior uterine incision following misoprostol for labor induction in women with previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91(5 Pt 2):828–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00553-x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Aslan H, Unlu E, Agar M, Ceylan Y. Uterine rupture associated with misoprostol labor induction in women with previous cesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;15(1):45–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-2115(03)00363-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Khan KS, Rizvi A. The partograph in the management of labor following cesarean section. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1995;50(2):151–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7292(95)02431-b

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hamilton EF, Bujold E, McNamara H, Gauthier R, Platt RW. Dystocia among women with symptomatic uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184(4):620–4. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.110293

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hesselman S, Lampa E, Wikman A, et al. Time matters-a Swedish cohort study of labor duration and risk of uterine rupture. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(10):1902–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14211

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Harper LM, Cahill AG, Roehl KA, Odibo AO, Stamilio DM, Macones GA. The pattern of labor preceding uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(3):e2101–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.06.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Amikam U, Hochberg A, Segal R, et al. Perinatal outcomes following uterine rupture during a trial of labor after cesarean: a 12-year single-center experience. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2024;165(1):237–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Macones GA, Cahill AG, Stamilio DM, Odibo A, Peipert J, Stevens EJ. Can uterine rupture in patients attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery be predicted? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(4):1148–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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;17(1):360. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2517-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Practice Bulletin No. 183: postpartum hemorrhage. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(4):e168–86. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000002351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lehmann S, Baghestan E, Børdahl PE, Muller Irgens L, Rasmussen SA. Trial of labor after cesarean section in risk pregnancies: a population-based cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98(7):894–904. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13565

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR. Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(12):1503–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(95)00048-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. van Smeden M, de Groot JA, Moons KG, et al. No rationale for 1 variable per 10 events criterion for binary logistic regression analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;24(1):163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0267-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bashirudin SB, Omar SZ, Gan F, Hamdan M, Tan PC. Induction of labor after one previous cesarean: predictors of vaginal birth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reproductive Biology: X. 2023;20:100249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurox.2023.100249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Levin G, Tsur A, Burke YZ, Meyer R. Methods of induction of labor after cesarean with no prior vaginal delivery—perinatal outcomes. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2022;160(2):612–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hesselman S, Högberg U, Ekholm-Selling K, Råssjö EB, Jonsson M. The risk of uterine rupture is not increased with single‐compared with double‐layer closure: a S wedish cohort study. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;122(11):1535–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Meyer R, Hendin N, Zamir M, et al. Implementation of machine learning models for the prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35(19):3677–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2020.1837769

  48. Jones MN, Palmer KR, Pathirana MM, et al. Balloon catheters versus vaginal prostaglandins for labour induction (CPI collaborative): an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2022;12(10364):1681–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01845-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Benton M, Salter A, Tape N, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D. Women’s psychosocial outcomes following an emergency caesarean section: a systematic literature review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;30(1):535. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2687-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Johnson G, Connelly S. Negative emotions in informal feedback: the benefits of disappointment and drawbacks of anger. Hum Relat. 2014;67(10):1265–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714532856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Andre K, Stuart A, Kallen K. Obstetric anal sphincter injuries-maternal, fetal and sociodemographic risk factors: a retrospective register-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101(11):1262–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Stock SJ, Ferguson E, Duffy A, Ford I, Chalmers J, Norman JE. Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study. BMJ. 2012;344:e2838. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2838

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledged the cooperation during the study of the information technology section of Universiti Malaya Medical Centre.

Funding

This research was internally funded by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Jalan Profesor Diraja Ungku Aziz, Kuala Lumpur, 50603, Malaysia

    Sze Ping Tan, Saniyati Badri Bashirudin, Rajeev Kumar Rajaratnam & Farah Gan

  2. Deparment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, Sterling Way, London, N18 1QX, UK

    Sze Ping Tan

Authors
  1. Sze Ping Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saniyati Badri Bashirudin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rajeev Kumar Rajaratnam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Farah Gan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors [Sze Ping Tan (SPT), Saniyati Badri Bashirudin (SBB), Rajeev Kumar Rajaratnam (RKR), and Farah Gan (FG)] contributed to elements of the study. SPT and FG conceptualized the study. SBB collected, entered, and cleaned the database. SPT performed the data analysis assisted by FG. All authors contributed to data interpretation. SPT and FG co-wrote the manuscript draft; SBB and RKR provided critique to refine the manuscript. All authors assert ownership over and responsibility for the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farah Gan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC-MREC) on February 8, 2022; reference number 202215 − 10901 and performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was waived by the review board.

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.

This study was conducted at University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

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

Tan, S.P., Bashirudin, S.B., Rajaratnam, R.K. et al. Short stature and vaginal dinoprostone as independent predictors of composite maternal-newborn adverse outcomes in induction of labor after one previous cesarean: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 24, 455 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06650-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06650-5

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us