Trial of labor after cesarean in twin gestation with no prior vaginal delivery – evidence from largest cohort reported

Gabriel Levin, Simcha Yagel, Anat Schwartz, Ariel Many, Joshua I Rosenbloom, Yoav Yinon, Raanan Meyer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To investigate trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) success rates in twin gestations with no prior vaginal delivery. Methods: A retrospective study of women with twin gestations who underwent a TOLAC and had no prior vaginal delivery during 2011–2020. TOLAC success and failure groups were compared. Results: Of 675 twin gestations with a history of cesarean delivery and no prior vaginal delivery, 83 (12.3%) elected to undergo a TOLAC and 26 (31.3%) succeeded. Two (7.7%) women delivered by cesarean for the second twin after vaginal delivery of the first twin. Epidural analgesia was positively associated with TOLAC success (odds ratio [OR] 4.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.56–11.94, P = 0.004). Uterine rupture occurred in two patients (3.5%) of the TOLAC failure group. The proportion of cases with low Apgar score (<7) at 5 min was higher in the TOLAC success group (4 [15.4%] versus 1 [1.8%]; OR 10.1, 95% CI 1.07–96.22, P = 0.032) and the neonatal composite adverse outcome rate was lower in this group (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07–0.69, P = 0.009). Conclusion: TOLAC in women with twins with no prior vaginal delivery is associated with a low success rate. No independent predictors of successful TOLAC were identified.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)229-236
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Volume159
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2022

Keywords

  • cesarean delivery
  • neonatal outcomes
  • trial of labor after cesarean
  • twins
  • vaginal birth after cesarean

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Trial of labor after cesarean in twin gestation with no prior vaginal delivery – evidence from largest cohort reported'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this