Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Jul 26;7(7):CD004906.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004906.pub5.

Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth

Jodie M Dodd  1 , Caroline A Crowther, Rosalie M Grivell, Andrea R Deussen
Affiliations

Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth

Jodie M Dodd et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: When a woman has had a previous caesarean birth and requires induction of labour for a subsequent pregnancy, two options are available for her care: an elective repeat caesarean and planned induction of labour. Although risks and benefits are associated with both elective repeat caesarean birth and planned induction of labour, current sources of information are limited to non-randomised cohort studies, and studies designed in this way have significant potential for bias. Consequently, any conclusions based on results of these studies are limited in their reliability and should be interpreted with caution.

Objectives: To assess, using the best available evidence, the benefits and harms of a policy of planned elective repeat caesarean section versus a policy of induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth who require induction of labour for a subsequent pregnancy. Primary outcomes include success of induction of labour, need for caesarean section, maternal and neonatal mortality, and maternal and neonatal morbidity.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (31 May 2017) and planned to search reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials with reported data on comparison of outcomes in mothers and babies between women who planned an elective repeat caesarean section and women who planned induction of labour when a previous birth was performed by caesarean. Cluster trials and quasi-randomised trials were also eligible for inclusion. We would consider trials published only as abstracts if they provided enough information to meet review inclusion criteria.

Data collection and analysis: We performed no data extraction. For future updates, if randomised controlled trials are identified, two review authors will independently assess trials for inclusion and risk of bias, and will extract data and check extracted data for accuracy. Review authors will assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

Main results: Review authors identified no randomised controlled trials.

Authors' conclusions: Both planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a prior caesarean birth are associated with benefits and harms. Evidence for these care practices has been drawn from non-randomised studies, which are associated with potential bias. Therefore, any results and conclusions presented must be interpreted with caution. Randomised controlled trials are required to provide the most reliable evidence regarding the benefits and harms of both planned elective repeat caesarean section and planned induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Jodie Dodd and Caroline Crowther were investigators on "The BAC study: Planned vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean: Patient preference restricted cohort with nested randomised trial," which was published in 2012 (Crowther 2012).

Jodie Dodd: is the recipient of an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship.

Rosalie Grivell: none known.

Andrea R Deussen: none known.

Update of

References

Additional references

ACOG 2002
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice: induction of labour for vaginal birth after caesarean delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;99:679‐80.
ACOG 2010
    1. American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean: Practice Bulletin No 15. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2010;116:450‐63. - PubMed
AIHW 2013
    1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Li Z, Zeki R, Hilder L, Sullivan EA. Australia's Mothers and Babies 2011. Perinatal Statistics Series No. 28. Canberra: AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, 2013.
Alfirevic 2016
    1. Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ, Medley N, Dias S, et al. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta‐analysis and cost‐effectiveness analysis. Health Technology Assessment 2016;20(65):1‐584. - PMC - PubMed
Betran 2016
    1. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990‐2014. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource] 2016;11(2):e0148343. - PMC - PubMed
Brill 2003
    1. Brill Y, Kingdom J, Fraser W, Milne JK, Thomas M, Windrim R. The management of VBAC at term: a survey of Canadian obstetricians. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2003;25(4):300‐10. - PubMed
Bujold 2004
    1. Bujold E. Modified Bishop's score and induction of labor in patients with a previous cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;191:1644‐8. - PubMed
Crowther 2012
    1. Crowther CA, Dodd JM, Hiller JE, Haslam RR, Robinson JS, Birth After Caesarean Study Group. Planned vaginal birth or elective repeat caesarean: patient preference restricted cohort with nested randomised trial. PLoS Medicine [Electronic Resource] 2012;9(3):e1001192. [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001192] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Dodd 2003
    1. Dodd JM, Crowther CA. Vaginal birth after caesarean section: a survey of practice in Australia and New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2003;43(3):226‐31. - PubMed
Dodd 2013
    1. Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E, Guise JM, Horey D. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004224.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
ESRI 2013
    1. Health Research and Information Division, The Economic and Social Research Institute. ESRI Survey and Statistical Report Series No. 48. Perinatal Statistics Report 2012. ESRI, 2013.
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Hook 1997
    1. Hook B, Kiwi R, Amini SB, Fanaroff A, Hack M. Neonatal morbidity after elective repeat cesarean section and trial of labor. Pediatrics 1997;100(3 Pt 1):348‐53. - PubMed
HSCIC 2013
    1. Hospital Episode Statistics Analysis. Hospital Episode Statistics, 2013. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/ (accessed July 2014).
Kayani 2005
    1. Kayani SI, Alfirevic Z. Uterine rupture after induction of labour in women with previous caesarean section. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2005;112(4):451‐5. - PubMed
Landon 2004
    1. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Leindecker S, Varner MW, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. New England Journal of Medicine 2004;351(25):2581‐9. - PubMed
Landon 2005
    1. Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY, Hauth JC, Bloom S, Varner MW, et al. The MFMU Cesarean Registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2005;193(3 Pt 2):1016‐23. - PubMed
Lyndon‐Rochelle 2001
    1. Lyndon‐Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. New England Journal of Medicine 2001;345:3‐8. - PubMed
Marshall 2011
    1. Marshall N, Fu R, Guise JM. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011;205(3):262.e1‐8. - PubMed
Martin 2013
    1. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ. Births: preliminary data for 2012. National Vital Statistics Report 2013;62(3):1‐20. - PubMed
Morrison 1995
    1. Morrison JJ, Rennie JM, Milton PJ. Neonatal respiratory morbidity and mode of delivery at term: influence of timing of elective caesarean section. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1995;102(2):101‐6. - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Smith 2004
    1. Smith G, Pell J, Pasupathy D, Dobbie R. Factors predisposing to perinatal death related to uterine rupture during attempted vaginal birth after caesarean section: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2004;329:375. - PMC - PubMed
Villar 2006
    1. Villar J, Valladares E, Wojdyla D, Zavaleta N, Carroli G, et al. Caesarean delivery rates and pregnancy outcomes: the 2005 WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health in Latin America. Lancet 2006;367:1819‐29. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Dodd 2006
    1. Dodd JM, Crowther CA. Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004906.pub2] - DOI - PubMed
Dodd 2012
    1. Dodd JM, Crowther CA. Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 5. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004906.pub3] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources