Skip to main content
PMC home page
Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium logoLink to Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium
. 1999:226–230.

Trial of labor versus elective repeat cesarean section for the women with a previous cesarean section: a decision analysis.

J H Chuang 1, R A Jenders 1
PMCID: PMC2232472  PMID: 10566354

Abstract

In order to reduce the cesarean-delivery rate, more and more pregnant women are offered trials of labor (TOL) after their previous cesarean sections. TOL and elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS) have different risks and benefits. We constructed a decision analysis to explore this issue. Probabilities were derived from literature reviews. Health state utilities were derived from the authors' clinical judgement. The analysis considered the disutility of the procedures and the disutilities of the morbidity. Using the baseline assumption, ERCS was superior to TOL. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the result was insensitive to all of the probability estimates and the disutilities of the morbidity. However, the result was sensitive to the patient's preference for ERCS, successful TOL, or failed TOL. The analysis indicates that the best delivery method for a woman who has had a previous cesarean section depends on patient's preference. More patients' preference studies are needed.

Full text

PDF
226

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Christensen-Szalanski J. J. Discount functions and the measurement of patients' values. Women's decisions during childbirth. Med Decis Making. 1984;4(1):47–58. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8400400108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cowan R. K., Kinch R. A., Ellis B., Anderson R. Trial of labor following cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Jun;83(6):933–936. doi: 10.1097/00006250-199406000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Flamm B. L., Goings J. R., Liu Y., Wolde-Tsadik G. Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a prospective multicenter study. Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Jun;83(6):927–932. doi: 10.1097/00006250-199406000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Joseph G. F., Jr, Stedman C. M., Robichaux A. G. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: the impact of patient resistance to a trial of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Jun;164(6 Pt 1):1441–1447. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(91)91422-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kline J., Arias F. Analysis of factors determining the selection of repeated cesarean section or trial of labor in patients with histories of prior cesarean delivery. J Reprod Med. 1993 Apr;38(4):289–292. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Krahn M. D., Naglie G., Naimark D., Redelmeier D. A., Detsky A. S. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 4--Analyzing the model and interpreting the results. Med Decis Making. 1997 Apr-Jun;17(2):142–151. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9701700204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. McMahon M. J., Luther E. R., Bowes W. A., Jr, Olshan A. F. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1996 Sep 5;335(10):689–695. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199609053351001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Miller D. A., Diaz F. G., Paul R. H. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a 10-year experience. Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Aug;84(2):255–258. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Naglie G., Krahn M. D., Naimark D., Redelmeier D. A., Detsky A. S. Primer on medical decision analysis: Part 3--Estimating probabilities and utilities. Med Decis Making. 1997 Apr-Jun;17(2):136–141. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9701700203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Paul R. H. Toward fewer cesarean sections--the role of a trial of labor. N Engl J Med. 1996 Sep 5;335(10):735–736. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199609053351009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Phelan J. P., Clark S. L., Diaz F., Paul R. H. Vaginal birth after cesarean. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Dec;157(6):1510–1515. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(87)80252-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Roberts R. G., Bell H. S., Wall E. M., Moy J. G., Hess G. H., Bower H. P. Trial of labor or repeated cesarean section. The woman's choice. Arch Fam Med. 1997 Mar-Apr;6(2):120–125. doi: 10.1001/archfami.6.2.120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rosen M. G., Dickinson J. C., Westhoff C. L. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a meta-analysis of morbidity and mortality. Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Mar;77(3):465–470. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Shy K. K., LoGerfo J. P., Karp L. E. Evaluation of elective repeat cesarean section as a standard of care: an application of decision analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981 Jan 15;139(2):123–129. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(81)90432-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Turner M. J., McNally O., Gardeil F. Trial of labor compared with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1997 Feb 27;336(9):658–659. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium are provided here courtesy of American Medical Informatics Association

RESOURCES