Search

Aim: The first twin (T1) in breech position is at risk of complications during vaginal delivery, making the choice of the appropriate delivery route highly important. Although British and American practice guidelines recommend the cesarean section, the French National College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that there was not enough data to choose one delivery route or the other. In this context, we set out to describe practices in our centre., Material and Methods: Our retrospective study was conducted at a level III labor ward between January 1st, 1995 and December 31st, 2006. One hundred and thirty-seven twin pregnancies at more than 26 gestational weeks (GW), with T1 in breech and T2 in any position, were included., Results: A cesarean section was performed before labor in 60.6 % cases. Among the 54 (39.4 %) cases where a trial of labor was accepted, 29 patients (53.7 % success rate) delivered vaginally and 25 (46.3 %) had a cesarean section during labor. No statistical difference was observed between the neonatal outcomes after cesarean section as compared to vaginal birth. However, a significant relationship was found between delivery route and parity. Less than one-third of nulliparas versus two-third of patients with a history of at least one delivery, having trials of labor, ultimately gave birth vaginally. Thus, we observed a high rate of cesarean section during labor in nulliparas (68 % of the initially accepted trials of labor)., Conclusion: Our study is the first one that clearly shows that the success rate of the trial of labor is closely related to a history of vaginal birth. Following these results and because of more than two-third of cesarean section during labor in nulliparas, we subsequently plan an elective cesarean section at the 38th GW for nulliparas with twin pregnancies and T1 in breech position. Nevertheless, if any of these patients go in labor before the cesearean section, a careful trial of labor is offered., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To evaluate our practice following Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) of the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CNGOF) in 2005 advocating a policy of restrictive episiotomy and to show that a significative decrease in the rate of episiotomy does not increase the number of third and fourth degree perineal tears., Material and Methods: A retrospective study of episiotomies and third/fourth degree perineal tears of the year 2003 (before the CPG) was compared with the year 2007 (after the CPG). We analyzed the indications of episiotomies and compared the rate of episiotomies and severe perineal tears between the two periods., Results: In 2003, the rate of episiotomies was 18.8% (upon 1755 vaginal deliveries). We observed 16 (9 per thousand) third-degree perineal tears, five of which was associated with episiotomies; and two (1 per thousand) fourth-degree perineal tears. In 2007, the rate of episiotomies was 3.4% (upon 1940 vaginal deliveries). There were eight (4 per thousand) third-degree and four (2 per thousand) fourth-degree perineal tears. The two periods of study were similar in terms of age, parity, gestational age, birthweight, rate of spontaneous deliveries, breech and instrumental deliveries. There were a difference regarding deliveries in the occipitoposterior position (5.8% vs 13.8% ; p=0.02). No significant difference was found between the rates of third degree (9 per thousand vs 4 per thousand ; p=0.059) and fourth degree perineal tears (1 per thousand vs 2 per thousand ; p=0.487). However, there was a significant decrease in the rate of episiotomies between the two periods (18.8% vs 3.4% ; p<0.001)., Conclusion: An episiotomy rate of 3.4% is much lower than the threshold rate of 30% recommanded. A policy of restrictive episiotomy is possible without increasing the rate of severe perineal tears. Aknowledging the risks and benefits of each obstetrical procedure might decrease the number of episiotomies, whose practice should be evaluated in every labour ward., (Copyright 2009 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)