AIMS Journal 2007, Vol 19, No 3
We have been aware for many years that the risk of uterine rupture in a future pregnancy is underplayed by obstetricians when a caesarean is being suggested to a woman, and then suddenly it is put over as a grave concern when they want a VBAC, however we were still surprised to find the RCOG put this inconsistency of information into black and white.
In their advice on obtaining consent of women for a caesarean1 they state:
Serious risks include: ... Increased risk of uterine rupture during subsequent pregnancies/deliveries - up to 0.4' [%]
Yet in their guideline on VBAC2 they say:
Women considering the options for birth after a previous caesarean should be informed that planned VBAC carries a risk of uterine rupture of 22-74/10,000' [0.22 - 0.74%,nearly a doubling of the risk]
It would appear that the mean risk of rupture is quoted at consent. Neither guide gives women the information that for a normal birth the risk is in the region of 0.22%, but if her labour is induced the risk rises almost four fold to 0.74%. Are these figures quoted in a way which leads women to misunderstand the risks? Please send your comments to editor@aims.org.uk
References
Please feel free to download and share a pdf of this article. If you wish to use AIMS copyright material please see aims.org.uk/general/aims-copyright
If you found this article helpful please consider becoming an AIMS member or making a donation to support our work. We are a small charity that accepts no commercial sponsorship, in order to preserve our reputation for providing impartial, evidence-based information.
AIMS supports all maternity service users to navigate the system as it exists, and campaigns for a system which truly meets the needs of all.