Evaluation of the factors influencing labor outcomes in women with a history of abdominal delivery

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The rapid increase in the frequency of caesarean sections has led to the emergence of a special group of patients with a uterine scar who want to give birth through the natural birth canal. Repeated operative delivery is associated with high risks of both intraoperative and postoperative complications, therefore, every year the number of women with a uterine scar who prefer natural childbirth is growing.

AIM: The aim of this study was to create a model that allows, based on a comprehensive assessment of risk factors, for predicting the outcome of childbirth in women with a history of abdominal childbirth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of 173 birth histories of women with a uterine scar after a previous caesarean section, delivered in the Chita City Maternity Hospital in 2021–2022. Three groups of individuals were designed for the study: Group 1 included 110 women delivered by caesarean section in a planned manner; Group 2 comprised 20 women delivered by caesarean section during childbirth, while Group 3 consisted of 43 women who gave birth through the natural birth canal. The groups were comparable in terms of nationality, age, material and social conditions of the patients. On the eve of delivery, all patients underwent general clinical and obstetric ultrasound examination, with the anamnesis details clarified. The data obtained were processed statistically using the IBM SPSS Statistics version 25.0.

RESULTS: Using binary logistic regression, a model was developed to predict the outcome of childbirth through the natural birth canal in women with a uterine scar, which takes into account statistically significant indicators such as gestational age, estimated fetal weight, parity, and the presence of chronic endometritis and weakness of labor activity in history. The sensitivity of the developed prognostic model is 0.86, the specificity being 0.70. The area under the ROC curve is 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.78–0.96; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: The comprehensive analysis of risk factors allows for predicting the outcome of natural childbirth in women with a uterine scar, which in the future will optimize the tactics of their delivery and prevent the development of complications in childbirth for the mother and fetus.

About the authors

Marina N. Mochalova

Chita State Medical Academy

Email: marina.mochalova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5941-0181

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Assistant Professor

Russian Federation, 39a Gorky St., Chita, 672000

Anastasia Yu. Alekseyeva

Chita State Medical Academy

Email: mirasya7@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5061-8026

MD, Assistant, The Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Medical and Dental Faculties

Russian Federation, 39a Gorky St., Chita, 672000

Elena S. Akhmetova

Chita State Medical Academy

Email: akhmetlena@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6568-8905

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Assistant Professor

Russian Federation, 39a Gorky St., Chita, 672000

Viktor A. Mudrov

Chita State Medical Academy

Author for correspondence.
Email: mudrov_viktor@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5961-5400
Scopus Author ID: 57204736023

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Assistant Professor

Russian Federation, 39a Gorky St., Chita, 672000

References

  1. Antoine C, Young BK. Cesarean section one hundred years 1920-2020: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. J Perinat Med. 2020;49(1):5−16. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2020-0305
  2. Dobrokhotova YuE., Kuznetsov PA., Kopylova YuV. Kesarevo secheniye: proshloye i budushcheye. Ginekologiya. 2015;17(3):64−66. (In Russ.)
  3. Zakharova IN, Berezhnaya IV, Sazanova YuO, et al. Kesarevo secheniye – ot antichnosti do nashego vremeni. Pediatriya. Consilium Medicum. 2018;8(2):24−32. (In Russ.) doi: 10.26442/2413-8460_2018.2.24-32
  4. Radzinskii VE. Akusherskaia agressiia, v. 2.0. Moscow: Redaktsiia StatusPraesens, 2017. (In Russ.)
  5. Masciullo L, Petruzziello L, Perrone G, et al. Caesarean section on maternal request: an italian comparative study on patients’ characteristics, pregnancy outcomes and guidelines overview. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(13):4665. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17134665
  6. Poudel R, Dangal G, Karki A, et al. Assessment of caesarean section rates at Kathmandu model hospital using the Robson’s ten group classification system. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2020;17(4):491−494. doi: 10.33314/jnhrc.v17i4.2117
  7. Ahmeidat A, Kotts WJ, Wong J, McLernon DJ, Black M. Predictive models of individual risk of elective caesarean section complications: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;262:248−255. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.05.011
  8. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii (protokol lecheniya) “Kesarevo sechenie. Pokazaniya, metody obezbolivaniya, khirurgicheskaya tekhnika, antibiotikoprofilaktika, vedenie posleoperatsionnogo perioda”, utverzhdennye Ministerstvom zdravookhraneniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii 06 maya 2014 goda No. 15-4/10/2-3190. (In Russ.). [cited 2022 Aug 1]. Available from: https://mz.mosreg.ru/upload/iblock/c23/kesarevo-sechenie.pdf
  9. Słabuszewska-Jóźwiak A, Szymański JK, Ciebiera M, et al. Pediatrics consequences of caesarean section-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):8031. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17218031
  10. Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1349−1357. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5
  11. Arzhaeva IA, Tyapkina DA, Taraskin AF,Taraskin AA. Frequency of occurrence of the adhesive process of the abdominal cavity after cesarean section (according to the results of repeated surgery). International Research Journal. 2020;3(1):102−107. (In Russ.). doi: 10.23670/IRJ.2022.117.3.017
  12. Makiyan ZN, Adamyan LV, Karabach VV. A new method of surgical treatment of uterine scar failure after cesarean section using an intrauterine manipulator with a gutter. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2020;(2):104−110. (In Russ.). doi: 10.18565/aig.2020.2.104-110
  13. Berg CJ, Chang J, Callaghan WM, Whitehead SJ. Pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, 1991-1997. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(2):289−296. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02587-5
  14. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Geneva: WHO, 2015. [cited 2022 Aug 1]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/161442/WHO_RHR_15.02_eng.pdf?sequence=1
  15. Klinicheskiye rekomendatsii (protokol lecheniya) “Posleoperatsionnyy rubets na matke, trebuyushchiy okazaniya meditsinskoy pomoshchi materi vo vremya beremennosti, rodov i v poslerodovom periode”, Protokoly Ministerstva zdravookhraneniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. 2021. (In Russ.). [cited 2022 Aug 1]. Available from: https://roag-portal.ru/recommendations_obstetrics
  16. Klinicheskiye rekomendatsii (protokol lecheniya) “Normal’naya beremennost’”, pribyl’nyye Ministerstva zdravookhraneniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii. 2020. (In Russ.). [cited 2022 Aug 1]. Available from: https://roag-portal.ru/recommendations_obstetrics
  17. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication, 2011. [cited 2022 Aug 1]. Available from: https://www.icjme.org
  18. Lang TA, Altman DG. Statistical analyses and methods in the published literature: The SAMPL guidelines. Medical Writing. 2016;25(3):31−36. doi: 10.18243/eon/2016.9.7.4

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Figure. Area under the ROC curve

Download (110KB)

Copyright (c) 2022 Mochalova M.N., Alekseyeva A.Y., Akhmetova E.S., Mudrov V.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies