OBJECTIVE: Our goal is to determine whether a trial of labor in women with suspected fetal macrosomia would be a valuable alternative to elective repeat cesarean. MATERIAL: and methods: Based on retrospective analysis of 355 women with previous cesarean section who delivered macrosomic infants (> or =4,000g), we tried to determine the impact of fetal weight on a trial of labor. The outcomes of trial of labor with fetal macrosomia were compared on the one hand to those of elective repeat cesarean and on the other hand to those of trial of labor with normal birth weight (<4,000g). RESULTS: The trial of labor was conducted in 297 cases (83,7%), and had led to vaginal birth in 189 cases (63,6%). There were 4 uterine ruptures (1,3%) and 8 uterine dehiscences (2,7%) among the women who underwent a trial of labor. In this group, there were 4 perinatal deaths (1,3%) related in one case to uterine rupture, and 2 brachial plexus injuries related to shoulder dystocia after vaginal birth. Perinatal and maternal outcomes of trial of labor were similar to those of elective repeat cesarean. A trial of labor was more associated with scar separations and lower success rate if the infant weighed 4,000g or more. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that the use of trial of labor for delivery of large baby with prior cesarean section was associated with lower success rate and the maternal and fetal risks could be increased. However, carefully others controlled studies are necessary to establish the appropriate management in this setting.
OBJECTIVE: Our goal is to determine whether a trial of labor in women with suspected fetal macrosomia would be a valuable alternative to elective repeat cesarean. MATERIAL: and methods: Based on retrospective analysis of 355 women with previous cesarean section who delivered macrosomic infants (> or =4,000g), we tried to determine the impact of fetal weight on a trial of labor. The outcomes of trial of labor with fetal macrosomia were compared on the one hand to those of elective repeat cesarean and on the other hand to those of trial of labor with normal birth weight (<4,000g). RESULTS: The trial of labor was conducted in 297 cases (83,7%), and had led to vaginal birth in 189 cases (63,6%). There were 4 uterine ruptures (1,3%) and 8 uterine dehiscences (2,7%) among the women who underwent a trial of labor. In this group, there were 4 perinatal deaths (1,3%) related in one case to uterine rupture, and 2 brachial plexus injuries related to shoulder dystocia after vaginal birth. Perinatal and maternal outcomes of trial of labor were similar to those of elective repeat cesarean. A trial of labor was more associated with scar separations and lower success rate if the infant weighed 4,000g or more. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that the use of trial of labor for delivery of large baby with prior cesarean section was associated with lower success rate and the maternal and fetal risks could be increased. However, carefully others controlled studies are necessary to establish the appropriate management in this setting.