Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(S 01): e400-e405
DOI: 10.1055/a-1884-1221
Original Article

A Trial of Labor after Cesarean Section with a Macrosomic Neonate. Is It Safe?

Miriam Lopian 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayanei Hayeshua Medical Center, Bnei Brak, Israel
2   Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
,
Lior Kashani-Ligumski
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayanei Hayeshua Medical Center, Bnei Brak, Israel
2   Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
,
Ronnie Cohen
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayanei Hayeshua Medical Center, Bnei Brak, Israel
2   Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
,
Jacky Herzlich
2   Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
4   Department of Neonatology, Lis Hospital for Women, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel
,
Sharon Perlman
2   Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
5   Prenatal Ultrasound Unit The Helen Schneider Hospital for Women, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Campus, Petach Tikva, Israel
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to determine whether a trial of labor after cesarean section (TOLAC) with a macrosomic neonate is associated with adverse outcomes.

Study Design A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a population motivated for TOLAC. Women attempting TOLAC with a neonatal birth weight >4,000 g were compared with women attempting TOLAC with neonatal birth weights between 3,500 and 4,000 g. The primary outcome was TOLAC success. Secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, uterine rupture, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), shoulder dystocia, obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI), Apgar's score <7 at 5 minutes, and umbilical artery pH <7.1. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test and Chi‐square test.

Results Overall, 375 women who underwent TOLAC with a neonate weighing >4,000 g comprised the study group. One thousand seven hundred and eighty-three women attempting TOLAC with a neonate weighing 3,500 to 4,000 g comprised the control group. There were no clinically significant differences between the groups for maternal age, gestational age, parity, and vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) rate. There were no significant differences in the rates of successful TOLAC (94 vs. 92.3%, p = 0.2, odds ratio [OR] = 0.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5, 1.2), operative vaginal delivery (7.4 vs. 5.3%, p = 0.18, OR = 0.7, 95% CI: 0.4, 1.1), uterine rupture (0.4 vs. 0%, p = 0.6), PPH (3.2 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.36, OR = 1.4, 95% CI: 0.7, 2.7), OASI (0.8 vs. 0.2%, p = 0.1, OR = 3.6, 95% CI: 0.8, 1.6), Apgar's score <7 at 5 minutes (0 vs. 0.4%, p = 0.37), and umbilical artery pH <7.1 (0.5 vs. 0.7%, p = 1.0, OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.2, 3.2). Women with a neonate weighing >4,000 g had a significantly increased risk of shoulder dystocia (4 vs. 0.4%, p < 0.05, OR = 9.2 95% CI: 3.9, 22)

Conclusion Women attempting TOLAC with a macrosomic neonate are not at increased risk for failed TOLAC, operative vaginal delivery, uterine rupture, PPH, or OASI but are at risk of shoulder dystocia. This information may aid in prenatal counseling for women considering TOLAC with a macrosomic fetus.

Key Points

  • TOLAC with fetal macrosomia does not increase the risk of uterine rupture.

  • TOLAC with fetal macrosomia is associated with high chances of VBAC.

  • TOLAC with fetal macrosomia is not associated with adverse neonatal outcomes.

Keywords

macrosomia - a trial of labor after cesarean - TOLAC - cesarean delivery

Ethical Approval

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. The local ethical committee approved the study. Since the study was retrospective, there was a waiver from informed consent by the local ethical committee.


Authors' Contributions

M.L.: project development, data collection, and first draft manuscript writing.


L.K.-L.: Project development, data collection, and review of the final version of the manuscript.


R.C.: data collection and review of the final version of the manuscript.


J.H.: data collection and review of the final version of the manuscript.


S.P.: project development, supervision, and first draft manuscript writing.




Publication History

Received: 08 January 2022

Accepted: 21 June 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
24 June 2022

Article published online:
16 September 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Siggelkow W, Boehm D, Skala C, Grosslercher M, Schmidt M, Koelbl H. The influence of macrosomia on the duration of labor, the mode of delivery and intrapartum complications. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008; 278 (06) 547-553
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Said AS, Manji KP. Risk factors and outcomes of fetal macrosomia in a tertiary centre in Tanzania: a case-control study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016; 16: 243
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Ginath S, Mizrachi Y, Bar J, Condrea A, Kovo M. Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIs) in Israel: a review of the incidence and risk factors. Rambam Maimonides Med J 2017; 8 (02) e0018
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Esakoff TF, Cheng YW, Sparks TN, Caughey AB. The association between birthweight 4000  g or greater and perinatal outcomes in patients with and without gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200 (06) 672.e1-672.e4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Salihu HM, Pass M. Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188 (05) 1372-1378
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Froehlich R, Simhan HN, Larkin JC. An evidence-based approach to defining fetal macrosomia. Am J Perinatol 2016; 33 (05) 456-462
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Koyanagi A, Zhang J, Dagvadorj A. et al. Macrosomia in 23 developing countries: an analysis of a multicountry, facility-based, cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2013; 381 (9865): 476-483
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK. Births: final data for 2019. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2021; 70 (02) 1-51
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Flamm BL, Goings JR. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: is suspected fetal macrosomia a contraindication?. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74 (05) 694-697
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, Cohen A, Lieberman E. Outcomes of trial of labor following previous cesarean delivery among women with fetuses weighing >4000 g. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185 (04) 903-905
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Phelan JP, Clark SL, Diaz F, Paul RH. Vaginal birth after cesarean. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 157 (06) 1510-1515
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Elkousy MA, Sammel M, Stevens E, Peipert JF, Macones G. The effect of birth weight on vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188 (03) 824-830
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Jastrow N, Roberge S, Gauthier RJ. et al. Effect of birth weight on adverse obstetric outcomes in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115 (2, pt. 1): 338-343
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Aboulfalah A, Abbassi H, El Karroumi M. et al. Delivery of large baby after cesarean section: role of trial of labor. Apropos of 355 cases [in French]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2000; 29 (04) 409-413
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. ACOG practice bulletin no. 205: vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133 (02) e110-e127
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 RCOG. Birth after previous birth. Green top guidline No 45 October 2015. Accessed August 24, 2022 at: https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/browse-all-guidance/green-top-guidelines/birth-after-previous-caesarean-birth-green-top-guideline-no-45/
    PubMed
  • 17 Goetzinger KR, Odibo AO, Shanks AL, Roehl KA, Cahill AG. Clinical accuracy of estimated fetal weight in term pregnancies in a teaching hospital. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27 (01) 89-93
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Hochler H, Guedalia J, Lipschuetz M. et al. Normal labor curve in twin gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 225 (05) 546.e1-546.e11
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Mercer BM, Gilbert S, Landon MB. et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor outcomes with increasing number of prior vaginal births after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111 (2, pt. 1): 285-291
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Overland EA, Vatten LJ, Eskild A. Risk of shoulder dystocia: associations with parity and offspring birthweight. A population study of 1 914 544 deliveries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012; 91 (04) 483-488
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar