Trial of labour after caesarean section in Sub‐Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Author:

Boatin Adeline A.12ORCID,Cueto Paola D.1ORCID,Garba Deen L.3ORCID,Sawyer Michala4ORCID,James Kaitlyn1ORCID,Ngonzi Joseph5ORCID,Lugobe Henry M.5ORCID,Wylie Blair J.26ORCID,Adu‐Bonsaffoh Kwame78ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Massachusetts General Hospital Boston Massachusetts USA

2. Harvard Medical School Boston Massachusetts USA

3. University of North Carolina School of Medicine Chapel Hill North Carolina USA

4. Planned Parenthood of America Boston Massachusetts USA

5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Mbarara University of Science and Technology Mbarara Uganda

6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal‐Fetal Medicine Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Boston Massachusetts USA

7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Korle‐Bu Teaching Hospital Accra Ghana

8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology University of Ghana Medical School Accra Ghana

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThe objective of this study is to determine the proportion of women undergoing trial of labour after caesarean (TOLAC) and vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) in Sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA), and to estimate associated adverse events.MethodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, CAB, EMBASE and African‐specific databases from 1966 to July 2023, including SSA studies reporting on women with previous caesarean section (CS). We extracted data on study design, planned (TOLAC versus elective repeat CS (ERCS)) and actual delivery mode, and adverse outcomes. We calculated mean TOLAC and VBAC proportions, and pooled proportion of adverse events, comparing between TOLAC and ERCS where available. We assessed bias using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies.ResultsFrom 62 studies with 36 611 births, the estimated proportion undergoing TOLAC and achieving VBAC, adjusted for study variability, were 79% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 74%, 85%) and 47% (95% CI: 42%, 51%), respectively, for all births. Mean estimated uterine rupture proportion and maternal mortality were 2.1% (95% CI: 1.1%, 3.2%) and 0.1% (95% CI: 0.02%, 0.2%) respectively. We found no differences between TOLAC and ERCS for uterine rupture (1.2% vs. 0.2%, pooled odds ratio [OR]: 1.54; 95% CI: 0.63, 3.8) or maternal mortality (0.3% vs. <0.1%, pooled OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.30, 2.0), respectively. However perinatal mortality was higher with TOLAC compared to ERCS (5% vs. 1%; pooled OR: 3.3; 95% CI: 1.5, 6.9).DiscussionWe found high proportions of women undergoing TOLAC and moderate proportions of successful VBAC across SSA, with a higher perinatal mortality associated with TOLAC. Few studies reported on adverse outcomes and used inconsistent definitions. Further research is needed to understand outcomes in this population of women in these settings.RegistrationThe study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020175434).

Funder

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3