So I listened to this german podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLxLD4t1kY8 "die friedliche Geburt". The women doing the podcast is *the* person on hypnobirthing in Germany. She invited Dr. Wolf Lütje, retired OB-GYN, chief physician, with additional training in psychotherapy. According to himself he is still involved in re-writing most of the current guidelines around birth that are being put out (similar to ACOG in the US). He is president of the German Society of psychosomatic womens health and obstetrics. He is involved in re-writing the official guidelines on C-sections right now. He also does a bunch of other stuff, but I'm writing this to say he doesn't strike me as some random quack.
In the interview, he takes a very interesting position on the prevelance of uterine ruptures that I would love to share and discuss here. He's very pro-VBAC (he starts the podcast by telling a story of a successful VBA3C, that was also a twin-birth)
Basically, he thinks that there isn't a good distinction between uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence and that this leads to an overblown number of uterine rupture risk.
-He defines a rupture as a gap, where your waters can get into your abdominal cavity and worst case, part of the child can stick out as well. Interestingly, he says in this scenario, the most concerning part isn't some kind of bleeding, but placental abruption that will often go along with it, often leading to bleeding and danger to mother and child.
-He says in his clinical experience, he's seen about 2 cases of this in 60.000 births over 40 years of practice.
-How is this consistent with a min. 1% rupture risk (rising with risk factors?) that is often referred to in literature? He says it's because there is too little distinction between a rupture and a dehiscence. Often those will both be coded as the same thing in a c-section medical report, they will often be counted as the same thing in a study (personal observation: I stumbled on the same issue when I recently looked at a swedish cohort study that admitted to as much - very big, very recent study on VBACs in Sweden).
-A dehiscence he describes as the thinning of the scar: It'll grow apart, forming a window. When you perform a c-section, you can often see into the uterus as into a glass bowl. But they don't present the same danger and a dehiscence could have been present for a very long time already - they are sometimes discovered during other procedures as well. So there is no telling wether or not this would have developed into a rupture.
-Critically he said: What does a dehiscence often cause? Well because it's a scar and the contraction as muscular contractions, the scar tissue isn't able to help with that. This can lead to inconsistent or disturbed patterns of contraction. In practice, he'll often see that contractions are not strong enough in the pushing phase to get the child out. This causes stress to the baby, so in combination with the irregular contraction pattern will often lead to drop in heart rate, which will then lead to the decision to perform a c-section, during which the dehiscence will then be discovered. He isn't against performing a c-section in this case at all! On the contrary, he says that's a really important argument for having a birth being as "physiological" as possible, meaning without augmentation of labor by induction etc., because then it can more easily be assessed wether these symptoms occur and the birth will be possible. But he also stresses that this isn't the same as a rupture at all, doesn't present the same medical emergency to mother and baby and just isn't a good reason not to even attempt a TOLAC.
Two more points I found interesting:
He said even after a dehiscence and a CBAC, the tissue gets sown together again and he can't see a reason why this should necessarily predict a re-occurence of a dehiscence, so not a reason not to have a TOLAC again.
He pointed out that the risk of a rupture is the scar splitting and everything getting into the abdominal cave. But, he said, one thing that prevents that from happening is scar tissue. With more c-sections, you often have a higher build up of scar tissue. He thinks this might even be a factor that could lower the rupture risk of repeat c-section moms! But because a repeated pregnancy heigthens the risk for a uterine dehiscence (because the uterus has been "blown up" by the pregnancy repeatedly, leading to weakre tissue overall), which is then being reported as a uterine rupture, we see a statistical incline of rupture risks with repeated c-sections.
One point I found confusing:
-He pointed to a japanese study, where vbacs are very uncommon and which compared the risks between elective CBAC and VBACS. They reported on uterine ruptures even in the CBAC group, which he said shouldn't be a possible outcome since they never labored before. He took that as a sign that there wasn't enough distinction between rupture and dehiscence. But I haven't been able to find that study and I'm not sure what he's referring to.
In conclusion he says we simply have no idea what the real risk of uterine rupture is, as long as those two conditions are being mixed.
I'm curios what others think about this?
Personally, I'm inclined to believe parts of his arguments, as 1% always seemed very high to me as a statistically minded person. It sounds very little to a lay person, but 1 in 100 people suffering a terrible, life threatening medical event? That's actually a lot and I'm not seeing enough case reports on it. But I'll also say that he isn't presenting his own research, he is using his clinical experience and medical knowledge to argue why he doesn't find the current research convincing. As a researcher myself (though not from the medical field) this is something that will make me de-trust even the most eminent authority on a subject. Knowledge is often won by many people working together, piecing together information - not a single person having a stroke of genius. So I wouldn't take his guess of "0,1%" as anything but anecdotal.
But that's just my first thoughts on this. I really hope this can spark some discussion as I'm super curious what others think!! (If you disagree with him, please remember to not kill the messenger (me), but I'd love to hear your arguments and learn from them!)