Lower uterine segment scar thickness as a predictor of successful vaginal birth after caesarean section at the Federal Medical Centre, Yenagoa: a prospective cohort study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20223473Keywords:
VBAC, LUS, Caesarean section, Scar thicknessAbstract
Background: Successful conduct of vaginal birth after caesarean section is dependent on a number of foetal and maternal factors including integrity of the previous caesarean section scar. The objective of this study was to determine the average lower uterine segment (LUS) scar thickness for women being planned for VBAC.
Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of pregnant women with one previous caesarean section, who were recruited to undergo transvaginal ultrasound scan in preparation for VBAC at the Federal Medical Centre (FMC) Yenagoa. It was conducted between May, 2018 and September 2019. The women were allocated into three groups A (<2.5mm), B (2.5-3.4 mm) and C (≥3.5 mm) according to the thickness of the LUS scar. Data analysis was done using the statistical product and service solutions version 22.0, p<0.05 was taken as statistically significant.
Results: The range of lower uterine segment thickness in the study was 1.5 mm to 6.8 mm (mean 3.89±0.95 mm). With cut-off value of 3.5 mm, the sensitivity for successful VBAC was 78.8%, specificity was 55.4%, PPV was 78.1%, NPV was 62.0% and accuracy was 71%. The rate of uterine defect increased as the lower uterine segment thickness decreased from 3.5 mm (p=0.001).
Conclusions: This research has clearly shown that full LUS thickness of ≥3.5 mm at 36 weeks of gestation is associated with an increased chance of successful VBAC while LUS thickness of <3.5 mm is at increased risk of uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence during a Trial of VBAC.
References
Cragin EB. Conservatism in Obstetrics. NY Med J. 1916;104:1-3.
Akinola OI, Fabamwo AO, Tayo AO, Rabiu KA, Oshodi YA, Alokha ME. Caesarean section an appraisal of some predictive factors in Lagos Nigeria. BMC Preg Childbirth. 2014;14(1):217.
Seffah JD, Adu-Bonsaffoh K. Vaginal birth after previous Caesarean section: Current trend and look in Ghana. J West Afr Coll Surg. 2014;4(2):1-25.
Ugwu GO, Iyoke CA, Onah HE, Egwuatu VE, Ezugwu FO. Maternal and perinatal outcomes of delivery after a previous Cesarean section in Enugu, Southeast Nigeria: a prospective observational study. Int J Womens Health. 2014 Mar 13;6:301–5.
Ugwu EOV, Obioha KCE, Okezie OA, Ugwu AO. A five-year survey of caesarean delivery at a Nigerian tertiary hospital. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2011;1(1): 77-83.
Omigbodun AO, Fawole OA. Vaginal birth after Caesarean section. In: Kwawukume EY, Ekele BA, Danso KA, Emuveyan EE, eds. Comprehensive gynaecology in the tropics. Accra-North: Assemblies of God Literature Centre Ltd; 2015:156-60.
Revicky V, Muralidhar A, Mukhopadhyay S, Mahmood T. A Case Series of Uterine Rupture: Lessons to be Learned for Future Clinical Practice. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2012;62(6):665-73.
Senturk MB, Cakmak Y, Atac H, Budak MS. Factors associated with successful vaginal birth after cesarean section and outcomes in rural area of Anatolia. Int J Womens Health. 2015;7:693-7.
Durnwald C, Mercer B. Vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery: predicting success, risks of failure. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2004;15(6):388-93.
Umelo FU, Eigbefoh JO, Eifediyi RA, Okome GBO, Isabu P. Can Sonographic Evaluation of Uterine Segment Predict Women at risk of uterine rupture/dehiscence? Int J Gynaecol Obstet Res. 2015; 3:13-25.
Araoye MO. Subjects Selection. In: Research Methodology with statistics for Health and Social sciences. Ilorin: Nathadex publishers; 2003:115-29.
Qureshi B, Inafuku K, Oshima K, Masamoto H, Kanazawa K. Ultrasonographic evaluation of lower uterine segment to predict the integrity and quality of cesarean scar during pregnancy: a prospective study. Tohoku J Exp Med. 1997;183(1):55-65.
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(2):e110.
Kok N, Wiersma IC, Opmeer BC, de Graaf IM, Mol BW, Pajkrt E. Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(2):132-9.
Jastrow N, Chaillet N, Roberge S, Morency AM, Lacasse Y, Bujold E. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010; 32(4):321-7.
Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Philippe HJ, Nisand I. Thickness of the lower uterine segment: its influence in the management of patients with previous cesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1999; 87(1):39-45.
Asakura H, Nakai A, Ishikawa G, Suzuki S, Araki T. Prediction of uterine dehiscence by measuring lower uterine segment thickness prior to the onset of labor: evaluation by transvaginal ultrasonography. J Nippon Med Sch. 2000;67(5):352-6.
Jastrow N, Antonelli E, Robyr R, Irion O, Boulvain M. Inter- and intraobserver variability in sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment after a previous Cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27(4):420-4.
Gotoh H, Masuzaki H, Yoshida A, Yoshimura S, Miyamura T, Ishimaru T. Predicting incomplete uterine rupture with vaginal sonography during the late second trimester in women with prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95(4):596-600.
Gizzo S, Zambon A, Saccardi C, Patrelli TS, Di Gangi S, Carrozzini M, et al. Effective anatomical and functional status of the lower uterine segment at term: estimating the risk of uterine dehiscence by ultrasound. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(2):496-501.
