Trial of labor versus elective cesarean delivery for patients with two prior cesarean sections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective

Cesarean section (CS) rates have been on the rise globally, leading to an increasing number of women facing the decision between a Trial of Labor after two Cesarean Sections (TOLAC-2) or opting for an Elective Repeat Cesarean Section (ERCS). This study evaluates and compares safety outcomes of TOLAC and ERCS in women with a history of two previous CS deliveries.

Methods

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMbase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched for studies published until 30 June 2023. Eligible studies were included based on predetermined criteria, and a random-effects model was employed to pool data for maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Results

Thirteen studies with a combined sample size of 101,011 women who had two prior CS were included. TOLAC-2 was associated with significantly higher maternal mortality (odds ratio (OR)=1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 1.25–1.81) and higher chance of uterine rupture (OR = 7.15, 95% CI = 3.44–14.87) compared to ERCS. However, no correlation was found for other maternal outcomes, including blood transfusion, hysterectomy, or post-partum hemorrhage. Furthermore, neonatal outcomes, such as Apgar scores, NICU admissions, and neonatal mortality, were comparable in the TOLAC-2 and ERCS groups.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest an increased risk of uterine rupture and maternal mortality with TOLAC-2, emphasizing the need for personalized risk assessment and shared decision-making by healthcare professionals. Additional studies are needed to refine our understanding of these outcomes in the context of TOLAC-2.

Keywords:

• Trial of labor
• elective cesarean delivery
• prior cesarean-sections
• systematic review
• meta-analysis
• maternal outcomes
• neonatal outcomes
• clinical decision-making

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials.

Additional information

Funding

This study is funded by Huzhou Science and Technology Bureau [2022GY41].