MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392470102 · doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101326

The association between unintended hysterotomy extensions with cesarean delivery and subsequent preterm birth

2024· article· en· W4392470102 on OpenAlexaff
Giulia M. Muraca, Tzuria Peled, Abirami Kirubarajan, Ari Weiss, Hen Y. Sela, Sorina Grisaru‐Granovsky, Misgav Rottenstreich

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPreterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHysterotomyMedicineObstetricsCervixPremature birthLive birthGestationRetrospective cohort studyUterine ruptureGestational ageUnintended pregnancyPregnancyGynecologyPopulationSurgeryFamily planningCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: An increased risk for preterm birth has been observed among individuals with a previous second stage cesarean delivery when compared with those with a previous vaginal delivery. One mechanism that may contribute to the increased risk for preterm birth following a second stage cesarean delivery is the increased risk for cervical injury because of extension of the uterine incision (hysterotomy) into the cervix. The contribution of hysterotomy extension to the rate of preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy has not been investigated and may shed light on the mechanism underlying the observed relationship between the mode of delivery and subsequent preterm birth. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to quantify the association between unintended hysterotomy extension and preterm birth in a subsequent delivery. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study using electronic perinatal data collected from 2 university-affiliated obstetrical centers. The study included patients with a primary cesarean delivery of a term, singleton live birth and a subsequent singleton birth in the same catchment (2005-2021). The primary outcome was subsequent preterm birth <37 weeks' gestation; secondary outcomes included subsequent preterm birth at <34, <32, and <28 weeks' gestation. We assessed crude and adjusted associations between unintended hysterotomy extensions and subsequent preterm birth with log binomial regression models using rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Adjusted models included several characteristics of the primary cesarean delivery such as maternal age, length of active labor, indication for cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, and maternal comorbidity. RESULTS: A total 4797 patients met the study inclusion criteria. The overall rate of unintended hysterotomy extension in the primary cesarean delivery was 6.0% and the total rate of preterm birth in the subsequent pregnancy was 4.8%. Patients with an unintended hysterotomy extension were more likely to have a longer duration of active labor, chorioamnionitis, failed vacuum delivery attempt, second stage cesarean delivery, and persistent occiput posterior position of the fetal head in the primary cesarean delivery and higher rates of smoking in the subsequent pregnancy. Multivariable analyses that controlled for several confounders showed that a history of hysterotomy extension was not associated with a higher risk for preterm birth <37 weeks' gestation (adjusted rate ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-2.47), but it was associated with preterm birth <34 weeks' gestation (adjusted rate ratio, 2.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-5.42). CONCLUSION: Patients with a uterine incision extension have a 2.5 times higher rate of preterm birth <34 weeks' gestation when compared with patients who did not have this injury. This association was not observed for preterm birth <37 weeks' gestation. Future research should aim to replicate our analyses with incorporation of additional data to minimize the potential for residual confounding.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFMSame topicPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisFrench-language works237,207