uterine rupture

Medscape

eMedicine

MedscapeCME Physician Connect Find a Physician...

CLOSE [X]

SPECIALTY SITES Allergy & Clinical

Immunology Anesthesiology Cardiology Critical Care Dermatology Diabetes &

Endocrinology Emergency Medicine Family Medicine Gastroenterology General Surgery Hematology-Oncology HIV/AIDS Infectious Diseases

Internal Medicine Lab Medicine Nephrology Neurology Ob/Gyn & Women's Health Oncology Ophthalmology Orthopaedics Pathology & Lab Medicine Pediatrics Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic

Medicine Psychiatry & Mental Health Public Health & Prevention Pulmonary Medicine

Radiology Rheumatology Surgery Transplantation Urology Women's Health OTHER SITES Business of

Medicine Medscape Today Med Students Nurses Pharmacists

Medscape MedscapeCME eMedicine Drug Reference MEDLINE

All

Log In | Register eMedicine

Medicine

http://emedicine.medscape.com/specialties

Surgery Pediatrics

Allergy and Immunology Cardiology Clinical Procedures Critical Care Dermatology Emergency Medicine Endocrinology Gastroenterology Genomic Medicine Hematology Infectious Diseases Nephrology

Neurology Obstetrics/Gynecology Oncology Pathology Perioperative Care Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Psychiatry Pulmonology Radiology Rheumatology Sports Medicine

Clinical Procedures General Surgery Neurosurgery Ophthalmology Orthopedic Surgery Otolaryngology and Facial Plastic Surgery Plastic Surgery Thoracic Surgery Transplantation Trauma Urology Vascular Surgery

Cardiac Disease & Critical Care Medicine Developmental & Behavioral General Medicine Genetics & Metabolic Disease Surgery

<script language="JavaScript1.2" type="text/javascript" charset="ISO-8859-1" src="http://as.medscape.com/js.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&transactionID=60776799&site=1&affiliate=2&ssp=0&artid=10033746&env=0&tile=20054775&cg=ckb&pub=280&pubs=280&ct=0&pf=0&usp=0&st=0&occ=0&tid=&pos=101"></script>

http://emedicine.medscape.com/specialties

http://emedicine.medscape.com/specialties#p

eMedicine Specialties > Obstetrics and Gynecology > Obstetrical Complications

Uterine Rupture in PregnancyAuthor: Gerard G Nahum, MD, FACOG, FACS, Adjunct Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences; Head of Global Clinical Development, Women's Healthcare U.S., Bayer HealthCare PharmaceuticalsCoauthor(s): Krystle Quynh Pham, MD, FACOG, Attending Faculty, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center; Clinical Instructor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford UniversityContributor Information and Disclosures

Updated: May 12, 2010

Print This Email This

References

Introduction

Uterine rupture in pregnancy is a rare and often catastrophic complication with a high incidence of fetal and maternal morbidity. Several factors are known to increase the risk of uterine rupture, but, even in high-risk subgroups, the overall incidence of uterine rupture is low. From 1976-2009, 20 peer-reviewed publications that described the incidence of uterine rupture reported 1,864 cases among 2,863,330 pregnant women, yielding an overall uterine rupture rate of 1 in 1,536 pregnancies (0.07%).

The initial signs and symptoms of uterine rupture are typically nonspecific, which makes diagnosis difficult and sometimes delays definitive therapy. From the time of diagnosis to delivery, only 10-37 minutes are available before clinically significant fetal morbidity becomes inevitable. Fetal morbidity occurs as a result of catastrophic hemorrhage, fetal anoxia, or both. The inconsistent premonitory signs and the short time for instituting definitive therapeutic action make uterine rupture a fearful event.

Definition

Uterine rupture during pregnancy is a rare occurrence that frequently results in life-threatening maternal and fetal compromise, whereas uterine scar dehiscence is a more common event that seldom results in major maternal or fetal complications. By definition, uterine scar dehiscence constitutes separation of a preexisting scar that does not disrupt the overlying visceral peritoneum (uterine serosa) and that does not significantly bleed from its edges. In addition, the

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/275854-print

mailto:enter%20email%20address%20here?Subject=eMedicine%20Article%20-%20Uterine%20Rupture%20in%20Pregnancy&Body=I%20thought%20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%20article%20from%20eMedicine.%20You%20may%20either%20click%20on%20the%20following%20link%20or%20copy%20and%20paste%20it%20into%20your%20browser.%0Dhttp://emedicine.medscape.com/article/275854-overview%0D%0A%0D%0AeMedicine%20is%20the%20leading%20provider%20of%20clinical%20medical%20information%20for%20medical%20professionals%20and%20consumers.%20To%20explore%20eMedicine%20today,%20visit%20http://emedicine.medscape.com

fetus, placenta, and umbilical cord must be contained within the uterine cavity, without a need for cesarean delivery due to fetal distress.

By contrast, uterine rupture is defined as a full-thickness separation of the uterine wall and the overlying serosa. Uterine rupture is associated with (1) clinically significant uterine bleeding; (2) fetal distress; (3) expulsion or protrusion of the fetus, placenta, or both into the abdominal cavity; and (4) the need for prompt cesarean delivery and uterine repair or hysterectomy.

Although a scar from cesarean delivery is a well-known risk factor for uterine rupture, most events that involve disruption of the uterine scar result in uterine-scar dehiscence rather than frank uterine rupture. These 2 entities must be clearly distinguished because the options for clinical management and outcomes differ significantly.

Sources of information and study selection

The peer-reviewed literature was searched using the PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases for all relevant articles published in the English language. The search terms were uterine rupture, pregnancy and prior cesarean section, vaginal birth after cesarean, VBAC, trial of labor (TOL), trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) uterine scar dehiscence, and pregnancy and myomectomy. Standard reference tracing was also used.

Articles published from 1976-2010 that described the incidence of uterine rupture and that included sufficient information regarding the authors' definitions of uterine rupture and of uterine-scar dehiscence were incorporated for review. All studies were observational or reviews. A total of 109 published articles were included for data extraction and analysis.

Incidence and risk factors

Meta-analysis of pooled data from 20 studies in the peer-reviewed medical literature published from 1976-2009 indicated an overall incidence of pregnancy-related uterine rupture of 1 per 1,536 pregnancies (0.07%). When the studies were limited to a subset of 8 that provided data about the spontaneous rupture of unscarred uteri in developed countries, the rate was 1 per 8,434 pregnancies (0.012%).

Congenital uterine anomalies, multiparity, previous uterine myomectomy, the number and type of previous cesarean deliveries, fetal macrosomia, labor induction, uterine instrumentation, and uterine trauma all increase the risk of uterine rupture, whereas previous successful vaginal delivery and a prolonged interpregnancy interval after a previous cesarean delivery may confer relative protection. In contrast to the availability of models to predict the potential success of a TOL after a prior cesarean section, accurate models to predict the person-specific risk of uterine rupture for individuals are not available.

Major patient characteristics for determining risk of uterine rupture are noted below.

Uterine status is either native (unscarred) or scarred. Scarred status may include previous cesarean delivery, including the following:

Single low transverse (further subcategorized by 1-layer or 2-layer hysterectomy closure) Single low vertical Classic vertical Multiple previous cesarean deliveries

Scarred status may also include previous myomectomy (transabdominal or laparoscopic).

Uterine configuration may be normal or may involve a congenital uterine anomaly.

Pregnancy considerations include the following:

Grand multiparity Maternal age Placentation (accreta, percreta, increta, previa, abruption) Cornual (or angular) pregnancy Overdistension (multiple gestation, polyhydramnios) Dystocia (fetal macrosomia, contracted pelvis) Trophoblastic invasion of the myometrium (hydatidiform mole, choriocarcinoma)

Previous pregnancy and delivery history may include the following:

Previous successful vaginal delivery No previous vaginal delivery Interdelivery interval

Labor status is determined as follows:

Not in labor Spontaneous labor Induced labor - With oxytocin, with prostaglandins Augmentation of labor with oxytocin Duration of labor Obstructed labor

Obstetric management considerations include the following:

Instrumentation (forceps use) Intrauterine manipulation (external cephalic version, internal podalic version, breech

extraction, shoulder dystocia, manual extraction of placenta) Fundal pressure

Uterine trauma includes the following:

Direct uterine trauma (motor vehicle accident, fall) Violence (gunshot wound, blunt blow to abdomen)

Rupture of the Unscarred Uterus

The normal, unscarred uterus is least susceptible to rupture. Grand multiparity, neglected labor, malpresentation, breech extraction, and uterine instrumentation are all predisposing factors for uterine rupture. A 10-year Irish study by Gardeil et al showed that the overall rate of unscarred uterine rupture during pregnancy was 1 per 30,764 deliveries (0.0033%). No cases of uterine rupture occurred among 21,998 primigravidas, and only 2 (0.0051%) occurred among 39,529 multigravidas with no uterine scar.1

A meta-analysis of 8 large, modern (1975-2009) studies from industrialized countries revealed 174 uterine ruptures among 1,467,534 deliveries. This finding suggested that the modern rate of unscarred uterine rupture during pregnancy is 0.012% (1 of 8,434). This rate of spontaneous uterine rupture has not changed appreciably over the last 40 years, and most of these events occur at term and during labor. An 8-fold increased incidence of uterine rupture of 0.11% (1 in 920) has been noted in developing countries. This increased incidence of uterine rupture has been attributed to a higher-than-average incidence of neglected and obstructed labor due to inadequate access to medical care. When one assesses the risk of uterine rupture, this baseline rate of pregnancy-related uterine rupture is a benchmark that must be used as a point of reference.

Effect of maternal parity

Many authors have considered multiparity a risk factor for uterine rupture. Golan et al noted that, in 19 of 61 cases (31%), uterine rupture occurred in women with a parity of more than 5.2

Schrinsky and Benson found that 7 of 22 women (32%) who had unscarred uterine rupture had a parity of greater than 4.3 In a study by Mokgokong and Marivate, the mean parity for women who had pregnancy-related uterine rupture was 4.4 Despite the apparent increase in the risk of uterine rupture associated with high parity, Gardeil et al found only 2 women with uterine rupture among 39,529 multigravidas who had no previous uterine scar (0.005%).1

Rupture of the unscarred uterus before labor versus during labor

Schrinsky and Benson reported 22 cases of uterine rupture in gravidas with unscarred uteri. Nineteen occurred during labor (86%), and 3 occurred before labor (14%). This percentage was markedly different from that of gravidas with a previous uterine scar, for whom the timing of uterine rupture between labor and the antepartum period was nearly evenly distributed.3

Oxytocin augmentation and induction of labor in the unscarred uterus

Although distinguishing oxytocin use for labor induction versus labor augmentation is useful, many researchers who have investigated the use of oxytocin and the risk of uterine rupture in unscarred uteri unfortunately have not made this distinction.

In 1976, Mokgokong and Marivate reported 260 uterine ruptures among 182,807 deliveries that involved unscarred uteri, and 32 of the 260 (12%) were associated with oxytocin use.4 Rahman et al similarly found that oxytocin was administered in 9 of 65 cases (14%) that involved unscarred

uterine rupture.5 Golan et al noted that, among 126,713 deliveries, oxytocin was used in 26 of 61 cases (43%) that involved unscarred uterine rupture.2 However, Plauche et al attributed only 1 of 23 unscarred uterine ruptures (4%) to the use of oxytocin.6

Therefore, the increased risk of uterine rupture attributable to the use of oxytocin in gravidas with unscarred uteri is uncertain. However, women who have had a cesarean delivery appear to have an increased risk of uterine rupture associated with the use of oxytocin both when it is used for labor augmentation and labor induction (see Table 1).

Congenital uterine anomalies

In a review article, Nahum reported that congenital uterine anomalies affected approximately 1 in 200 women.7 In such cases, the walls of the abnormal uteri tend to become abnormally thin as pregnancies advance, and the thickness can be inconsistent over different aspects of the myometrium.8,9,10,11

Ravasia et al reported an 8% incidence of uterine rupture (2 of 25) in women with congenitally malformed uteri compared with 0.61% (11 of 1,788) in those with normal uteri (P =.013) who were attempting VBAC.12 Both cases of uterine rupture involved labor induction with prostaglandin E2. Pregnancies implanted in the rudimentary horn of the uterus pose special risk for those women undergoing induction of labor, with a uterine rupture rate of up to 81% (387 of 475).13 Importantly, 80% of ruptures occurred before the third trimester, with 67% occurring during the second trimester.

In contrast, a study of 165 patients with Müllerian duct anomalies who underwent spontaneous labor after 1 prior cesarean delivery reported no cases of uterine rupture.14 Of note, in this study 36% (60 of 165) had only a minor uterine anomaly (arcuate or septate uterus), and 64% (105 of 165) had a major uterine anomaly (unicornuate, didelphys, or bicornuate uterus). Moreover, only 6% (10 of 165) of patients with Müllerian duct anomalies underwent induction of labor. The decision of induction of labor in women with congenitally anomalous uteri and a previous cesarean section must therefore be considered carefully given the higher incidence of uterine rupture reported in this patient population.

Although the uterine rupture rate in anomalous, unscarred uteri during pregnancy appears to be increased relative to that for normal uteri, the precise risk for different uterine malformations remains uncertain.

Previous Uterine Myomectomy and Uterine Rupture

Previous myomectomy by means of laparotomy

Nearly all uterine ruptures that involved uteri with myomectomy scars have occurred during the third trimester of pregnancy or during labor. Only 1 case of a spontaneous uterine rupture has been reported before 20 weeks of gestation.15 Brown et al reported that among 120 term infants delivered after previous transabdominal myomectomy, no uterine ruptures occurred, and 80% of the infants were delivered vaginally.16 In contrast, Garnet identified 3 uterine ruptures among 83

women (4%) who had scars from a previous myomectomy and who underwent elective cesarean delivery because of previous myomectomy.17

Such reports do not often delineate the factors that were deemed important for assessing the risk of subsequent uterine rupture (eg, number, size, and locations of leiomyomata; number and locations of uterine incisions; entry of the uterine cavity; type of closure technique). Further studies to investigate these issues are needed.

Previous laparoscopic myomectomy

Dubuisson et al reported 100 patients who underwent laparoscopic myomectomy and found 3 uterine ruptures during subsequent pregnancies.18 Only 1 rupture occurred at the site of the previous myomectomy scar, resulting in the conclusion that the risk of pregnancy-related uterine rupture attributable to laparoscopic myomectomy is 1% (95% CI, 0-5.5%). However, the rarity of spontaneous uterine rupture raises the issue of whether the 2 uterine ruptures at sites that were not coincident with previous myomectomy scars were attributable to the previous myomectomies. If so, a markedly higher 3% uterine rupture rate is associated with previous laparoscopic myomectomy.

Different authors reported no pregnancy-related uterine ruptures in 4 studies of 320 pregnancies in women who previously underwent laparoscopic myomectomy.19,20,21,22 However, in all 4 studies, the number of patients who were allowed to labor was low, and a high percentage of deliveries were by scheduled cesarean delivery (80%, 79%, 75%, and 65%, respectively).

In a prospective study from Japan, there were no uterine ruptures among 59 patients with a successful vaginal delivery after a prior laparoscopic myomectomy.23 In a multicenter study in Italy with 386 patients who achieved pregnancy after laparoscopic myomectomy, there was 1 recorded spontaneous uterine rupture at 33 weeks' gestation (rupture rate 0.26%).24

Uterine rupture has been reported to occur as late as 8 years after laparoscopic myomectomy.25

This finding suggests that additional investigations with long-term follow-up are needed.

Rupture of the Scarred Uterus Due to Previous Cesarean Delivery

The effect of previous cesarean delivery on the risk of uterine rupture has been studied extensively. In a meta-analysis, Mozurkewich and Hutton used pooled data from 11 studies and showed that the uterine rupture rate for women undergoing a TOL after previous cesarean delivery was 0.39% compared with 0.16% for patients undergoing elective repeat cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR], 2.10; 95% CI, 1.45-3.05). Restricting the meta-analysis to 5 prospective cohort trials generated similar results (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.40-3.04).26

Hibbard et al examined the risk of uterine rupture after previous cesarean delivery in 1324 women who underwent a subsequent TOL. They reported a significant difference in the risk of uterine rupture between women who achieved successful vaginal birth compared with women in

whom attempted vaginal delivery failed (0.22% vs 1.9%; OR, 8.9; 95% CI, 1.9-42).27 The effect of previous cesarean delivery on the rate of subsequent pregnancy-related uterine rupture can be further examined according to additional subcategories, which are summarized in Table 1.

Previous classic cesarean delivery

Classic cesarean delivery via vertical midline uterine incision is infrequently performed in the modern era and currently account for 0.5% of all births in the United States.28 In a meta-analysis, Rosen et al reported an 11.5% absolute risk of uterine rupture (3 of 26 cases) in women with classic vertical cesarean scars who underwent an unplanned TOL.29 For women who underwent repeat cesarean section, Chauhan et al reported that the uterine rupture rate for 157 women with prior classical uterine cesarean scars was 0.64% (95% CI, 0.1-3.5%). All patients in that study underwent repeat cesarean delivery, but a high rate of preterm labor resulted in 49% of the patients being in labor at the time of their cesarean delivery.28

Landon et al reported a 1.9% absolute uterine rupture rate (2 of 105 cases) in women with a previous classic, inverted T, or J incision who either presented in advanced labor or refused repeat cesarean delivery.30 These rates of frank uterine rupture in women with classic cesarean deliveries are in contrast to the higher rates of 4-9% that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) had historically reported for women with these types of uterine scars. However, Chauhan et al observed a 9% rate of asymptomatic uterine scar dehiscence (95% CI, 5-15%).28 This result suggests that disruptions of uterine scars might have been misclassified as true ruptures instead of dehiscences in previous studies; this error may explain the bulk of the discrepancy.

Previous low vertical cesarean delivery

A meta-analysis of pooled data from 5 studies demonstrated a 1.1% absolute risk (12 of 1,112 cases) of symptomatic uterine rupture in women undergoing a TOL with a low vertical cesarean scar.31,32,33,34,30 Compared to women with low transverse cesarean scars, these data suggest no significantly increased risk of uterine rupture or adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes.

Interpretation of these studies is hampered by inconsistencies in how high the lower uterine segment could be cut before it was considered a classic incision. Even when the lower uterine segment is already well developed as a result of active labor, a low vertical incision of adequate length is often impossible to permit fetal delivery. Naef et al arbitrarily defined a 2-cm extension into the upper segment as a classic extension. For 322 pregnancies that occurred after a low vertical cesarean delivery, the overall rate of uterine rupture was 0.62%. This rate could be further divided as 1.15% for 174 women who underwent a TOL compared with no ruptures among 148 women who underwent elective repeat cesarean delivery.31

Unknown uterine scar

In many instances, the type of incision used for a prior cesarean delivery cannot be confirmed due to unavailability of the operative report. Under these circumstances, the assessment of uterine rupture risk may sometimes be guided by the obstetric history to infer the most probable

type of uterine scar. For example, a patient with a history of a preterm cesarean delivery at 28 weeks’ gestation has a much higher likelihood of having had a vertical uterine incision than a patient who underwent a cesarean section for an indication of arrest of fetal descent at term.

It has been argued that because most cesarean deliveries in the United States are accomplished via low-transverse uterine incisions, the risk of uterine rupture for patients with an unknown scar is similar to that for women who have previously undergone a low-transverse hysterotomy. This logic depends on the high ratio of low-transverse to vertical incisions performed for cesarean section, but it ignores the varying probability with which different types of uterine incisions are made under different obstetrical circumstances, as well as differences that occur due to varying medical resources and the prevailing local practitioner practices in countries other than the United States (eg, practices that occur in other countries, such as Mexico or Brazil). Nevertheless, the vast majority of cesarean deliveries performed in the United States are accomplished via low-transverse uterine incisions.

In a small case-control study of 70 patients by Leung et al, no association was found between an unknown uterine scar and the risk of uterine rupture; however, given the rarity of uterine rupture (see Table 1), this study was vastly underpowered to detect such a difference.35 Two additional, but similarly underpowered, case series have also reported comparable rates of uterine rupture and VBAC success in women with unknown uterine cesarean delivery scars versus those with documented previous low-transverse hysterotomies.36,37 The Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network cesarean delivery registry reports a 0.5% risk (15 of 3,206) of uterine rupture for patients who underwent a TOL with an unknown uterine scar.30

For cases in which there are 1 or 2 unknown prior uterine incisions, there is a single small, randomized, controlled trial by Grubb et al that compared labor augmentation with oxytocin (n=95) with no intervention (n=93) in women with prior cesarean deliveries involving either 1 or 2 unknown uterine incisions. Four uterine dehiscences and 1 uterine rupture occurred, all in the group that underwent labor augmentation. In the 1 case of uterine rupture, the unknown uterine scar was in a patient with 2 prior cesarean deliveries, one of which involved a vertical incision. Had the uterine scar status for this patient been known in advance, it would have represented a contraindication to a TOL.38

Previous low transverse cesarean delivery

The risk of uterine rupture after a low transverse cesarean delivery varies depending on whether patients undergo a TOL or an elective repeat cesarean delivery and on whether labor is induced or spontaneous, as well as other factors. The vast majority of cesarean deliveries in the United States are of the low transverse type. For women who have had 1 previous cesarean delivery, examining the various risk factors for uterine rupture is instructive. These absolute risks for uterine rupture are discussed below, as well as in Table 1.

Previous cesarean delivery without a subsequent trial of labor

In a study of 20,095 women by Lydon-Rochelle et al, the spontaneous uterine rupture rate among 6,980 women with a single cesarean delivery scar who underwent scheduled repeat cesarean

delivery without a TOL was 0.16%.39 This finding indicates that uteri with cesarean scars have an intrinsic propensity for rupture that exceeds that of the unscarred organ during pregnancy, which is 0.012% (OR increase of approximately 12-fold). Therefore, all other uterine rupture rates in women with a previous cesarean delivery should be referenced to this expected baseline rate.

Previous cesarean delivery with subsequent spontaneous labor

A study by Lydon-Rochelle et al showed that the uterine rupture rate among 10,789 women with a single previous cesarean delivery who labored spontaneously during a subsequent singleton pregnancy was 0.52%.39 This rate of uterine rupture implies an increased relative risk (RR) of 3.3 (95% CI, 1.8-6.0) for women who labor spontaneously compared with women who undergo elective repeat cesarean delivery.

In a study by Ravasia et al of 1,544 patients with a previous cesarean delivery who later labored spontaneously, the uterine rupture rate was 0.45%.40 Zelop et al found that, among 2,214 women with 1 previous cesarean delivery who labored spontaneously, the uterine rupture rate was 0.72%.41 The authors of this article performed a meta-analysis of 29,263 pregnancies from 9 studies from 1987-2004 and showed that the overall risk of uterine rupture was 0.44% for women who labor spontaneously after a previous cesarean delivery.

Previous cesarean delivery with subsequent augmentation of labor

Despite the clinical heterogeneity and different VBAC success rates for women undergoing spontaneous labor rather than either labor augmentation or induction, very few studies have stratified their data by labor augmentation versus labor induction and the data that do exist are conflicting. There is wide variance in the frequency of clinical use of oxytocin as well as in the dose and dosing schedules of oxytocin that are used. As a result, there is a paucity of specific evidence-based clinical guidelines for the use of oxytocin in VBAC trials.

Previous cesarean delivery with subsequent induction of labor

Emerging data indicate that induction of labor after a prior cesarean delivery appears to be associated with an increased risk of uterine rupture.

Zelop et al found that the rate of uterine rupture in 560 women who underwent labor induction after a single previous cesarean delivery was 2.3% compared with 0.72% for 2,214 women who had labored spontaneously (P =.001).41

In a study by Ravasia et al of 575 patients who underwent labor induction, the uterine rupture rate was 1.4% compared with 0.45% for women who labored spontaneously (P =.004).40

Blanchette et al found that the uterine rupture rate after previous cesarean delivery when labor was induced was 4.0% compared with 0.34% for women who labored spontaneously.42 This last finding suggests a 12-fold increased risk of uterine rupture for women who undergo labor induction after previous cesarean delivery.

Data on mechanical methods of labor induction for cervical ripening are limited but reassuring. In a small case series, Bujold et al found no statistically significant difference among the uterine rupture rates of 1.1% for spontaneous labor, 1.2% for induction by amniotomy with or without oxytocin, and 1.6% for induction by transcervical Foley catheter (P =0.81).43

Conversely, Hoffman et al reported a 3.67-fold increased risk of uterine rupture (95% CI, 1.46-9.23) with Foley catheter use for preinduction cervical ripening. Importantly, however, many of these patients received concomitant oxytocin together with application of the transcervical Foley catheter.44

Of particular note is that a recent randomized controlled trial by Pettker et al found that the addition of oxytocin to the use of a transcervical Foley catheter for labor induction does not shorten the time to delivery and has no effect on either the likelihood of delivery within 24 hours or the vaginal delivery rate.45 In light of these findings, induction of labor with a transcervical Foley catheter alone may be a reasonable option for women undergoing a TOLAC with an unfavorable cervix.

Use of prostaglandins for cervical ripening and induction of labor after previous cesarean delivery

Current ACOG guidelines discourage the use of prostaglandins to induce labor in most women with a previous cesarean delivery. This recommendation is based on considerable evidence for an increased risk of uterine rupture associated with prostaglandins. Lydon-Rochelle et al reported a 15.6-fold increased risk for uterine rupture (95% CI, 8.1-30) when prostaglandins were used in gravidas who underwent a TOL after previous cesarean delivery. In 366 women with scars from a previous cesarean delivery who underwent labor induction with prostaglandins, the uterine rupture rate was 2.45% compared with 0.77% without prostaglandin use.39

Taylor et al identified 3 uterine ruptures among 58 patients with 1 previous cesarean delivery who received prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) alone for labor induction. The uterine rupture rate was 5.2% (3 of 58) compared with 1.1% (8 of 732) among patients not treated with prostaglandin.46

Ravasia et al found that 3 ruptures occurred among 172 patients who underwent labor induction with PGE2 alone (1.7%), which was significantly higher than 0.45% (7 of 1,544) women who labored spontaneously.40

In contrast, Flamm et al found a uterine rupture rate of 1.3% (6 of 453) in patients with a previous cesarean delivery who were treated with PGE2 in combination with oxytocin. This result was not significantly different from the rate of 0.7% (33 of 4,569) in women who were not treated with PGE2.47 In a small study, Delaney and Young also did not find a significant difference in uterine rupture rates between patients with scars from a previous cesarean delivery who underwent labor induction with PGE2 and patients with previous cesarean scars who labored spontaneously (1.1 vs 0.3%; P =.15).48

Landon et al reported no uterine ruptures among 227 patients who underwent induction with prostaglandins alone. Although the study was underpowered to detect small differences, the particular type of prostaglandin administered did not appear to significantly affect the uterine

rupture rate (52 patients received misoprostol; 111, dinoprostone; 60, PGE2 gel; and 4, combined prostaglandins).30

Previous cesarean delivery with previous successful vaginal delivery

Several studies have shown a protective association of previous vaginal birth on uterine rupture risk in subsequent attempts at vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Zelop et al compared 1,021 women who underwent a TOL after a single previous cesarean delivery with 1 previous vaginal delivery with 2,762 women who underwent a TOL with no previous vaginal delivery. The uterine rupture rate was 0.2% versus 1.1% (P =.01).49

Among women with a single uterine scar, those with at least 1 previous vaginal delivery had one fifth the risk for uterine rupture compared with women without a previous vaginal delivery (OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.04-0.8). Caughey et al found that women with a previous vaginal delivery were about one fourth as likely as patients without a previous vaginal delivery to have a uterine rupture (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.88).50 In a study of 205 patients who underwent a TOL after 1 previous cesarean delivery, Kayani and Alfirevic noted that all 4 of their cases of uterine ruptures occurred in women with no previous vaginal delivery.51

A study of 11,778 women by members of the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network found that in women with no prior vaginal delivery who underwent a TOL, there was an increased risk of uterine rupture with induction versus spontaneous labor (1.5% vs 0.8%, P =0.02). In contrast, no statistically significant difference was shown for women with a prior vaginal delivery who underwent spontaneous TOL compared with labor induction (0.6% vs 0.4%, P =0.42).52

Previous cesarean delivery with subsequent successful VBACs

Multiple studies suggest a protective advantage with regard to the uterine rupture rate if a woman has had a prior successful VBAC attempt. Multiple potential explanations exist, but the 2 most obvious are that a successful prior VBAC attempt assures that (1) the maternal pelvis is tested and that the bony pelvis is adequate to permit passage of the fetus and (2) the integrity of the uterine scar has been tested previously under the stress/strain conditions during labor and delivery that were adequate to result in vaginal delivery without prior uterine rupture.

Mercer et al found that the rate of uterine rupture decreased after the first successful VBAC, but that there was no additional protective effect demonstrated thereafter: the uterine rupture rate was 0.87% with no prior VBACs, 0.45% for those with one successful prior VBAC, and 0.43% for those with 2 or more successful prior VBACs (P =.01).53 Pooled data from 5 studies indicate an increased uterine rupture rate of 1.4% (1 per 73) in failed VBAC attempts that required a repeat cesarean section in labor.30,42,54,55,56

Interdelivery interval

In a case-control study by Esposito et al, an interpregnancy interval between cesarean delivery and a subsequent pregnancy of <6 months was nearly 4 times as common among patients who

had uterine rupture than in control subjects (17.4 vs 4.7%; OR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.09-14.3). Among 23 patients who had uterine rupture after a previous cesarean delivery, the mean interpregnancy interval was 20.4 ± 15.4 months compared with 36.5 ± 30.4 months for control patients (P =.01).57 Stamilio et al recently confirmed a similar uterine rupture rate of 2.7% in women with an interdelivery interval of <6 months compared with 0.9% for those having interdelivery intervals of ≥6 months (adjusted OR 2.66, 95% CI, 1.21-5.82).58

Shipp et al similarly found that the risk of symptomatic uterine rupture was increased 3-fold in women with interdelivery intervals of<18 months when they underwent a TOL after 1 previous cesarean delivery (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.2-7.2).59 The authors controlled for maternal age, public assistance, length of labor, gestational age of ³41 weeks, and induction of augmentation of labor with oxytocin.

In additional support of this observation, Bujold et al reported on 1,527 women who underwent a TOL after a single previous low-transverse cesarean delivery, finding that 2.8% of patients who had an interdelivery interval of ≤ 24 months had a uterine rupture compared with 0.9% for those with an interdelivery interval of >24 months (P <.01).60 After adjusting for confounding variables, the odds ratio for a uterine rupture during a subsequent TOL was 2.65 for women who had an interdelivery interval of ≤ 24 months compared with women who had a longer interdelivery interval (95% CI, 1.08-5.46).

The authors speculated that a prolonged interpregnancy interval may allow time for the previous cesarean delivery scar to reach its maximal tensile strength before the scar undergoes the mechanical stress and strain with a subsequent intrauterine pregnancy. Interestingly, the authors also observed that the combination of a short interdelivery interval of ≤24 months and a single-layer hysterotomy closure was associated with a uterine rupture rate of 5.6%. This is comparable to the rate of uterine rupture for patients undergoing a TOL with a previous classic midline cesarean scar.

One-layer versus 2-layer hysterotomy closure

In a Canadian study of 1,980 women who underwent a TOL after a single previous low transverse cesarean delivery, Bujold et al found a 4- to 5-fold increased risk of uterine rupture for women who had a previous single-layer uterine closure compared with those having a 2-layer closure. Uterine rupture occurred in 3.1% (15 of 489 cases) of single-layer closure versus 0.5% (8 of 1,491 cases) of double-layer closure (P <.001). Using stepwise multivariate logistic regression, the authors concluded that the OR for uterine rupture in women who had undergone a single previous 1-layer cesarean hysterotomy closure was 3.95 (95% CI, 1.35-11.49) compared with those who had a 2-layer closure.61

Durnwald and Mercer found that 182 patients with single-layer hysterotomy closure did not have an increased rate of uterine rupture, but the rate of uterine windows at subsequent delivery was increased to 3.5% versus 0.7% for those who had a multi-layer closure (P =.046).62

Gyamfi et al reported an 8.6% (3 of 35) rate of uterine rupture in patients with a single-layer closure compared with 1.3% (12 of 913) in those with double-layer closure (P =0.015). Although

the single-layer group had a shorter interdelivery interval, the uterine rupture rate remained significantly elevated even when the time interval was controlled for using logistic regression (OR 7.20, 95% CI, 1.81-28.62, P =0.005).63

Multiple prior cesarean deliveries

For women with a history of 2 or more cesarean deliveries, 10 studies published from 1993-2010 showed that the risk of uterine rupture in a subsequent pregnancy ranged from 0.9-6.0% (1 per 17-108 pregnancies). This risk is increased 2- to 16-fold compared to women with only a single previous cesarean delivery. In a study of 17,322 women with scars from cesarean delivery, Miller et al found that, when women underwent a TOL, uterine rupture was 3 times more common with 2 or more scars (1.7%) than with 1 scar (0.6%) [OR, 3.06; 95% CI, 1.95-4.79; P <.001].64

In the largest analysis to date, Macones et al reviewed data from 17 tertiary and community hospitals and found that, in 1,082 women with 2 uterine scars who underwent a TOL, the risk of uterine rupture was increased 2-fold compared with women with only 1 uterine scar (absolute rupture risk 1.8% vs 0.9%; adjusted OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.37-3.85).65

In the only study to control for potential confounding variables, Caughey et al concluded that in women who had 2 previous cesarean deliveries who then attempted vaginal birth, the risk of uterine rupture was almost 5 times the risk of those with only 1 previous cesarean delivery (3.7% vs 0.8%; P =.001). The study controlled for several key covariates, including the use of prostaglandin E2 gel, oxytocin induction, oxytocin augmentation, length of labor, and epidural use. They also found that women with a previous vaginal delivery were about one fourth as likely to have a uterine rupture as women without a previous vaginal delivery (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.88).50

In contrast, Landon et al reported through the MFM Network that there was no significant difference in the uterine rupture rate for women with multiple prior cesarean deliveries versus 1 prior cesarean delivery (0.9% vs 0.7%; P= 0.37).66 However, in this study there was a much lower TOL rate of 9% for women with multiple prior cesarean deliveries compared with the 27% rate in the report of Macones et al65 and the 73% rate in Miller’s study64 . This indicates that there were much more stringent inclusion/exclusion criteria applied by Landon et al, and that this difference may account for the apparent discrepancy in outcomes. Caughey et al did not report the TOL rate in their 12-year data analysis.50

A recent meta-analysis of 17 studies including 5,666 patients undergoing a TOL after 2 or more cesarean deliveries demonstrated a 1.36% uterine rupture rate.67 This is similar to the result of our pooled data analysis from 10 studies published from 1993-2010, which shows a 1.81% uterine rupture rate for patients with multiple previous cesarean delivery scars.

A 2004 ACOG guideline suggests that in women with 2 previous cesarean deliveries, only those with a previous vaginal delivery should be considered candidates for a TOL.68

Fetal macrosomia

Elkousy et al found that, in 9,960 women who underwent a TOL after 1 previous cesarean delivery, the risk of uterine rupture was significantly greater for fetuses that weighed >4000 g (2.8%) than in those weighing <4000 g (1.2%; RR 2.3, P <.001). For women with 1 previous cesarean delivery and no previous vaginal deliveries, the uterine rupture rate was 3.6% for women with a fetal weight of >4000 g compared to women with a fetal weight of <4000 g (RR 2.3, P <.001).69

Zelop et al reported that the rate of uterine rupture for women delivering neonates weighing >4000 g was 1.6% versus 1% for newborns ≤4000 g, but that the difference was not statistically significant (P =0.24).70 More recently, Jastrow et al showed that birth weight was directly correlated with the rate of uterine rupture, with uterine rupture rates of 0.9%, 1.8%, and 2.6% for birth weights of <3500 g, 3500-3999 g, and ≥4000 g, respectively (P <.05).71

Maternal age

Shipp et al showed that increasing maternal age has a detrimental effect on the rate of uterine rupture. In a multiple logistic regression analysis that was designed to control for confounding factors, the overall rate of uterine rupture in 3,015 women with 1 previous cesarean delivery was 1.1%. The rate of uterine rupture in women older than 30 years (1.4%) versus younger women (0.5%) differed significantly (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.2-8.4).72

Table 1. Absolute Rates of Uterine Rupture for Different Patient Subgroups

Open table in new window

[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

Table

General Category

Subcategory Uterine RuptureYears

of Data Collectio

n

No.of

Studies

ReferencesMajor Minor

Total Deliveri

esRate

Total No.

in Sub-categor

yAll NA NA 2,863,33

01 per 1536

(0.07%)

1,864 1973-2006

20 Gardeil 1994, Golan

1980, Schrinsky

1978, Mokgokong

1976, Rahman

1985, Plauche 1984,

Landon 2004,

Gregory 1999,

McMahon 1996,

Rageth 1999,

Elkousy 2003, Yap

2001, Leung 1993, Miller 1997, Kieser 2002, Bujold

2002, Ofir 2004,

Flamm 1994,

Menihan 1998, Zwart

2009Unscarred uterus

In industrialized countries

NA 1,467,534

1 per 8,434

(0.013%)

174 1975-2006

8 Gardeil 1994,

Plauche 1984,

Gregory 1999,

Rageth 1999, Yap

2001, Miller 1997, Kieser 2002,

Zwart, 2009In developing countries

NA 399,314 1 per 920 (0.11%)

434 1966-2006

4 Golan, 1980,

Mokgokong 1976,

Rahman 1985, Gupta

2010

Elective primary cesarean delivery

NA 17,209 1 per 1,324

(0.08%)

13 1995 1 Gregory 1999

TOL NA 452,720 1 per 4,975

(0.02%)

91 1995 1 Gregory 1999

Labor with vaginal delivery

NA 401,387 1 per 14,866 (0.01%)

27 1995 1 Gregory 1999

Failed labor with primary cesarean delivery

NA 51,333 1 per 802 (0.12%)

64 1995 1 Gregory 1999

Congenitally anomalous uterus


NA 190 1 per 95 (1.1%)

2 1992-2002

2 Ravasia 1999, Erez

2007

Normal uterus, previous myomectomy

NA NA 1,001 1 per 143 (.70%)

7 1930-2006

10 Brown, 1956, Garnet 1964,

Dubuisson 2000,

Seinera 2000,

Nezhat 1999,

Seracchioli 2000,

Seracchioli 2006,

Kumakiri 2008, Sizzi

2007, Makino

2008Trans-abdominal myomectomy

NA 179 1 per 60 (1.7%)

3 1930-1960

2 Brown 1956,

Garnet 1964

Laparoscopic myomecto

NA 822 1 per 206(0.49

%)

4 1989-2006

8 Dubuisson 2000,

Seinera

my 2000, Nezhat, 1999,

Seracchioli 2000,

Seracchioli 2006,


2007, Makino

2008Normal uterus, previous cesarean delivery

NA NA 172,397 1 per 236 (0.42%)

732 1983-2002

13 Gardeil 1994,

Landon 2004,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Blanchette

2001, Grobman

2007, Rageth 1999, Miller

1994, Yap 2001, Leung 1993, Kieser 2002,

Flamm 1994,

Cowan 1994, Lin

2004Elective repeat cesarean delivery

NA 90,360 1 per 623 (0.16%)

145 1982-2002

10 Gardeil 1994,

Mozurkewich 2000, Landon 2004,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001,

Blanchette 2001,

Gregory 1999,

McMahon 1996,

Rageth 1999, Kieser

2002, Lin 2004

TOL NA 168,609 1 per 174 (0.58%)

970 1982-2002

22 Gardeil 1994,

Mozurkewich 2000, Hibbard

2001, Landon 2004,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Ravasia

2000, Zelop 1999,

Blanchette 2001, Taylor 2002,

Grobman 2007,

Gregory 1999,

McMahon 1996,

Rageth 1999, Leung 1993, Kieser 2002,

Flamm 1994,

Menihan 1998, Phelan

1987, Asakura

1995, Lieberman

2001, Locatelli

2006History of previous successful VBAC*

71,470 1 per 581 (0.17%)

123 1976-2002

9 Landon 2004,

Blanchette 2001,

Mercer 2008,

Gregory 1999,

McMahon 1996,

Rageth 1999, Yap

2001, Leung 1993,

Asakura 1995

No history of previous successful VBAC

20,191 1 per 125 (0.80%)

161 1983-2002

2 Mercer 2008,

Leung 1993

Failed VBAC or repeat cesarean delivery in labor

25,922 1 per73 (1.4%)

356 1983-2002

5 Landon 2004,

Blanchette 2001,

Gregory 1999,

McMahon 1996,

Rageth 1999

Spontaneous TOL

29,263 1 per 225 (0.44%)

130 1979-2002

9 Landon 2004,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Ravasia

2000, Zelop 1999,

Blanchette 2001,

Delaney 2003, Lin

2004, Locatelli

2006, Molloy 1987

Augmented TOL (oxytocin)

15,666 1 per 144 (0.70%)

109 1979-2002

6 Landon 2004, Zelop

1999, Blanchette

2001, Rageth 1999,

Molloy 1987,

Flamm 1990

Induced TOL (oxytocin)

3,658 1 per 125 (0.80%)

54 1983-2002


1999, Blanchette

2001, Taylor

2002, Lin 2004

Induced TOL (non-prosta-glandin)

6,768 1 per 125 (0.80%)

54 1983-2002

5 Rageth 1999,

Landon 2004,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Raasia 2000, Bujold 2004

Induced TOL (prosta-glandin)

1,817 1 per63 (1.6%)

29 1984-2002

12 Landon 2004,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Ravasia

2000, Zelop

1999, Blanchette

2001, Taylor, 2002,

Delaney 2003, Lin,

2004, Locatelli

2006, Choy-Hee 2001, Plaut 1999, Wing

1998Combined prostaglandin-oxytocin induction

924 1 per58 (1.7%)

16 1984-2000

5 Ravasia 2000, Zelop

1999, Banchette

2001, Taylor 2002,

Flamm 1997

Normal uterus, single previous cesarean delivery

NA NA 134,556 1 per 196 (0.51%)

686 1975-2000

13 Plauche 1984,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Zelop 1999,

Delaney 2003,

McMahon 1996,

Rageth 1999, Miller 1994,

Macones 2005,

Elkousy 2003, Leung 1993, Kieser 2002, Bujold

2002, Asakura

1995Before labor

NA 6,980 1 per 635 (0.16%)

11 1987-1996

1 Lydon-Rochelle

2001With labor NA 28,698 1 per 173

(0.58%)166 1984-

20026 Lydon-

Rochelle 2001, Zelop

1999, Delaney

2003, Grobman

2007, Bujold

2002, Lin 2004

Labor induction

NA 7,757 1 per 92 (1.1%)

84 1984-2002

6 Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Zelop 1999,

Delaney 2003,

Grobman 2007, Lin

2004, Locatelli

2006Successful vaginal delivery

1,110 1 per 1,110

(0.09%)

1 1987-1991

1 Asakura 1995

Classicmidline cesarean delivery

NA 428 1 per86 (1.2%)

5 1980-2002

4 Chauhan 2002,

Landon 2004,

Patterson 2002,

Bethune 1997

Successful previous vaginal delivery

NA 7,070 1 per 244 (0.41%)

29 1984-2002

4 Zelop 2000, Kayani 2005,

Grobman 2007,

Hendler 2004

No previous vaginal delivery

NA 12,805 1 per93 (1.1%)

137 1984-2002


2000, Kayani 2005,

Grobman 2007,

Hendler 2004

Successful previous VBAC

NA 526 1 per 526 (0.19%)

1 1988-2002

2 Kayani 2005,

Hendler 2004

Lowtransverse cesarean delivery

NA 29,501 1 per 142 (0.68%)

208 1984-2002

6 Landon 2004, Shipp 1999, Zelop

1999, Delaney

2003, Bujold 2002,

Menihan 1998

With labor 22,855 1 per 143 (0.70%)

160 1988-2002

6 Zelop 1999, Delaney

2003, Grobman

2007, Bujold 2002,

Locatelli 2006,

Yogev 2004Spontaneous TOL

13,381 1 per 188 (0.53%)

71 1992-2002

4 Delaney 2003,

Grobman 2007,

Locatelli 2006,

Yogev 2004Induced TOL (oxytocin)

3,224 1 per92

(1.09%)

35 1992-2000

2 Delaney 2003,

Grobman 2007

Induced TOL

724 1 per 241 (0.41%)

3 1992-2002

4 Delaney 2003,

(prostaglandin)

Grobman 2007,

Locatelli 2006,

Yogev 2004TOL with interdelivery interval ≤2 y

1,071 1 per41 (2.8%)

26 1988-2000

4 Stamilio 2007, Shipp

2001, Bujold 2002,

Huang 2002TOL with 1-layer hysterotomy closure

776 1 per43 (2.3%)

18 1988-2001

4 Bujold 2002,

Durnwald 2003,

Gyamfi 2006,

Chapman 1997

TOL with 2-layer hysterotomy closure

2,819 1 per 117 (0.85%)

24 1988-2001

4 Bujold 2002,

Durnwald 2003,

Gyamfi 2006,

Chapman 1997

Fetal macrosomia >4000 g

1,915 1 per39 (2.6%)

42 1984-2004

3 Elkousy 2003, Zelop

2001, Jastrow

2010Unknown uterine scar

NA 3,698 1 per 218 (0.5%)

17 1999-2002

4 Landon 2004, Pruett 1988, Beall

1984, Grubb 1996

Low vertical cesarean delivery

NA 1,355 1 per90 (1.1%)

15 1981-2002

6 Landon 2004, Naef 1995, Adair

1996, Martin

1997, Shipp 1999, Zelop

1999With labor 933 1 per 104 9 1981- 3 Naef 1995,

(0.96%) 1997 Martin 1997, Shipp

1999Normal uterus, multiple previous cesarean deliveries

NA NA 6,279 1 per54

(1.85%)

116 1983-2002

10 Blanchette 2001, Zelop

2000, Caughey

1999, Miller 1994,

Macones 2005,

Landon 2006,Leung

1993, Cowan 1994,

Asakura 1995, Cahill

2010Spontaneous TOL

NA 523 1 per 131 (0.76%)

4 1996-2002

1 Lin 2004


NA 54 1 per54 (1.8%)

1 1996-2002

1 Lin 2004


NA 19 1 per19 (5.3%)

1 1996-2002

1 Lin 2004

General Category

Subcategory Uterine RuptureYears

of Data Collectio

n

No.of

Studies

ReferencesMajor Minor

Total Deliveri

esRate

Total No.

in Sub-categor

yAll NA NA 2,863,33

01 per 1536

(0.07%)

1,864 1973-2006

20 Gardeil 1994, Golan

1980, Schrinsky

1978, Mokgokong

1976, Rahman

1985, Plauche 1984,

Landon 2004,

Gregory 1999,

McMahon 1996,

Rageth 1999,

Elkousy 2003, Yap

2001, Leung 1993, Miller 1997, Kieser 2002, Bujold

2002, Ofir 2004,

Flamm 1994,

Menihan 1998, Zwart

2009Unscarred uterus

In industrialized countries

NA 1,467,534

1 per 8,434

(0.013%)

174 1975-2006

8 Gardeil 1994,

Plauche 1984,

Gregory 1999,

Rageth 1999, Yap

2001, Miller 1997, Kieser 2002,

Zwart, 2009In developing countries

NA 399,314 1 per 920 (0.11%)

434 1966-2006

4 Golan, 1980,

Mokgokong 1976,

Rahman 1985, Gupta

2010

Elective primary cesarean delivery

NA 17,209 1 per 1,324

(0.08%)

13 1995 1 Gregory 1999

TOL NA 452,720 1 per 4,975

(0.02%)

91 1995 1 Gregory 1999

Labor with vaginal delivery

NA 401,387 1 per 14,866 (0.01%)

27 1995 1 Gregory 1999

Failed labor with primary cesarean delivery

NA 51,333 1 per 802 (0.12%)

64 1995 1 Gregory 1999

Congenitally anomalous uterus


NA 190 1 per 95 (1.1%)

2 1992-2002

2 Ravasia 1999, Erez

2007

Normal uterus, previous myomectomy

NA NA 1,001 1 per 143 (.70%)

7 1930-2006

10 Brown, 1956, Garnet 1964,

Dubuisson 2000,

Seinera 2000,

Nezhat 1999,

Seracchioli 2000,

Seracchioli 2006,


2007, Makino

2008Trans-abdominal myomectomy

NA 179 1 per 60 (1.7%)

3 1930-1960

2 Brown 1956,

Garnet 1964

Laparoscopic myomecto

NA 822 1 per 206(0.49

%)

4 1989-2006

8 Dubuisson 2000,

Seinera

my 2000, Nezhat, 1999,

Seracchioli 2000,

Seracchioli 2006,


2007, Makino

2008Normal uterus, previous cesarean delivery

NA NA 172,397 1 per 236 (0.42%)

732 1983-2002

13 Gardeil 1994,

Landon 2004,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Blanchette

2001, Grobman

2007, Rageth 1999, Miller

1994, Yap 2001, Leung 1993, Kieser 2002,

Flamm 1994,

Cowan 1994, Lin

2004Elective repeat cesarean delivery

NA 90,360 1 per 623 (0.16%)

145 1982-2002

10 Gardeil 1994,

Mozurkewich 2000, Landon 2004,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001,

Blanchette 2001,

Gregory 1999,

McMahon 1996,

Rageth 1999, Kieser

2002, Lin 2004

TOL NA 168,609 1 per 174 (0.58%)

970 1982-2002

22 Gardeil 1994,

Mozurkewich 2000, Hibbard

2001, Landon 2004,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Ravasia

2000, Zelop 1999,

Blanchette 2001, Taylor 2002,

Grobman 2007,

Gregory 1999,

McMahon 1996,

Rageth 1999, Leung 1993, Kieser 2002,

Flamm 1994,

Menihan 1998, Phelan

1987, Asakura

1995, Lieberman

2001, Locatelli

2006History of previous successful VBAC*

71,470 1 per 581 (0.17%)

123 1976-2002

9 Landon 2004,

Blanchette 2001,

Mercer 2008,

Gregory 1999,

McMahon 1996,

Rageth 1999, Yap

2001, Leung 1993,

Asakura 1995

No history of previous successful VBAC

20,191 1 per 125 (0.80%)

161 1983-2002

2 Mercer 2008,

Leung 1993

Failed VBAC or repeat cesarean delivery in labor

25,922 1 per73 (1.4%)

356 1983-2002

5 Landon 2004,

Blanchette 2001,

Gregory 1999,

McMahon 1996,

Rageth 1999

Spontaneous TOL

29,263 1 per 225 (0.44%)

130 1979-2002

9 Landon 2004,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Ravasia

2000, Zelop 1999,

Blanchette 2001,

Delaney 2003, Lin

2004, Locatelli

2006, Molloy 1987

Augmented TOL (oxytocin)

15,666 1 per 144 (0.70%)

109 1979-2002


1999, Blanchette

2001, Rageth 1999,

Molloy 1987,

Flamm 1990


3,658 1 per 125 (0.80%)

54 1983-2002


1999, Blanchette

2001, Taylor

2002, Lin 2004

Induced TOL (non-prosta-glandin)

6,768 1 per 125 (0.80%)

54 1983-2002

5 Rageth 1999,

Landon 2004,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Raasia 2000, Bujold 2004


1,817 1 per63 (1.6%)

29 1984-2002

12 Landon 2004,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Ravasia

2000, Zelop

1999, Blanchette

2001, Taylor, 2002,

Delaney 2003, Lin,

2004, Locatelli

2006, Choy-Hee 2001, Plaut 1999, Wing

1998Combined prostaglandin-oxytocin induction

924 1 per58 (1.7%)

16 1984-2000


1999, Banchette

2001, Taylor 2002,

Flamm 1997

Normal uterus, single previous cesarean delivery

NA NA 134,556 1 per 196 (0.51%)

686 1975-2000

13 Plauche 1984,

Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Zelop 1999,

Delaney 2003,

McMahon 1996,

Rageth 1999, Miller 1994,

Macones 2005,

Elkousy 2003, Leung 1993, Kieser 2002, Bujold

2002, Asakura

1995Before labor

NA 6,980 1 per 635 (0.16%)

11 1987-1996

1 Lydon-Rochelle

2001With labor NA 28,698 1 per 173

(0.58%)166 1984-

20026 Lydon-

Rochelle 2001, Zelop

1999, Delaney

2003, Grobman

2007, Bujold

2002, Lin 2004

Labor induction

NA 7,757 1 per 92 (1.1%)

84 1984-2002

6 Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Zelop 1999,

Delaney 2003,

Grobman 2007, Lin

2004, Locatelli

2006Successful vaginal delivery

1,110 1 per 1,110

(0.09%)

1 1987-1991

1 Asakura 1995

Classicmidline cesarean delivery

NA 428 1 per86 (1.2%)

5 1980-2002

4 Chauhan 2002,

Landon 2004,

Patterson 2002,

Bethune 1997

Successful previous vaginal delivery

NA 7,070 1 per 244 (0.41%)

29 1984-2002

4 Zelop 2000, Kayani 2005,

Grobman 2007,

Hendler 2004

No previous vaginal delivery

NA 12,805 1 per93 (1.1%)

137 1984-2002


2000, Kayani 2005,

Grobman 2007,

Hendler 2004

Successful previous VBAC

NA 526 1 per 526 (0.19%)

1 1988-2002

2 Kayani 2005,

Hendler 2004

Lowtransverse cesarean delivery

NA 29,501 1 per 142 (0.68%)

208 1984-2002

6 Landon 2004, Shipp 1999, Zelop

1999, Delaney

2003, Bujold 2002,

Menihan 1998

With labor 22,855 1 per 143 (0.70%)

160 1988-2002

6 Zelop 1999, Delaney

2003, Grobman

2007, Bujold 2002,

Locatelli 2006,

Yogev 2004Spontaneous TOL

13,381 1 per 188 (0.53%)

71 1992-2002

4 Delaney 2003,

Grobman 2007,

Locatelli 2006,

Yogev 2004Induced TOL (oxytocin)

3,224 1 per92

(1.09%)

35 1992-2000

2 Delaney 2003,

Grobman 2007

Induced TOL

724 1 per 241 (0.41%)

3 1992-2002

4 Delaney 2003,

(prostaglandin)

Grobman 2007,

Locatelli 2006,

Yogev 2004TOL with interdelivery interval ≤2 y

1,071 1 per41 (2.8%)

26 1988-2000

4 Stamilio 2007, Shipp

2001, Bujold 2002,

Huang 2002TOL with 1-layer hysterotomy closure

776 1 per43 (2.3%)

18 1988-2001

4 Bujold 2002,

Durnwald 2003,

Gyamfi 2006,

Chapman 1997

TOL with 2-layer hysterotomy closure

2,819 1 per 117 (0.85%)

24 1988-2001

4 Bujold 2002,

Durnwald 2003,

Gyamfi 2006,

Chapman 1997

Fetal macrosomia >4000 g

1,915 1 per39 (2.6%)

42 1984-2004

3 Elkousy 2003, Zelop

2001, Jastrow

2010Unknown uterine scar

NA 3,698 1 per 218 (0.5%)

17 1999-2002

4 Landon 2004, Pruett 1988, Beall

1984, Grubb 1996

Low vertical cesarean delivery

NA 1,355 1 per90 (1.1%)

15 1981-2002

6 Landon 2004, Naef 1995, Adair

1996, Martin

1997, Shipp 1999, Zelop

1999With labor 933 1 per 104 9 1981- 3 Naef 1995,

(0.96%) 1997 Martin 1997, Shipp

1999Normal uterus, multiple previous cesarean deliveries

NA NA 6,279 1 per54

(1.85%)

116 1983-2002

10 Blanchette 2001, Zelop

2000, Caughey

1999, Miller 1994,

Macones 2005,

Landon 2006,Leung

1993, Cowan 1994,

Asakura 1995, Cahill

2010Spontaneous TOL

NA 523 1 per 131 (0.76%)

4 1996-2002

1 Lin 2004


NA 54 1 per54 (1.8%)

1 1996-2002

1 Lin 2004


NA 19 1 per19 (5.3%)

1 1996-2002

1 Lin 2004

NA=Not applicableTOL=Trial of laborVBAC=Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery

Signs and Symptoms of Uterine Rupture During Pregnancy

The signs and symptoms of uterine rupture largely depend on the timing, site, and extent of the uterine defect. Uterine rupture at the site of a previous uterine scar is typically less violent and less dramatic than a spontaneous or traumatic rupture because of their relatively reduced vascularity.

The classic signs and symptoms of uterine rupture are (1) fetal distress (as evidenced most often by abnormalities in fetal heart rate), (2) diminished baseline uterine pressure, (3) loss of uterine contractility, (4) abdominal pain, (5) recession of the presenting fetal part, (6) hemorrhage, and (7) shock. However, modern studies show that some of these signs and symptoms are rare and

that many may not be reliably distinguished from their occurrences in other, more benign obstetric circumstances (see Table 2).

Table 2. Conditions Associated With Uterine Rupture


[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

Table

ConditionTotal Cases

Cases With

Uterine Rupture

Incidencein Patients

With Uterine

Rupture, %

Yearsof Data

Collection

No.of

StudiesReferences

Abnormal pattern in fetal heart rate

344 187 54 1973-2002 8 Gardeil 1994, Golan 1980, Rahman 1985,

Blanchette 2001, Taylor 2002, Rageth 1999, Yap

2001, Bujold 2002Prolonged deceleration in fetal heart rate or bradycardia

143 114 80 1983-2002 4 Miller 1994, Leung 1993, Bujold 2002,

Menihan 1998

Uterine tachysystole* or hyper-stimulation

30 12 40 1994-1999 2 Blanchette 2001, Phelan 1998

Loss of intrauterine pressure or cessation of contractions

144 6 4 1973-1999 3 Golan 1980, Blanchette 2001, Eden 1986

Abnormal labor or failure to progress

169 49 29 1983-1996 2 Rageth 1999, Leung 1993

Abdominal pain 454 118 26 1931-2000 9 Golan 1980, Rahman 1985, Blanchette 2001, Yap 2001, Leung 1993,

Miller 1997, Bujold 2002, Rodriguez 1989,

Eden 1986Vaginal bleeding 381 140 37 1931-2000 8 Gardeil 1994, Golan

1980, Rahman 1985, Yap 2001, Leung 1993,

Miller 1997, Bujold

2002, Eden 1986Shock 213 71 33 1931-1993 3 Golan 1980, Rahman

1985, Eden 1986

ConditionTotal Cases

Cases With

Uterine Rupture


With Uterine

Rupture, %

Yearsof Data

Collection

No.of

StudiesReferences

Abnormal pattern in fetal heart rate

344 187 54 1973-2002 8 Gardeil 1994, Golan 1980, Rahman 1985,

Blanchette 2001, Taylor 2002, Rageth 1999, Yap

2001, Bujold 2002Prolonged deceleration in fetal heart rate or bradycardia

143 114 80 1983-2002 4 Miller 1994, Leung 1993, Bujold 2002,

Menihan 1998

Uterine tachysystole* or hyper-stimulation

30 12 40 1994-1999 2 Blanchette 2001, Phelan 1998

Loss of intrauterine pressure or cessation of contractions

144 6 4 1973-1999 3 Golan 1980, Blanchette 2001, Eden 1986

Abnormal labor or failure to progress

169 49 29 1983-1996 2 Rageth 1999, Leung 1993

Abdominal pain 454 118 26 1931-2000 9 Golan 1980, Rahman 1985, Blanchette 2001, Yap 2001, Leung 1993,

Miller 1997, Bujold 2002, Rodriguez 1989,

Eden 1986Vaginal bleeding 381 140 37 1931-2000 8 Gardeil 1994, Golan

1980, Rahman 1985, Yap 2001, Leung 1993,

Miller 1997, Bujold 2002, Eden 1986

Shock 213 71 33 1931-1993 3 Golan 1980, Rahman 1985, Eden 1986

* Defined as > 6 contractions during 2 consecutive 10-minute periods of observation.

Prolonged, late, or recurrent variable decelerations or fetal bradycardias are often the first and only signs of uterine rupture. Bujold and Gauthier showed that abnormal patterns in fetal heart rate were the first manifestations of uterine rupture in 87% of patients.60 In a study by Leung et al, prolonged decelerations in fetal heart rate occurred in 79% of cases and were the most common finding associated with uterine rupture.73 Rodriguez et al found that fetal distress was the most common finding associated with uterine rupture, occurring in 78%.74 Overall, in 4 studies from 1983-2000, prolonged decelerations of fetal heart rate or bradycardias occurred in 114 (80%) of 143 cases of uterine rupture. In cases that involved the extrusion of the placenta and fetus into the abdominal cavity, prolonged decelerations in fetal heart rate invariably occurred.73,75,76,60

Sudden or atypical maternal abdominal pain occurs more rarely than fetal heart rate decelerations or bradycardia. In 9 studies from 1980-2002, abdominal pain occurred in 13-60% of cases of uterine rupture. In a review of 10,967 patients undergoing a TOL, only 22% of complete uterine ruptures presented with abdominal pain and 76% presented with signs of fetal distress diagnosed by continuous electronic fetal monitoring.77

Moreover, in a study by Bujold and Gauthier, abdominal pain was the first sign of rupture in only 5% of patients and occurred in women who developed uterine rupture without epidural analgesia but not in women who received an epidural block.60 Thus, abdominal pain is an unreliable and uncommon sign of uterine rupture. Initial concerns that epidural anesthesia might mask the pain caused by uterine rupture have not been verified and there have been no reports of epidural anesthesia delaying the diagnosis of uterine rupture. A guideline from ACOG from 2004 suggests there is no absolute contraindication to epidural anesthesia for a TOL because epidurals rarely mask the signs and symptoms of uterine rupture.68

Phelan et al found that abnormal patterns of uterine activity, such as tetany and hyperstimulation, are often not associated with uterine rupture. In their study, in which monitoring of uterine activity was limited to external tocodynamometry, tetany was defined as a contraction lasting longer than 90 seconds, and hyperstimulation was defined as more than 5 contractions in 10 minutes.78 Rodriguez et al found that the usefulness of intrauterine pressure catheters (IUPCs) for diagnosing uterine rupture was not supported. In 76 cases of uterine rupture, the classic description of decreased uterine tone and diminished uterine activity was not observed in any patients, 39 of whom had IUPCs in place. In addition, rates of fetal and maternal morbidity and mortality associated with uterine rupture did not differ with the use of an IUPC compared with external tocodynamometry.74

In 8 reports published from 1980-2002 in which investigators examined the frequency of vaginal bleeding in cases of uterine rupture, vaginal bleeding occurred in 11-67% of cases. In 3 studies, maternal shock from hypovolemia was associated with uterine rupture in 29-46% of cases.2,5,79

Diagnosis

Because of the short time available to diagnose uterine rupture before the onset of irreversible physiologic damage to the fetus, time-consuming diagnostic methods and sophisticated imaging

modalities have only limited use. Therefore, uterine rupture is most appropriately diagnosed on the basis of standard signs and symptoms (see Table 2).

Despite this limitation, various diagnostic techniques have been used to attempt to assess the individual risk of uterine rupture in selected patients. Amniography, radiopelvimetry, and pelvic examination have all proven unsuitable for predicting the risk of uterine rupture in women who desire a TOL after a previous cesarean delivery. In addition, imaging modalities such as CT and MRI have not been clinically useful in diagnosing acute uterine rupture because of the time constraints involved in establishing the diagnosis. Given this limitation, MRI is thought to be superior to CT for evaluating the status of a uterine incision because of its increased soft tissue contrast. All studies of these methods are limited by their retrospective design and their lack of surgical confirmation of true uterine dehiscence.

Several reports have suggested that transabdominal, transvaginal, or sonohysterographic ultrasonography may be useful for detecting uterine-scar defects after cesarean delivery. Rozenberg et al prospectively examined 642 women and found that the risk of uterine rupture after previous cesarean delivery was directly related to the thickness of the lower uterine segment, as measured during transabdominal ultrasonography at 36-38 weeks of gestation. The risk of uterine rupture increased significantly when the uterine wall was thinner than 3.5 mm. Using a 3.5 mm cutoff, the authors had a sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 73.2%, positive predictive value of 11.8%, and a negative predictive value of 99.3% in predicting subsequent uterine rupture.80

In a study of 722 women, Gotoh et al reported that a uterine wall thinner than 2 mm, as determined with ultrasonography performed within 1 week of delivery, significantly increased the risk of uterine rupture. Positive and negative predictive values were 73.9% and 100%, respectively.81

Consequences of Uterine Rupture

Overview

The consequences of uterine rupture during pregnancy depend on the time that elapses from the rupture until the institution of definitive therapy. Definitive therapy for the fetus is delivery and must generally be accomplished with alacrity to avoid major fetal morbidity and mortality. Conversely, therapy for the mother can generally be supportive and resuscitative until surgical intervention can be undertaken to arrest the often life-threatening uterine hemorrhage.

Several studies have shown that delivery of the fetus within 10-37 minutes of uterine rupture is necessary to prevent serious fetal morbidity and mortality.73,76,82,42,60 If proper supportive measures (including fluid resuscitation and blood transfusion), are available to treat the mother, the time for definitive surgical intervention before the onset of major maternal morbidity and mortality may often be substantially longer than that for the fetus.

Therefore, the consequences of uterine rupture may be divided into 2 major categories, depending on whether they apply to the fetus or to the mother (see Table 3).

Table 3. Fetal and Maternal Consequences of Uterine Rupture


[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

Table

ConsequenceTotal Cases

Cases With

Uterine Rupture


With Uterine

Rupture, %

Yearsof Data

Collection

No.of Studies Reviewed

References

Fetal or NeonatalHypoxia or anoxia

231 19 8 1983-2002 3 Landon 2004, Leung 1993, Kieser 2002

Acidosis (Umbilical artery cord pH <7)

252 83 33 1976-2002 5 Landon 2004, Ravasia 2000, Yap 2001, Leung

1993, Menihan 1998Depressed Apgar scores (Five-minute Apgar score <7)

349 90 26 1976-2002 9 Landon 2004, Shipp 1999, Blanchette 2001,

Caughey 1999, Yap 2001, Leung 1993, Miller 1997,

Kieser 2002, Menihan 1998

Admission to neonatal intensive care unit

164 71 43 1976-2002 4 Landon 2004, Miller 1997, Kieser 2002,

Menihan 1998

Perinatal death, industrialized countries

548 39 7 1975-2002 14 Gardeil 1994, Plauche 1984, Landon 2004, Shipp 1999, Lydon-

Rochelle 2001, Blanchette 2001,

Caughey 1999, Esposito 2000, Yap 2001, Leung

1993, Kieser 2002, Flamm 1994, Lieberman

2001, Flamm 1990Perinatal death, developing countries

524 388 74 1966-1980 3 Golan 1980, Mokgokong 1976, Rahman 1985

MaternalSevere blood 286 67 23 1976-1998 7 Gardeil 1994, Shipp

loss or transfusion

1999, Lydon-Rochelle 2001, Yap 2001, Leung

1993, Kieser 2002, Menihan 1998

Cystotomy 311 45 11 1976-1998 7 Gardeil 1994, Shipp 1999, Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Caughey 1999, Yap 2001, Leung 1993, Kieser

2002Need for hysterectomy

518 109 21 1973-2000 14 Gardeil 1994, Golan 1980, Plauche 1984, Shipp 1999, Lydon-



1993, Kieser 2002, Menihan 1998,

Lieberman 2001, Flamm 1990

Death, industrialized countries

313 1 0.32 1975-2000 11 Gardeil 1994, Plauche 1984, Shipp 1999,

Caughey 1999, McMahon 1996, Yap 2001, Leung


2001, Spaulding 1979Death, developing countries


ConsequenceTotal Cases

Cases With

Uterine Rupture


With Uterine

Rupture, %

Yearsof Data

Collection

No.of Studies Reviewed

References

Fetal or NeonatalHypoxia or anoxia

231 19 8 1983-2002 3 Landon 2004, Leung 1993, Kieser 2002

Acidosis (Umbilical artery cord pH <7)

252 83 33 1976-2002 5 Landon 2004, Ravasia 2000, Yap 2001, Leung

1993, Menihan 1998Depressed Apgar scores (Five-minute Apgar

349 90 26 1976-2002 9 Landon 2004, Shipp 1999, Blanchette 2001,

Caughey 1999, Yap 2001,

score <7) Leung 1993, Miller 1997, Kieser 2002, Menihan

1998Admission to neonatal intensive care unit

164 71 43 1976-2002 4 Landon 2004, Miller 1997, Kieser 2002,

Menihan 1998

Perinatal death, industrialized countries

548 39 7 1975-2002 14 Gardeil 1994, Plauche 1984, Landon 2004, Shipp 1999, Lydon-




2001, Flamm 1990Perinatal death, developing countries


MaternalSevere blood loss or transfusion

286 67 23 1976-1998 7 Gardeil 1994, Shipp 1999, Lydon-Rochelle 2001, Yap 2001, Leung

1993, Kieser 2002, Menihan 1998

Cystotomy 311 45 11 1976-1998 7 Gardeil 1994, Shipp 1999, Lydon-Rochelle

2001, Caughey 1999, Yap 2001, Leung 1993, Kieser

2002Need for hysterectomy

518 109 21 1973-2000 14 Gardeil 1994, Golan 1980, Plauche 1984, Shipp 1999, Lydon-



1993, Kieser 2002, Menihan 1998,

Lieberman 2001, Flamm 1990

Death, industrialized countries

313 1 0.32 1975-2000 11 Gardeil 1994, Plauche 1984, Shipp 1999,

Caughey 1999, McMahon

1996, Yap 2001, Leung 1993, Kieser 2002,

Flamm 1994, Lieberman 2001, Spaulding 1979

Death, developing countries


Fetal and Neonatal Consequences of Uterine Rupture

Fetal hypoxia or anoxia

Leung et al found that 5 of 99 neonates (5%) born to women who had uterine ruptures developed neonatal asphyxia (defined as umbilical-artery pH <7 with seizures and multiorgan dysfunction). No neonate had clinically significant perinatal morbidity when delivery was accomplished within 17 minutes of an isolated and prolonged deceleration of fetal heart rate. If severe late decelerations preceded prolonged deceleration, perinatal asphyxia was observed as soon as 10 minutes from the onset of the prolonged deceleration to delivery.73

In a study by Menihan, 6 of 11 fetuses born after uterine rupture had bradycardias occur between 18-37 minutes prior to delivery. Although the rate of fetal acidosis was high (91%), no permanent neurologic injuries or neonatal deaths occurred.76

In 23 cases of uterine rupture, Bujold and Gauthier found that, even with rapid (<18-min) intervention between prolonged deceleration in fetal heart rate and delivery, 2 neonates developed hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathies with impaired motor development. They concluded that, though rapid intervention did not always prevent severe metabolic acidosis and serious neonatal disease, it probably did limit the occurrence of neonatal death.60

Fetal acidosis

In 99 cases of uterine rupture, Leung et al found that 43 newborns (43%) had an umbilical-artery pH level of less than 7, and 25 of these newborns had a pH level of less than 6.8. In association with these pH levels, 39 newborns (39%) had 5-minute Apgar scores of less than 7, 12 of whom had 5-minute Apgar scores of less than 3.73

Menihan found that 10 of 11 fetuses (91%) who were born after uterine rupture had an umbilical-artery cord pH level of less than 7.0, and 5 (45%) had 5-minute Apgar scores of less than 7. The most important factor for the development of fetal acidosis was complete extrusion of the fetus and placenta into the maternal abdomen.76

Admission to a neonatal intensive care unit

Menihan found that 8 of 11 newborns (73%) delivered after uterine rupture required admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).76

Kieser and Baskett found an NICU admission rate for newborns 45% (8 of 18) after uterine rupture.83 Landon et al found a similar NICU admission rate of 32% (46 of 144 newborns) after uterine rupture.30

Fetal or neonatal death

In studies reported before 1978, the fetal mortality rate associated with uterine rupture was high. In a review of 33 studies by Schrinsky and Benson, 960 cases of uterine rupture resulted in 620 infant deaths, yielding a perinatal mortality rate of 65%.3 Blanchette et al reported that 2 neonates (17%) died among 12 women who had uterine rupture and that 1 of these neonates died after a decision-to-delivery time of only 26 minutes after the acute onset of fetal bradycardia, lower abdominal pain, and vaginal bleeding, which signaled the acute uterine rupture.42

Leung et al reported that 6 perinatal deaths (6%) occurred among 99 patients who had uterine rupture.73 In a study by Lydon-Rochelle et al, the perinatal death rate among fetuses in 91 cases of uterine rupture was 5.5% compared with 0.5% in control subjects.39 Landon et al reported a perinatal death rate from uterine rupture of 2% (2 of 124) among 19 academic centers in the United States. These studies indicate that the incidence of perinatal death associated with uterine rupture is decreasing in the modern era.30

Maternal Consequences of Uterine Rupture

Severe maternal blood loss or anemia

Cowan et al found that, among 5 patients who developed uterine rupture, mean blood loss was 1,500 mL and great enough to be symptomatic in 3 patients (60%).84 In a study by Shipp et al, 25% (7 of 28 women) who had uterine rupture during a TOL after a previous cesarean delivery received a blood transfusion.34

Kieser and Baskett found that 44% (8 of 18 patients) who had a complete uterine rupture required blood transfusion.83 Leung et al found that 29% of patients (29 of 99) who had uterine rupture required a blood transfusion.73

Hypovolemic shock

In a study of 93 uterine ruptures by Golan et al, 29% of women who experienced a uterine rupture developed signs and symptoms of hypovolemic shock.2 Rahman et al reported that, of 96 women who had uterine rupture, 33 (34%) developed hypovolemic shock.5

These modern rates of maternal shock after uterine rupture appear to be reduced compared with the early rates reported in a 53-year review of the literature by Eden et al; their observed incidence was 46% (11 of 24 cases).79

Maternal bladder injury

Lydon-Rochelle et al reported significant maternal bladder injuries in 8% of women (7 of 91) whose uteri ruptured compared with 240 of 20,004 control patients (1.2%) in whom rupture did not occur (P =.001).39 Shipp et al found that bladder injuries occurred in 18% of women (5 of 28) who had a uterine rupture after previous low transverse cesarean delivery.34

In a study by Kieser and Baskett, 17% of women (3 of 18) who developed uterine rupture had a cystotomy.83 Leung et al found that 12% (12 of 99) who experienced a uterine rupture had incidental cystotomies at the time of surgery, and 7 more (7%) had either a ruptured bladder or an accidental cystotomy; the combined total urologic injury rate was 19%.73

Need for hysterectomy

In a study from South Africa, 78% of women (261 of 335) who had uterine rupture were treated with hysterectomy.4 Flamm et al found that 3 of 39 patients (8%) who developed uterine rupture required hysterectomy.85 Kieser and Baskett found that 1 of 18 patients (6%) who developed complete uterine rupture required hysterectomy.83 Blanchette et al reported that hysterectomy was necessary in 17% of women (2 of 12) who developed uterine rupture.42 Hibbard et al found that 6 hysterectomies (60%) were necessary in 10 women who had a uterine rupture.27

Leung et al reported that 19% of patients (19 of 99) who experienced a uterine rupture required hysterectomy. Thirteen hysterectomies (68%) were performed because the uterus was not deemed repairable, 4 (21%) for irremediable uterine atony, and 1 (5%) because of placenta accreta.73

Maternal death

Maternal death as a consequence of uterine rupture occurs at a rate of 0-1% in modern developed nations, but the mortality rates in developing countries are 5-10%.5,4

The availability of modern medical facilities in developed nations is likely to account for this difference in maternal outcomes. In a South African study from 1976, 22 of 260 women who had pregnancy-related rupture of an unscarred uterus died (mortality rate 8.5%). These deaths could be further subdivided into mortality for women with longitudinal uterine tears (15 of 183 patients [8.2%]), transverse tears (2 of 49 patients [4%]), posterior-wall tears (2 of 16 patients [13%]), and multiple uterine tears (3 of 12 patients [25%]).

Golan et al reported no deaths among 32 mothers who experienced rupture of a scarred uterus compared with 9 deaths among 61 women with an intact uterus (15%).2 In a study from Los Angeles in which Leung et al reported on 99 patients with uterine ruptures, 1 woman (1%) died.73

Mokgokong and Marivate noted that the maternal mortality rate associated with uterine rupture largely depends on whether the diagnosis is established before or after delivery; these rates were 4.5% and 10.4%, respectively.4

Management of the Ruptured Uterus

Treatment

The most critical aspects of treatment in the case of uterine rupture are establishing a timely diagnosis and minimizing the time from the onset of signs and symptoms until the start of definitive surgical therapy. Once a diagnosis of uterine rupture is established, the immediate stabilization of the mother and the delivery of the fetus are imperative.

As a rule, the time available for successful intervention after frank uterine rupture and before the onset of major fetal morbidity is only 10-37 minutes.73,76,82,42,86 Therefore, once the diagnosis of uterine rupture is considered, all available resources must quickly and effectively be mobilized to successfully institute a timely surgical treatment that results in favorable outcomes for both the newborn and the mother.

After the fetus is successfully delivered, the type of surgical treatment for the mother should depend on the following factors:

Type of uterine rupture Extent of uterine rupture Degree of hemorrhage General condition of the mother Mother's desire for future childbearing

Uterine bleeding is typically most profuse when the uterine tear is longitudinal rather than transverse. Conservative surgical management involving uterine repair should be reserved for women who have the following findings:

Desire for future childbearing Low transverse uterine rupture No extension of the tear to the broad ligament, cervix, or paracolpos Easily controllable uterine hemorrhage Good general condition No clinical or laboratory evidence of an evolving coagulopathy

Hysterectomy should be considered the treatment of choice when intractable uterine bleeding occurs or when the uterine rupture sites are multiple, longitudinal, or low lying.

Because of the short time available for successful intervention, the following 2 premises should always be kept firmly in mind: (1) Maintain a suitably high level of suspicion regarding a potential diagnosis of uterine rupture, especially in high-risk patients, and (2) when in doubt, act quickly and definitively.

Prevention

The absolute risk of uterine rupture in pregnancy is low, but it is highly variable depending on the patient subgroup (see Table 1). Women with normal, intact uteri are at the lowest risk for uterine rupture (1 in 8,434 pregnancies [0.012%]).

The most direct prevention strategy for minimizing the risk of pregnancy-related uterine rupture is to minimize the number of patients who are at highest risk. The salient variable that must be defined in this regard is the threshold for what is considered a tolerable risk. Although this choice is ultimately arbitrary, it should reflect the prevailing risk tolerance of patients, physicians, and of society as a whole. If this threshold is chosen as 1 in 200 women (0.5%) (see Table 1), the categories of patients that exceed this critical value are those with the following:

Multiple previous cesarean deliveries Previous classic midline cesarean delivery Previous low vertical cesarean delivery Previous low transverse cesarean delivery with a single-layer hysterotomy closure Previous cesarean delivery with an interdelivery interval of less than 2 years Previous low transverse cesarean delivery with a congenitally abnormal uterus Previous cesarean delivery without a previous history of a successful vaginal birth Previous cesarean delivery with either labor induction or augmentation Previous cesarean delivery in a woman carrying a macrosomic fetus weighing >4000 g Previous uterine myomectomy accomplished by means of laparoscopy or laparotomy

If a gravida falls into any of these categories, her risk for uterine rupture is increased to more than 1 in 200, and a clinical management plan should be specifically designed with this increased risk in mind.

Conclusion

Uterine rupture is a rare but often catastrophic obstetric complication with an overall incidence of approximately 1 in 1,536 pregnancies (0.07%). In modern industrialized countries, the uterine rupture rate during pregnancy for a woman with a normal, unscarred uterus is 1 in 8,434 pregnancies (0.012%).

The vast majority of uterine ruptures occur in women who have uterine scars, most of which are the result of previous cesarean deliveries. A single cesarean scar increases the overall rupture rate to 0.5%, with the rate for women with 2 or more cesarean scars increasing to 2%. Other subgroups of women who are at increased risk for uterine rupture are those who have a previous single-layer hysterotomy closure, a short interpregnancy interval after a previous cesarean delivery, a congenital uterine anomaly, a macrosomic fetus, prostaglandin exposure, and a failed previous trial of a vaginal delivery.

Surgical intervention after uterine rupture in less than 10-37 minutes is essential to minimize the risk of permanent perinatal injury to the fetus. However, delivery within this time cannot always prevent severe hypoxia and metabolic acidosis in the fetus or serious neonatal consequences.

The most consistent early indicator of uterine rupture is the onset of a prolonged, persistent, and profound fetal bradycardia. Other signs and symptoms of uterine rupture, such as abdominal pain, abnormal progress in labor, and vaginal bleeding, are less consistent and less valuable than bradycardia in establishing the appropriate diagnosis.

The general guideline that labor-and-delivery suites should be able to start cesarean delivery within 20-30 minutes of a diagnosis of fetal distress is of minimal utility with respect to uterine rupture. In the case of fetal or placental extrusion through the uterine wall, irreversible fetal damage can be expected before that time; therefore, such a recommendation is of limited value in preventing major fetal and neonatal complications. However, action within this time may aid in preventing maternal exsanguination and maternal death, as long as proper supportive and resuscitation methods are available before definitive surgical intervention can be successfully initiated.

Keywords

uterine rupture, pregnancy-related uterine rupture, ruptured uterus, fetal anoxia, uterine scar dehiscence, uterine scar, prior cesarean section, prior cesarean delivery, vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, VBAC, myomectomy, congenital uterine anomalies, hysterotomy closure, induced labor, labor induction, grand multiparity, prior uterine myomectomy, fetal macrosomia, uterine trauma, neglected labor, breech extraction, uterine instrumentation, oxytocin, labor augmentation

More on Uterine Rupture in PregnancyReferences

Print This Email This

[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

References

1. Gardeil F, Daly S, Turner MJ. Uterine rupture in pregnancy reviewed. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. Aug 1994;56(2):107-10. [Medline].

2. Golan A, Sandbank O, Rubin A. Rupture of the pregnant uterus. Obstet Gynecol. Nov 1980;56(5):549-54. [Medline].

3. Schrinsky DC, Benson RC. Rupture of the pregnant uterus: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. Apr 1978;33(4):217-32. [Medline].

4. Mokgokong ET, Marivate M. Treatment of the ruptured uterus. S Afr Med J. Sep 25 1976;50(41):1621-4. [Medline].

5. Rahman J, Al-Sibai MH, Rahman MS. Rupture of the uterus in labor. A review of 96 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1985;64(4):311-5. [Medline].

6. Plauche WC, Von Almen W, Muller R. Catastrophic uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol. Dec 1984;64(6):792-7. [Medline].

7. Nahum GG. Uterine anomalies. How common are they, and what is their distribution among subtypes?. J Reprod Med. Oct 1998;43(10):877-87. [Medline].

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/275854-print

mailto:enter%20email%20address%20here?Subject=eMedicine%20Article%20-%20Uterine%20Rupture%20in%20Pregnancy&Body=I%20thought%20you%20might%20be%20interested%20in%20this%20article%20from%20eMedicine.%20You%20may%20either%20click%20on%20the%20following%20link%20or%20copy%20and%20paste%20it%20into%20your%20browser.%0Dhttp://emedicine.medscape.com/article/275854-overview%0D%0A%0D%0AeMedicine%20is%20the%20leading%20provider%20of%20clinical%20medical%20information%20for%20medical%20professionals%20and%20consumers.%20To%20explore%20eMedicine%20today,%20visit%20http://emedicine.medscape.com

8. Gordon CA. Ruptured pregnancy in the closed rudimentary horn of a bicornuate uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1935;29:279-82.

9. Tien DSP. Pregnancy in the rudimentary horn of the uterus. Review of the literature and report of one case. Chin Med J. 1949;67:485-8.

10. Schauffler GC. Double uterus with pregnancy. JAMA. 1941;117:1516-20.11. Nahum GG. Rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy. A case report on surviving twins

delivered eight days apart. J Reprod Med. Aug 1997;42(8):525-32. [Medline].12. Ravasia DJ, Brain PH, Pollard JK. Incidence of uterine rupture among women with

mullerian duct anomalies who attempt vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Oct 1999;181(4):877-81. [Medline].

13. Nahum GG. Uterine anomalies, induction of labor, and uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol. Nov 2005;106(5):1150-2. [Medline].

14. Erez O, Dukler D, Novack L, Rozen A, Zolotnik L, Bashiri A. Trial of labor and vaginal birth after cesarean section in patients with uterine Müllerian anomalies: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Jun 2007;196(6):537.e1-11. [Medline].

15. Golan D, Aharoni A, Gonen R, et al. Early spontaneous rupture of the post myomectomy gravid uterus. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. Feb 1990;31(2):167-70. [Medline].

16. Brown AB, Chamberlain R, Te Linde RW. Myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Apr 1956;71(4):759-63. [Medline].

17. Garnet JD. Uterine rupture during pregnancy. An analysis of 133 patients. Obstet Gynecol. Jun 1964;23:898-905. [Medline].

18. Dubuisson JB, Fauconnier A, Deffarges JV, et al. Pregnancy outcome and deliveries following laparoscopic myomectomy. Hum Reprod. Apr 2000;15(4):869-73. [Medline].

19. Seinera P, Farina C, Todros T. Laparoscopic myomectomy and subsequent pregnancy: results in 54 patients. Hum Reprod. Sep 2000;15(9):1993-6. [Medline].

20. Nezhat CH, Nezhat F, Roemisch M, et al. Pregnancy following laparoscopic myomectomy: preliminary results. Hum Reprod. May 1999;14(5):1219-21. [Medline].

21. Seracchioli R, Rossi S, Govoni F, et al. Fertility and obstetric outcome after laparoscopic myomectomy of large myomata: a randomized comparison with abdominal myomectomy. Hum Reprod. Dec 2000;15(12):2663-8. [Medline].

22. Seracchioli R, Manuzzi L, Vianello F, Gualerzi B, Savelli L, Paradisi R. Obstetric and delivery outcome of pregnancies achieved after laparoscopic myomectomy. Fertil Steril. Jul 2006;86(1):159-65. [Medline].

23. Kumakiri J, Takeuchi H, Itoh S, Kitade M, Kikuchi I, Shimanuki H, et al. Prospective evaluation for the feasibility and safety of vaginal birth after laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. Jul-Aug 2008;15(4):420-4. [Medline].

24. Sizzi O, Rossetti A, Malzoni M, Minelli L, La Grotta F, Soranna L. Italian multicenter study on complications of laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. Jul-Aug 2007;14(4):453-62. [Medline].

25. Oktem O, Gokaslan H, Durmusoglu F. Spontaneous uterine rupture in pregnancy 8 years after laparoscopic myomectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. Nov 2001;8(4):618-21. [Medline].

26. Mozurkewich EL, Hutton EK. Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a metaanalysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Nov 2000;183(5):1187-97. [Medline].

27. Hibbard JU, Ismail MA, Wang Y, et al. Failed vaginal birth after a cesarean section: how risky is it? I. Maternal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Jun 2001;184(7):1365-71; discussion 1371-3. [Medline].

28. Chauhan SP, Magann EF, Wiggs CD, et al. Pregnancy after classic cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. Nov 2002;100(5 Pt 1):946-50. [Medline].

29. Rosen MG, Dickinson JC, Westhoff CL. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a metaanalysis of morbidity and mortality. Obstet Gynecol. Mar 1991;77(3):465-70. [Medline].

30. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. Dec 16 2004;351(25):2581-9. [Medline].

31. Naef RW 3rd, Ray MA, Chauhan SP, et al. Trial of labor after cesarean delivery with a lower-segment, vertical uterine incision: is it safe?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Jun 1995;172(6):1666-73; discussion 1673-4. [Medline].

32. Adair CD, Sanchez-Ramos L, Whitaker D, et al. Trial of labor in patients with a previous lower uterine vertical cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Mar 1996;174(3):966-70. [Medline].

33. Martin JN, Perry KG, Roberts WE, Meydrech EF. The case for trial of labor in the patient with a prior low-segment vertical cesarean incision. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Jul 1997;177(1):144-8. [Medline].

34. Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, et al. Intrapartum uterine rupture and dehiscence in patients with prior lower uterine segment vertical and transverse incisions. Obstet Gynecol. Nov 1999;94(5 Pt 1):735-40. [Medline].

35. Leung AS, Farmer RM, Leung EK, Medearis AL, Paul RH. Risk factors associated with uterine rupture during trial of labor after cesarean delivery: a case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. May 1993;168(5):1358-63. [Medline].

36. Pruett KM, Kirshon B, Cotton DB. Unknown uterine scar and trial of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Oct 1988;159(4):807-10. [Medline].

37. Beall M, Eglinton GS, Clark SL, Phelan JP. Vaginal delivery after cesarean section in women with unknown types of uterine scar. J Reprod Med. Jan 1984;29(1):31-5. [Medline].

38. Grubb DK, Kjos SL, Paul RH. Latent labor with an unknown uterine scar. Obstet Gynecol. Sep 1996;88(3):351-5. [Medline].

39. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. Jul 5 2001;345(1):3-8. [Medline].

40. Ravasia DJ, Wood SL, Pollard JK. Uterine rupture during induced trial of labor among women with previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Nov 2000;183(5):1176-9. [Medline].

41. Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, et al. Uterine rupture during induced or augmented labor in gravid women with one prior cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Oct 1999;181(4):882-6. [Medline].

42. Blanchette H, Blanchette M, McCabe J, Vincent S. Is vaginal birth after cesarean safe? Experience at a community hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Jun 2001;184(7):1478-84; discussion 1484-7. [Medline].

43. Bujold E, Blackwell SC, Gauthier RJ. Cervical ripening with transcervical foley catheter and the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol. Jan 2004;103(1):18-23. [Medline].

44. Hoffman MK, Sciscione A, Srinivasana M, Shackelford DP, Ekbladh L. Uterine rupture in patients with a prior cesarean delivery: the impact of cervical ripening. Am J Perinatol. May 2004;21(4):217-22. [Medline].

45. Pettker CM, Pocock SB, Smok DP, Lee SM, Devine PC. Transcervical Foley catheter with and without oxytocin for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. Jun 2008;111(6):1320-6. [Medline].

46. Taylor DR, Doughty AS, Kaufman H, et al. Uterine rupture with the use of PGE2 vaginal inserts for labor induction in women with previous cesarean sections. J Reprod Med. Jul 2002;47(7):549-54. [Medline].

47. Flamm BL, Anton D, Goings JR, Newman J. Prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening: a multicenter study of patients with prior cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol. Mar 1997;14(3):157-60. [Medline].

48. Delaney T, Young DC. Spontaneous versus induced labor after a previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. Jul 2003;102(1):39-44. [Medline].

49. Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, et al. Effect of previous vaginal delivery on the risk of uterine rupture during a subsequent trial of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Nov 2000;183(5):1184-6. [Medline].

50. Caughey AB, Shipp TD, Repke JT, et al. Rate of uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with one or two prior cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Oct 1999;181(4):872-6. [Medline].

51. Kayani SI, Alfirevic Z. Uterine rupture after induction of labour in women with previous caesarean section. BJOG. Apr 2005;112(4):451-5. [Medline].

52. Grobman WA, Gilbert S, Landon MB, Spong CY, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ. Outcomes of induction of labor after one prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol. Feb 2007;109(2 Pt 1):262-9. [Medline].

53. Mercer BM, Gilbert S, Landon MB, Spong CY, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ, et al. Labor outcomes with increasing number of prior vaginal births after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. Feb 2008;111(2 Pt 1):285-91. [Medline].

54. Gregory KD, Korst LM, Cane P, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean and uterine rupture rates in California. Obstet Gynecol. Dec 1999;94(6):985-9. [Medline].

55. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA Jr., Olshan AF. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med. Sep 5 1996;335(10):689-95. [Medline].

56. Rageth JC, Juzi C, Grossenbacher H. Delivery after previous cesarean: a risk evaluation. Swiss Working Group of Obstetric and Gynecologic Institutions. Obstet Gynecol. Mar 1999;93(3):332-7. [Medline].

57. Esposito MA, Menihan CA, Malee MP. Association of interpregnancy interval with uterine scar failure in labor: a case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Nov 2000;183(5):1180-3. [Medline].

58. Stamilio DM, DeFranco E, Paré E, Odibo AO, Peipert JF, Allsworth JE, et al. Short interpregnancy interval: risk of uterine rupture and complications of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. Nov 2007;110(5):1075-82. [Medline].

59. Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, et al. Interdelivery interval and risk of symptomatic uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol. Feb 2001;97(2):175-7. [Medline].

60. Bujold E, Mehta SH, Bujold C, Gauthier RJ. Interdelivery interval and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Nov 2002;187(5):1199-202. [Medline].

61. Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, et al. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Jun 2002;186(6):1326-30. [Medline].

62. Durnwald C, Mercer B. Uterine rupture, perioperative and perinatal morbidity after single-layer and double-layer closure at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Oct 2003;189(4):925-9. [Medline].

63. Gyamfi C, Juhasz G, Gyamfi P, Blumenfeld Y, Stone JL. Single- versus double-layer uterine incision closure and uterine rupture. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. Oct 2006;19(10):639-43. [Medline].

64. Miller DA, Diaz FG, Paul RH. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a 10-year experience. Obstet Gynecol. Aug 1994;84(2):255-8. [Medline].

65. Macones GA, Cahill A, Pare E, et al. Obstetric outcomes in women with two prior cesarean deliveries: is vaginal birth after cesarean delivery a viable option?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Apr 2005;192(4):1223-8; discussion 1228-9.

66. Landon MB, Spong CY, Thom E, Hauth JC, Bloom SL, Varner MW, et al. Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. Jul 2006;108(1):12-20. [Medline].

67. Tahseen S, Griffiths M. Vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC-2)-a systematic review with meta-analysis of success rate and adverse outcomes of VBAC-2 versus VBAC-1 and repeat (third) caesarean sections. BJOG. Jan 2010;117(1):5-19. [Medline].

68. ACOG Practice Bulletin #54: vaginal birth after previous cesarean. Obstet Gynecol. Jul 2004;104(1):203-12. [Medline].

69. Elkousy MA, Sammel M, Stevens E, et al. The effect of birth weight on vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Mar 2003;188(3):824-30. [Medline].

70. Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, Cohen A, Lieberman E. Outcomes of trial of labor following previous cesarean delivery among women with fetuses weighing >4000 g. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Oct 2001;185(4):903-5. [Medline].

71. Jastrow N, Roberge S, Gauthier RJ, Laroche L, Duperron L, Brassard N. Effect of birth weight on adverse obstetric outcomes in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. Feb 2010;115(2 Pt 1):338-43. [Medline].

72. Shipp TD, Zelop C, Repke JT, et al. The association of maternal age and symptomatic uterine rupture during a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. Apr 2002;99(4):585-8. [Medline].

73. Leung AS, Leung EK, Paul RH. Uterine rupture after previous cesarean delivery: maternal and fetal consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Oct 1993;169(4):945-50. [Medline].

74. Rodriguez MH, Masaki DI, Phelan JP, Diaz FG. Uterine rupture: are intrauterine pressure catheters useful in the diagnosis?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Sep 1989;161(3):666-9. [Medline].

75. Miller DA, Goodwin TM, Gherman RB, Paul RH. Intrapartum rupture of the unscarred uterus. Obstet Gynecol. May 1997;89(5 Pt 1):671-3. [Medline].

76. Menihan CA. Uterine rupture in women attempting a vaginal birth following prior cesarean birth. J Perinatol. Nov-Dec 1998;18(6 Pt 1):440-3. [Medline].

77. Johnson C, Oriol N. The role of epidural anesthesia in trial of labor. Reg Anesth. Nov-Dec 1990;15(6):304-8. [Medline].

78. Phelan JP, Korst LM, Settles DK. Uterine activity patterns in uterine rupture: a case-control study. Obstet Gynecol. Sep 1998;92(3):394-7. [Medline].

79. Eden RD, Parker RT, Gall SA. Rupture of the pregnant uterus: a 53-year review. Obstet Gynecol. Nov 1986;68(5):671-4. [Medline].

80. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Philippe HJ, Nisand I. Thickness of the lower uterine segment: its influence in the management of patients with previous cesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. Nov 1999;87(1):39-45. [Medline].

81. Gotoh H, Masuzaki H, Yoshida A, et al. Predicting incomplete uterine rupture with vaginal sonography during the late second trimester in women with prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol. Apr 2000;95(4):596-600. [Medline].

82. Yap OW, Kim ES, Laros RK Jr. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after uterine rupture in labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Jun 2001;184(7):1576-81. [Medline].

83. Kieser KE, Baskett TF. A 10-year population-based study of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol. Oct 2002;100(4):749-53. [Medline].

84. Cowan RK, Kinch RA, Ellis B, Anderson R. Trial of labor following cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. Jun 1994;83(6):933-6. [Medline].

85. Flamm BL, Goings JR, Liu Y. Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a prospective multicenter study. Obstet Gynecol. Jun 1994;83(6):927-32. [Medline].

86. Bujold E, Gauthier RJ. Neonatal morbidity associated with uterine rupture: what are the risk factors?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Feb 2002;186(2):311-4. [Medline].

87. Achiron R, Tadmor O, Kamar R, et al. Prerupture ultrasound diagnosis of interstitial and rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy in the second trimester. A report of two cases. J Reprod Med. Jan 1992;37(1):89-92. [Medline].

88. Asakura H, Myers SA. More than one previous cesarean delivery: a 5-year experience with 435 patients. Obstet Gynecol. Jun 1995;85(6):924-9. [Medline].

89. Bethune M, Permezel M. The relationship between gestational age and the incidence of classical caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. May 1997;37(2):153-5. [Medline].

90. Bujold E, Mehta SH, Bujold C, Gauthier RJ. Interdelivery interval and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Nov 2002;187(5):1199-202. [Medline].

91. Cahill AG, Tuuli M, Odibo AO, Stamilio DM, Macones GA. Vaginal birth after caesarean for women with three or more prior caesareans: assessing safety and success. BJOG. Mar 2010;117(4):422-7. [Medline].

92. Cahill AG, Waterman BM, Stamilio DM, Odibo AO, Allsworth JE, Evanoff B, et al. Higher maximum doses of oxytocin are associated with an unacceptably high risk for uterine rupture in patients attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Jul 2008;199(1):32.e1-5. [Medline].

93. Chapman SJ, Owen J, Hauth JC. One- versus two-layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. Jan 1997;89(1):16-8. [Medline].

94. Choy-Hee L, Raynor BD. Misoprostol induction of labor among women with a history of cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. May 2001;184(6):1115-7. [Medline].

95. Flamm BL, Newman LA, Thomas SJ, Fallon D, Yoshida MM. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: results of a 5-year multicenter collaborative study. Obstet Gynecol. Nov 1990;76(5 Pt 1):750-4. [Medline].

96. Gupta A, Nanda S. Uterine rupture in pregnancy: a five-year study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. Jan 28 2010;[Medline].

97. Huang WH, Nakashima DK, Rumney PJ, Keegan KA Jr, Chan K. Interdelivery interval and the success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. Jan 2002;99(1):41-4. [Medline].

98. Lieberman E. Risk factors for uterine rupture during a trial of labor after cesarean. Clin Obstet Gynecol. Sep 2001;44(3):609-21. [Medline].

99. Lin C, Raynor BD. Risk of uterine rupture in labor induction of patients with prior cesarean section: an inner city hospital experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. May 2004;190(5):1476-8. [Medline].

100. Locatelli A, Ghidini A, Ciriello E, Incerti M, Bonardi C, Regalia AL. Induction of labor: comparison of a cohort with uterine scar from previous cesarean section vs. a cohort with intact uterus. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. Aug 2006;19(8):471-5. [Medline].

101. Locatelli A, Regalia AL, Ghidini A, et al. Risks of induction of labour in women with a uterine scar from previous low transverse caesarean section. BJOG. Dec 2004;111(12):1394-9. [Medline].

102. Makino S, Tanaka T, Itoh S, Kumakiri J, Takeuchi H, Takeda S. Prospective comparison of delivery outcomes of vaginal births after cesarean section versus laparoscopic myomectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. Dec 2008;34(6):952-6. [Medline].

103. Maldjian C, Milestone B, Schnall M, Smith R. MR appearance of uterine dehiscence in the post-cesarean section patient. J Comput Assist Tomogr. Sep-Oct 1998;22(5):738-41. [Medline].

104. Molloy BG, Sheil O, Duignan NM. Delivery after caesarean section: review of 2176 consecutive cases. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). Jun 27 1987;294(6588):1645-7. [Medline].

105. Ofir K, Sheiner E, Levy A, et al. Uterine rupture: differences between a scarred and an unscarred uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Aug 2004;191(2):425-9. [Medline].

106. Patterson LS, O'Connell CM, Baskett TF. Maternal and perinatal morbidity associated with classic and inverted T cesarean incisions. Obstet Gynecol. Oct 2002;100(4):633-7. [Medline].

107. Phelan JP, Clark SL, Diaz F, Paul RH. Vaginal birth after cesarean. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Dec 1987;157(6):1510-5. [Medline].

108. Plaut MM, Schwartz ML, Lubarsky SL. Uterine rupture associated with the use of misoprostol in the gravid patient with a previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Jun 1999;180(6 Pt 1):1535-42. [Medline].

109. Plaut MM, Schwartz ML, Lubarsky SL. Uterine rupture associated with the use of misoprostol in the gravid patient with a previous cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. Jun 1999;180(6 Pt 1):1535-42. [Medline].

110. Wing DA, Lovett K, Paul RH. Disruption of prior uterine incision following misoprostol for labor induction in women with previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. May 1998;91(5 Pt 2):828-30. [Medline].

111. Yogev Y, Ben-Haroush A, Lahav E, Horowitz E, Hod M, Kaplan B. Induction of labor with prostaglandin E2 in women with previous cesarean section and unfavorable cervix. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. Oct 15 2004;116(2):173-6. [Medline].

112. Zwart JJ, Richters JM, Ory F, de Vries JI, Bloemenkamp KW, van Roosmalen J. Uterine rupture in The Netherlands: a nationwide population-based cohort study. BJOG. Jul 2009;116(8):1069-78; discussion 1078-80. [Medline].

[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

Further Reading

[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

Keywords

uterine rupture, pregnancy-related uterine rupture, ruptured uterus, fetal anoxia, uterine scar dehiscence, uterine scar, prior cesarean section, prior cesarean delivery, vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, VBAC, myomectomy, congenital uterine anomalies, hysterotomy closure, induced labor, labor induction, grand multiparity, prior uterine myomectomy, fetal macrosomia, uterine trauma, neglected labor, breech extraction, uterine instrumentation, oxytocin, labor augmentation

[ CLOSE WINDOW ]

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Author

Gerard G Nahum, MD, FACOG, FACS, Adjunct Associate Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences; Head of Global Clinical Development, Women's Healthcare U.S., Bayer HealthCare PharmaceuticalsGerard G Nahum, MD, FACOG, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Surgeons, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics Disclosure: Algorithmic Bioscience Inc. Ownership interest Board membership; Biomedical Decision Support Inc. Ownership interest Board membership

Coauthor(s)

Krystle Quynh Pham, MD, FACOG, Attending Faculty, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center; Clinical Instructor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford UniversityKrystle Quynh Pham, MD, FACOG is a member of the following medical societies: American Association for the Advancement of Science, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, American Medical Women's Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, and Sigma Xi Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Medical Editor

Bryan D Cowan, MD, Professor and Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Mississippi College of Medicine; Consulting Staff, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center; Medical Director, Wiser Hospital for Women, University of Mississippi Medical CenterBryan D Cowan, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society, American Medical Association, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Central Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Endocrine Society, Sigma Xi, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Society for Gynecologic Investigation, Society for the Study of Reproduction, and Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Pharmacy Editor

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD, Senior Pharmacy Editor, eMedicineDisclosure: eMedicine Salary Employment

Managing Editor

Richard S Legro, MD, Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine; Consulting Staff, Milton S Hershey Medical CenterRichard S Legro, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Endocrine Society, Phi Beta Kappa, and Society of Reproductive Surgeons Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

CME Editor

Frederick B Gaupp, MD, Consulting Staff, Department of Family Practice, Hancock Medical CenterFrederick B Gaupp, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Family Physicians Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

David Chelmow, MD, Professor and Chair, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical CenterDavid Chelmow, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Massachusetts Medical Society, Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi, Society for Gynecologic Investigation, and Society for Medical Decision Making Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Search for CME/CE on This Topic »

<A HREF="http://as.webmd.com/event.ng/Type=click&FlightID=173211&AdID=316613&TargetI

D=48070&Values=205&Redirect=http://www.medscape.com/infosite/prolia" target="_top"><IMG

SRC="http://a876.g.akamai.net/7/876/1448/v0001/ads.webmd.com/external/amgen_prolia/

medscapecme

http://as.webmd.com/event.ng/Type=click&FlightID=144576&AdID=261125&TargetID=37520&Values=30,46,51,63,77,84,90,102,150,205,208,221,222,229,234,235,236,250,298,308,310,1469,1966,2610,3175,3187,3219,3220,3221,3436,3438,3443,5284,6833,10979,13842,14127,14128,14130,17914,18257,20448,22823&Redirect=http:/www.medscape.com/infosite/paininstitute%3Fsrc%3D0_0_ad_square

Unbranded_300x250_Concept3.gif" WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></A>

Medscape MedscapeCME eMedicine Drug Reference MEDLINE

All

<script language="JavaScript1.2" type="text/javascript" charset="ISO-8859-1" src="http://as.medscape.com/js.ng/Params.richmedia=yes&transactionID=60776799&site=1&affiliate=2&ssp=0&artid=10033746&env=0&tile=20054775&cg=ckb&pub=280&pubs=280&ct=0&pf=0&usp=0&st=0&am

p;occ=0&tid=&pos=141"></script>

About Emedicine Privacy Policy Terms of Use Help Contact Us Institutional Subscribers Contributor Login

We subscribe to theHONcode principles of theHealth On the Net Foundation

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright© 1994-2010 by Medscape.This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

http://as.webmd.com/event.ng/Type=click&FlightID=173211&AdID=316613&TargetID=48070&Values=205&Redirect=http:/www.medscape.com/infosite/prolia

http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html?HONConduct256884

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.

Close

uterine rupture

Documents