Original Article
Comparison of a Trial of Labor with an Elective Second Cesarean Section
N Engl J Med 1996; 335:689-695September 5, 1996
- Abstract
Background
In an attempt to reduce the rate of cesarean section, obstetricians now offer a trial of labor to pregnant women who have had a previous cesarean section. Although a trial of labor is usually successful and is relatively safe, few studies have directly addressed the maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality associated with this method of delivery.
Methods
We performed a population-based, longitudinal study of 6138 women in Nova Scotia who had previously undergone cesarean section and had delivered a singleton live infant in the period from 1986 through 1992.
Results
A total of 3249 women elected a trial of labor, and 2889 women chose to undergo a second cesarean section. There were no maternal deaths. The overall rate of maternal morbidity was 8.1 percent; 1.3 percent had major complications (a need for hysterectomy, uterine rupture, or operative injury) and 6.9 percent had minor complications (puerperal fever, a need for blood transfusion, or abdominal-wound infection). Although the overall rate of maternal complications did not differ significantly between the women who chose a trial of labor and the women who elected cesarean section (odds ratio for the trial-of-labor group, 0.9; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.8 to 1.1), major complications were nearly twice as likely among women undergoing a trial of labor (odds ratio, 1.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 3.0). Apgar scores, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, and perinatal mortality were similar among the infants whose mothers had a trial of labor and those whose mothers underwent elective cesarean section.
Conclusions
Among pregnant women who have had a cesarean section, major maternal complications are almost twice as likely among those whose deliveries are managed with a trial of labor as among those who undergo an elective second cesarean section.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Morbidity as a Function of Increasing Parity among Women Who Elected Cesarean Section or a Trial of Labor after a Previous Cesarean Section.Table 1
Characteristics of Pregnant Women Undergoing a Trial of Labor or an Elective Second Cesarean Section in Nova Scotia from 1986 through 1992.Article Activity
- Article
In the United States and Canada, up to one quarter of all infants are delivered by cesarean section1-5; approximately half these procedures are performed only because the woman has had a previous cesarean section.1 For years, allowing labor after a previous cesarean section was thought to be dangerous, and many clinicians recommended that any woman who had had a cesarean section should deliver all subsequent babies by cesarean section. However, others have questioned the necessity for elective cesarean section in many such cases and have considered a trial of labor after a previous cesarean section a reasonable strategy. In 1980, the Consensus Development Conference on Cesarean Childbirth was convened at the National Institutes of Health to consider whether a subsequent cesarean section was always necessary.6 The participants concluded that vaginal delivery after previous low transverse cesarean section was a safe and acceptable option.6 In May 1985, the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth in Canada recommended that a trial of labor be offered to women with “one previous low transverse cesarean section, a singleton vertex presentation, and no absolute indication for cesarean section (such as placenta previa).”7 Among women who attempt a trial of labor after a previous low transverse cesarean section, 60 to 80 percent have vaginal deliveries,8-12 and morbidity is lower among women who have a vaginal delivery after a previous cesarean section than among women who elect to undergo a second cesarean section.10,13,14 The relevant issue, however, is the morbidity and mortality associated with the trial of labor and not the risk associated with vaginal delivery after a previous cesarean section. We therefore studied maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in a group of women who underwent either a trial of labor or an elective second cesarean section after a previous cesarean delivery.
Methods
Study Design
The study data were obtained from the Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database of the Reproductive Care Program of Nova Scotia, Canada, for the years 1986 through 1992. The program includes 2 tertiary care hospitals, 7 regional hospitals, and 18 community hospitals. Data collection began in 1980 at the tertiary care hospitals, in 1986 at the regional hospitals, and in 1988 at the community hospitals. In Nova Scotia, tertiary care hospitals provide care for pregnant women with all levels of risk. Regional hospitals provide care for women at low or moderate risk and refer women with high-risk pregnancies to tertiary care hospitals. Community hospitals provide care for low-risk women and refer higher-risk women to hospitals with appropriate levels of care.
From 1986 to 1988, approximately 80 percent of pregnant women in the province were registered in the perinatal data base, but after 1988 all women who delivered infants with birth weights of 500 g or more or at 20 weeks' gestation or later were registered. Standardized information was obtained on each pregnancy at the time of the initial prenatal visit and thereafter throughout the pregnancy and postpartum periods by trained nurses or physicians. This information was abstracted from the medical records and discharge summaries by trained health-records personnel and coded for data entry. All complications and conditions were coded by the medical-records personnel according to a standard coding scheme.
After the National Consensus Conference in 1985, physicians were encouraged to discuss a trial of labor with all pregnant women who had undergone a previous low transverse cesarean section. The recommendation to proceed with a trial of labor or elective cesarean section was usually made in the outpatient setting by a physician. The decision to perform a second cesarean section when the infant was not delivered during a trial of labor was based on obstetrical indications such as the failure of labor to progress or fetal–pelvic disproportion and was made by the physician in charge.
There were 82,488 births from 1986 through 1992 in Nova Scotia. Of the 6457 women who had previously undergone one cesarean section, 319 were excluded from our analysis for the following reasons: nonvertex presentation (119 women); multiple gestation (118 women); a previous cesarean section with a vertical or T-shaped incision (37 women); placenta previa (36 women); maternal herpes simplex infection (7 women); and previous uterine surgery such as myomectomy (2 women).
During labor, uterine activity and the fetal heart rate were monitored. When indicated, oxytocin was used for induction and augmentation of labor. Analgesia with nitrous oxide, narcotic analgesia, and pudendal, epidural, and general anesthesia were used when necessary.
The 3249 women who attempted vaginal delivery after one previous low transverse cesarean section and the 2889 women who elected to undergo a second cesarean section were compared with respect to certain demographic and maternal characteristics, and perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality were evaluated. Women were classified with respect to morbidity as having no complications, major complications, or minor complications. Major complications were defined as the need for hysterectomy, uterine rupture, and operative injury, whereas minor complications were defined as puerperal fever, the need for a blood transfusion, and abdominal-wound infection. Women with multiple major complications or both major and minor complications were counted only once and coded as having major complications; women with multiple minor complications were counted only once and coded as having minor complications.
Hysterectomy was defined as the surgical removal of the uterus and cervix, with or without adnexectomy. Uterine rupture was defined as a defect that involved the entire wall of the uterus, that was symptomatic, and that required operative intervention. Operative injury included extension of the uterine incision with laceration of one or both uterine arteries or laceration of the bladder, ureter, or bowel. Sources of puerperal fever (temperature, >38.0°C) included uterine, urinary, pulmonary, or wound infection and sepsis. Urinary tract infections were diagnosed when culture showed more than 100,000 colonies per milliliter. Pulmonary infection included all cases of pneumonia. The diagnosis of sepsis was made only if the woman had positive blood cultures. Transfusions were performed at the discretion of the physician. Abdominal-wound infection was defined as the presence of purulent material at the wound site and was noted by the attending physician.
Statistical Analysis
For statistical analysis, we used Stata software (Stata, College Station, Tex.) and Epi Info, version 6 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta). Initial comparisons were made with the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical data and Student's t-test or analysis of variance for continuous data. Maternal age, parity, tobacco use, type of hospital, marital status, and attendance at a prenatal class and the infant's birth weight were examined for interaction and confounding. Our analysis revealed no significant interaction among these covariates. Multivariate logistic-regression analysis was used to control for the simultaneous effects of covariates. Adjusted odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals were derived from the estimated regression coefficients.
Results
Of the 6138 women, 3249 (52.9 percent) chose to undergo a trial of labor, and 2889 (47.1 percent) elected a second cesarean section. The characteristics of the women in the two groups are shown in Table 1Table 1
Characteristics of Pregnant Women Undergoing a Trial of Labor or an Elective Second Cesarean Section in Nova Scotia from 1986 through 1992.. Women 19 years old or younger and those 30 years old or older were more likely to attempt a trial of labor than to undergo elective cesarean section. Although all the women had undergone only one previous cesarean section, 1030 also had had at least one successful vaginal delivery (either before the pregnancy in which they underwent a primary cesarean section or as a result of a previous successful trial of labor). Among these 1030 women, those who had had one previous vaginal delivery and those who had had two or more were 3.2 and 4.0 times as likely, respectively, to undergo a trial of labor as women who had had no previous vaginal deliveries. Women who attended prenatal classes were more likely to undergo a trial of labor than those who did not. Elective second cesarean section was twice as likely to occur at a regional hospital as at a tertiary care hospital and 2.5 times as likely to occur at a community hospital. The infants' Apgar scores and the rates of admission to a neonatal intensive care unit were similar in the two groups. The perinatal mortality rate was 9 per 1000 live births in the trial-of-labor group and 5 per 1000 births in the group that underwent elective cesarean section (P = 0.09).Overall, 8.1 percent of the women had a complication. Complications were major (need for hysterectomy, ruptured uterus, or operative injury) in 1.3 percent and minor (puerperal fever, need for a blood transfusion, or abdominal-wound infection) in 6.9 percent. None of the women died. The overall rates of maternal complications in the two groups were similar (Table 2Table 2
Morbidity in Pregnant Women Who Chose a Trial of Labor or an Elective Second Cesarean Section in Nova Scotia from 1986 through 1992.). Major complications were 1.8 times as likely in the trial-of-labor group as in the elective-cesarean-section group, whereas minor complications were 20 percent less likely.With respect to major complications, five women in the trial-of-labor group and six women in the elective-cesarean-section group underwent hysterectomy. Ten women in the trial-of-labor group had uterine rupture; two required hysterectomy, and the remaining eight underwent surgical repair. One woman in the elective-cesarean-section group had a uterine defect requiring repair. Two perinatal deaths occurred among the infants of women in the trial-of-labor group and were related to uterine rupture. The risk of operative injury to the mother was almost twice as high in the trial-of-labor group as in the elective-cesarean-section group. The risk of puerperal fever was 25 percent higher in the elective-cesarean-section group. The risk of requiring a blood transfusion in the two groups was not significantly different. The risk of abdominal-wound infection was more than one and a half times higher in the elective-cesarean-section group than in the trial-of-labor group.
Among the 1030 women who had previously had both a cesarean section and at least one vaginal delivery, overall morbidity increased with an increasing number of previous vaginal deliveries among the women who elected a second cesarean section, although not among the women in the trial-of-labor group (Figure 1Figure 1
Morbidity as a Function of Increasing Parity among Women Who Elected Cesarean Section or a Trial of Labor after a Previous Cesarean Section., left-hand panel). However, major complications were almost twice as likely to occur in the trial-of-labor group as in the elective-cesarean-section group, unless a woman had had two successful vaginal deliveries; in that case, major complications were more likely in the elective-cesarean-section group (Figure 1, center panel). The frequency of minor complications increased with an increasing number of previous vaginal deliveries in the elective-cesarean-section group but not in the trial-of-labor group (Figure 1, right-hand panel).Of the 3249 women who underwent a trial of labor, 1962 (60.4 percent) had vaginal deliveries (Table 3Table 3
Characteristics of Pregnant Women Who Failed to Deliver Vaginally after a Trial of Labor and Those Who Delivered Vaginally after a Trial of Labor, in Nova Scotia, from 1986 through 1992.). Women 35 years old or older were more likely than others to require a cesarean section after a trial of labor. Women who had had one previous vaginal delivery were 3.3 times as likely as women who had had only a cesarean section to have a successful trial of labor; women with two or more previous vaginal deliveries were 5.0 times as likely. A trial of labor was more likely to be successful in women who attended prenatal classes and was more likely to fail if the infant weighed 4000 g or more or if the trial of labor took place at a regional or community hospital. The infants' Apgar scores, the rates of admission to a neonatal intensive care unit, and perinatal mortality were similar for the women in whom the trial of labor did not result in delivery and for those whose labor was successful.Major and minor complications were more likely to occur in women who required a second cesarean section after a failed trial of labor than if the trial of labor was successful (Table 4Table 4
Morbidity in Pregnant Women Who Failed to Deliver Vaginally after a Trial of Labor and Those Who Delivered Successfully, in Nova Scotia, from 1986 through 1992.); 92.5 percent of major complications in the trial-of-labor group occurred in women who did not deliver their babies after a trial of labor and who therefore required a second cesarean section.Discussion
The most important issue regarding maternal well-being with respect to a trial of labor after a previous cesarean section is whether a catastrophic complication, such as uterine rupture, will occur and lead to serious morbidity or death. Maternal death during labor and delivery, regardless of the method of delivery, is uncommon. In our study there were no maternal deaths, a finding similar to that reported by Flamm et al.10 and Rosen et al.14 Maternal morbidity, on the other hand, was not negligible. Most of the complications, however, were minor and were more likely to occur in women undergoing an elective cesarean section than in those undergoing a trial of labor; the findings of Flamm et al.10 and Rosen et al.14 were similar. The frequency of uterine rupture in the trial-of-labor group (0.3 percent) was similar to that in other studies.15,16 The number of hysterectomies, a tragic complication for a woman of reproductive age, was similar in the two groups. Operative injuries contributed to both total and major morbidity among women who chose a trial of labor after a previous cesarean section.
Women for whom a trial of labor is unsuccessful and who therefore require a second cesarean section have the greatest morbidity. In our study, 63.6 percent of major complications and 28.4 percent of minor complications occurred in women who required cesarean section after an unsuccessful trial of labor. A maternal age of 35 years or more, delivery at a community or regional hospital, a birth weight of 4000 g or more in the infant, and the absence of a history of vaginal delivery were associated with an increased risk of cesarean section due to the failure of a trial of labor. Although a trial of labor ends in vaginal delivery in 60 to 80 percent of women who attempt it after a previous cesarean section,8-12 it is a great challenge to identify the women who are most likely to have a successful trial of labor. Recently, researchers have tried to predict the likelihood of success or failure with a trial of labor after a previous cesarean section.17-19 Previous dysfunctional labor, no prior vaginal delivery, an abnormal fetal-heart-rate tracing, induction of labor,17 fetal–pelvic disproportion,18 and fetal growth abnormalities19 all increased the likelihood that a trial of labor would be unsuccessful.
Because some outcomes associated with a trial of labor after a previous cesarean section are rare, we used population-based data to generate estimates of the risk of complications and death. However, our study is limited by possible selection bias and a possible lack of generalizability. Because the women were allowed to choose between a trial of labor and an elective second cesarean section, selection bias could have altered our estimates of risk. The results of our study may also not be generalizable to other groups of women, since the management of a trial of labor after a previous cesarean section in Canada may be different from standard practice in other parts of the world. Finally, although neonatal outcomes in the two groups were similar, follow-up information about the infants was not available.
For a woman who has had a previous low transverse cesarean section, a choice must be made between a trial of labor and an elective second cesarean section. In this study, the risk of major complications was greater for women who chose a trial of labor than for those who chose a second cesarean section. This was so because the rate of cesarean section in the women who attempted a trial of labor was 40 percent, and major complications were substantially more frequent than for women who had a second cesarean section without a previous trial of labor. This increased risk more than offset the decreased risks associated with delivery in the 60 percent of women in the same group whose trial of labor was successful.
Clearly, the way to decrease the overall risk entailed by a trial of labor (including the risk of major complications) is by selecting women who have a high probability (perhaps more than 80 percent) of delivering their babies vaginally. In this study, women were more likely to have a successful trial of labor if they were under 35 years of age, if the child's birth weight was less than 4000 g, and if they delivered in a tertiary care hospital. However, there is as yet no confirmed method of predicting the likelihood that a trial of labor will lead to vaginal delivery for a patient with a previous low transverse cesarean section.
Source Information
From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology (M.J.M., E.R.L., W.A.B.) and Epidemiology (M.J.M., A.F.O.), School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; and Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., Canada (E.R.L.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. McMahon at the Division of Maternal–Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, CB 7570, 214 MacNider Bldg., Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7570.
- References
References
1
Rates of cesarean delivery -- United States, 1991
Medline2
Eskew PN Jr ,Saywell RM Jr ,Zollinger TW ,Erner BK ,Oser TL . Trends in the frequency of cesarean delivery: a 21-year experience, 1970-1990. J Reprod Med 1994;39:809-817
Web of Science | Medline3
Taffel SM ,Placek PJ ,Kosary CL . U.S. cesarean section rates 1990: an update. Birth 1992;19:21-22
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Taffel SM ,Placek PJ ,Moien M ,Kosary CL . 1989 U.S. cesarean section rate steadies -- VBAC rate rises to nearly one in five. Birth 1991;18:73-77
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Soliman SRH ,Burrows RF . Cesarean section: analysis of the experience before and after the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth. Can Med Assoc J 1993;148:1315-1320
Web of Science6
National Institutes of Health. Cesarean childbirth. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981:351-74. (NIH publication no. 82-2067.)
7
Indications for cesarean section: final statement of the panel of the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth
Web of Science8
Miller DA ,Diaz FG ,Paul RH . Vaginal birth after cesarean: a 10-year experience. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:255-258
Web of Science | Medline9
Cowan RK ,Kinch RAH ,Ellis B ,Anderson R . Trial of labor following cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:933-936
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Flamm BL ,Goings JR ,Liu Y ,Wolde-Tsadik G . Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a prospective multicenter study. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:927-932
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
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 1990;76:750-754
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Rosen MG ,Dickinson JC . Vaginal birth after cesarean: a meta-analysis of indicators for success. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:865-869
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Paul RH ,Phelan JP ,Yeh SY . Trial of labor in the patient with a prior cesarean birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;151:297-304
Web of Science | Medline14
Rosen MG ,Dickinson JC ,Westhoff CL . Vaginal birth after cesarean: a meta-analysis of morbidity and mortality. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:465-470
Web of Science | Medline15
Gellman E ,Goldstein MS ,Kaplan S ,Shapiro WJ . Vaginal delivery after cesarean section: experience in private practice. JAMA 1983;249:2935-2937
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Gibbs CE . Planned vaginal delivery following cesarean section. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1980;23:507-515
CrossRef | Medline17
Troyer LR ,Parisi VM . Obstetric parameters affecting success in a trial of labor: designation of a scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:1099-1104
Web of Science | Medline18
Thurnau GR ,Scates DH ,Morgan MA . The fetal-pelvic index: a method of identifying fetal-pelvic disproportion in women attempting vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:353-358
Web of Science | Medline19
Weinstein DW ,Benshushan A ,Tanos V ,Zilberstein R ,Rojansky N . Predictive score for vaginal birth after cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:192-198
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (168)
Citing Articles
1
Hinke Lau, Hendrik Gremmels, Nico W. Schuitemaker, Anneke Kwee. (2011) Risk of uterine rupture in women undergoing trial of labour with a history of both a caesarean section and a vaginal delivery. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 284:5, 1053-1058
CrossRef2
A.-C. Sans-Mischel, C. Trastour, C. Sakarovitch, J. Delotte, E. Fontas, A. Bongain. (2011) État des lieux en France de la prise en charge des utérus cicatriciels. Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 40:7, 639-650
CrossRef3
Paula J Laws, Carylyn Lim, Sally K Tracy, Hannah Dahlen, Elizabeth A Sullivan. (2011) Changes to booking, transfer criteria and procedures in birth centres in Australia from 1997-2007: a national survey. Journal of Clinical Nursing 20:19-20, 2812-2821
CrossRef4
RITA FARANESH, RAED SALIM. (2011) Labor progress among women attempting a trial of labor after cesarean. Do they have their own rules?. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavicano-no
CrossRef5
(2011) Care for Women Desiring Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 56:5, 517-525
CrossRef6
James R. Scott. (2011) Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 118:2, Part 1, 342-350
CrossRef7
Clarissa Bonanno, Marilee Clausing, Richard Berkowitz. (2011) VBAC: A Medicolegal Perspective. Clinics in Perinatology 38:2, 217-225
CrossRef8
Yvonne W. Cheng, Karen B. Eden, Nicole Marshall, Leonardo Pereira, Aaron B. Caughey, Jeanne-Marie Guise. (2011) Delivery After Prior Cesarean: Maternal Morbidity and Mortality. Clinics in Perinatology 38:2, 297-309
CrossRef9
Lisa M. Korst, Kimberly D. Gregory, Moshe Fridman, Jeffrey P. Phelan. (2011) Nonclinical Factors Affecting Women’s Access to Trial of Labor After Cesarean Delivery. Clinics in Perinatology 38:2, 193-216
CrossRef10
Anthony L. Shanks, Alison G. Cahill. (2011) Delivery After Prior Cesarean: Success Rate and Factors. Clinics in Perinatology 38:2, 233-245
CrossRef11
Rosalie M. Grivell, Merlyn P. Barreto, Jodie M. Dodd. (2011) The Influence of Intrapartum Factors on Risk of Uterine Rupture and Successful Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Clinics in Perinatology 38:2, 265-275
CrossRef12
Marian MacDorman, Eugene Declercq, Fay Menacker. (2011) Recent Trends and Patterns in Cesarean and Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC) Deliveries in the United States. Clinics in Perinatology 38:2, 179-192
CrossRef13
A.-S. Maisonneuve, J.-B. Haumonte, X. Carcopino, R. Shojai, F. Bretelle, C. Chau, L. Boubli, C. d’Ercole. (2011) Modalités d’accouchement et risque de rupture utérine après césarienne réalisée avant 32 semaines d’aménorrhée. Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction 40:4, 334-339
CrossRef14
William A. Grobman, Yinglei Lai, Mark B. Landon, Catherine Y. Spong, Dwight J. Rouse, Michael W. Varner, Steve N. Caritis, Margaret Harper, Ronald J. Wapner, Yoram Sorokin. (2011) The change in the rate of vaginal birth after caesarean section. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 25:1, 37-43
CrossRef15
Kim J Cox. (2011) Providers' perspectives on the vaginal birth after cesarean guidelines in Florida, United States: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 11:1, 72
CrossRef16
Douglas H. Kirkpatrick, Ronald T. Burkman. (2010) Does Standardization of Care Through Clinical Guidelines Improve Outcomes and Reduce Medical Liability?. Obstetrics & Gynecology 116:5, 1022-1026
CrossRef17
Madhavi Manoharan, Rekha Wuntakal, Katrina Erskine. (2010) Uterine rupture: a revisit. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist 12:4, 223-230
CrossRef18
Howard Minkoff, Dmitry Fridman. (2010) The Immediately Available Physician Standard. Seminars in Perinatology 34:5, 325-330
CrossRef19
C. Edward Wells. (2010) Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery: Views from the Private Practitioner. Seminars in Perinatology 34:5, 345-350
CrossRef20
GA Dekker, A Chan, CG Luke, K Priest, M Riley, J Halliday, JF King, V Gee, M O’Neill, M Snell, V Cull, S Cornes. (2010) Risk of uterine rupture in Australian women attempting vaginal birth after one prior caesarean section: a retrospective population-based cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 117:11, 1358-1365
CrossRef21
Anne Drapkin Lyerly, Margaret Olivia Little. (2010) Toward an Ethically Responsible Approach to Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. Seminars in Perinatology 34:5, 337-344
CrossRef22
Mona T. Lydon-Rochelle, Alison G. Cahill, Catherine Y. Spong. (2010) Birth After Previous Cesarean Delivery: Short-Term Maternal Outcomes. Seminars in Perinatology 34:4, 249-257
CrossRef23
Kimberly D. Gregory, Moshe Fridman, Lisa Korst. (2010) Trends and Patterns of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Availability in the United States. Seminars in Perinatology 34:4, 237-243
CrossRef24
Ravi M. Patel, Lucky Jain. (2010) Delivery After Previous Cesarean: Short-Term Perinatal Outcomes. Seminars in Perinatology 34:4, 272-280
CrossRef25
David A. Miller. 2010. Vaginal Birth after Cesarean. , 52-56.
CrossRef26
Jeanne-Marie Guise, Mary Anna Denman, Cathy Emeis, Nicole Marshall, Miranda Walker, Rongwei Fu, Rosalind Janik, Peggy Nygren, Karen B. Eden, Marian McDonagh. (2010) Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. Obstetrics & Gynecology 115:6, 1267-1278
CrossRef27
Miriam S. Lenhard, Thorsten R.C. Johnson, Sabine Weckbach, Konstantin Nikolaou, Klaus Friese, Uwe Hasbargen. (2010) Pelvimetry revisited: Analyzing cephalopelvic disproportion. European Journal of Radiology 74:3, e107-e111
CrossRef28
Maralyn Foureur, Clare L. Ryan, Michael Nicholl, Caroline Homer. (2010) Inconsistent Evidence: Analysis of Six National Guidelines for Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Section. Birth 37:1, 3-10
CrossRef29
Fay Menacker, Marian F. MacDorman, Eugene Declercq. (2010) Neonatal Mortality Risk for Repeat Cesarean Compared to Vaginal Birth after Cesarean (VBAC) Deliveries in the United States, 1998–2002 Birth Cohorts. Maternal and Child Health Journal 14:2, 147-154
CrossRef30
Olus Apı, Orhan Unal, Murat Apı, Ugur Dogance, Orhan Balcık, Ozcan Kara, Cem Turan. (2010) Do asymptomatic patients require routine hemoglobin testing following uneventful, unplanned cesarean sections?. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 281:2, 195-199
CrossRef31
Nicole Jastrow, Stéphanie Roberge, Robert J. Gauthier, Liny Laroche, Louise Duperron, Normand Brassard, Emmanuel Bujold. (2010) Effect of Birth Weight on Adverse Obstetric Outcomes in Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 115:2, Part 1, 338-343
CrossRef32
S Tahseen, M Griffiths. (2010) 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: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 117:1, 5-19
CrossRef33
Stephen R. Latham, Errol R. Norwitz. (2009) Ethics and “Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Demand”. Seminars in Perinatology 33:6, 405-409
CrossRef34
A M Galyean, D C Lagrew, M C Bush, J T Kurtzman. (2009) Previous cesarean section and the risk of postpartum maternal complications and adverse neonatal outcomes in future pregnancies. Journal of Perinatology 29:11, 726-730
CrossRef35
A. Ladaique, A. Leroch’, P. Deruelle. (2009) Les risques maternels et fœtaux de la césarienne programmée et en urgence. Pelvi-périnéologie 4:3, 200-206
CrossRef36
Iqbal Al-Zirqi, Siri Vangen, Lisa Forsén, Babill Stray-Pedersen. (2009) Effects of onset of labor and mode of delivery on severe postpartum hemorrhage. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 201:3, 273.e1-273.e9
CrossRef37
Kimberly D. Gregory, Moshe Fridman, Sonal Shah, Lisa M. Korst. (2009) Global measures of quality- and patient safety-related childbirth outcomes: should we monitor adverse or ideal rates?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 200:6, 681.e1-681.e7
CrossRef38
Lorie M. Harper, Alison G. Cahill, David M. Stamilio, Anthony O. Odibo, Jeffrey F. Peipert, George A. Macones. (2009) Effect of gestational age at the prior cesarean delivery on maternal morbidity in subsequent VBAC attempt. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 200:3, 276.e1-276.e6
CrossRef39
William A. Grobman, Yinglei Lai, Mark B. Landon, Catherine Y. Spong, Kenneth J. Leveno, Dwight J. Rouse, Michael W. Varner, Atef H. Moawad, Steve N. Caritis, Margaret Harper, Ronald J. Wapner, Yoram Sorokin, Menachem Miodovnik, Marshall Carpenter, Mary J. O'Sullivan, Baha M. Sibai, Oded Langer, John M. Thorp, Susan M. Ramin, Brian M. Mercer. (2009) Can a prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean also predict the probability of morbidity related to a trial of labor?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 200:1, 56.e1-56.e6
CrossRef40
Lawrence M. Leeman. (2008) Prenatal Counseling Regarding Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 35:3, 473-495
CrossRef41
Steven L. Clark, Michael A. Belfort, Spencer L. Byrum, Janet A. Meyers, Jonathan B. Perlin. (2008) Improved outcomes, fewer cesarean deliveries, and reduced litigation: results of a new paradigm in patient safety. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 199:2, 105.e1-105.e7
CrossRef42
Ashwin Ramachandrappa, Lucky Jain. (2008) Elective Cesarean Section: Its Impact on Neonatal Respiratory Outcome. Clinics in Perinatology 35:2, 373-393
CrossRef43
Hei-Jen Jou, Hsin-Wen Hung, Pei-Ying Ling, Shih-Ming Chen, Shiao-Chi Wu. (2008) Peripartum hysterectomy in Taiwan. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 101:3, 269-272
CrossRef44
Konstantinos DINAS, Georgios MAVROMATIDIS, Dimitrios DOVAS, Charalambos GIANNOULIS, Theocharis TANTANASIS, Aristoteles LOUFOPOULOS, John TZAFETTAS. (2008) Current caesarean delivery rates and indications in a major public hospital in northern Greece. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 48:2, 142-146
CrossRef45
Kimberly D. Gregory, Lisa M. Korst, Moshe Fridman, Ida Shihady, Paula Broussard, Arlene Fink, Linda Burnes Bolton. (2008) Vaginal birth after cesarean: clinical risk factors associated with adverse outcome. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 198:4, 452.e1-452.e12
CrossRef46
Alison G. Cahill, David M. Stamilio, Anthony O. Odibo, Jeffery Peipert, Erika Stevens, George A. Macones. (2008) Racial Disparity in the Success and Complications of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 111:3, 654-658
CrossRef47
H. Schneider. (2008) Natürliche Geburt oder „Wunsch-Sectio“?. Der Gynäkologe 41:1, 36-41
CrossRef48
A. G. Adesiyun, A. Ojabo, A. Durosinlorun-Mohammed. (2008) Fertility and obstetric outcome after caesarean myomectomy. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 28:7, 710-712
CrossRef49
Richard G. Roberts, Mark Deutchman, Valerie J. King, George E. Fryer, Thomas J. Miyoshi. (2007) Changing Policies on Vaginal Birth after Cesarean: Impact on Access. Birth 34:4, 316-322
CrossRef50
Husnu GORGEN, B. Pınar Cilesiz GOKSEDEF, Safak Baran YILMAZ, Aysu AKCA, Ahmet CETIN. (2007) Fetal torticollis and upper extremity haematoma after silent uterine rupture: A case report. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 47:6, 513-514
CrossRef51
H. Muppala, S. K. Najia, F. R. Clarke. (2007) Current evidence in the management of previous caesarean section: clinical review. European Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology 3:2, 67-80
CrossRef52
Oscar Sadan, Moshe Leshno, Ahuva Gottreich, Abraham Golan, Samuel Lurie. (2007) Once a cesarean always a cesarean? A computer-assisted decision analysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 276:5, 517-521
CrossRef53
Amen Ness. 2007. Vaginal birth after cesarean. , 99-106.
CrossRef54
Yasser Y. El-Sayed, Melanie M. Watkins, Megan Fix, Maurice L. Druzin, Kristin M. Pullen, Aaron B. Caughey. (2007) Perinatal outcomes after successful and failed trials of labor after cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 196:6, 583.e1-583.e5
CrossRef55
Anneke Kwee, Michiel L. Bots, Gerard H.A. Visser, Hein W. Bruinse. (2007) Obstetric management and outcome of pregnancy in women with a history of caesarean section in the Netherlands. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 132:2, 171-176
CrossRef56
ALISON G. CAHILL, GEORGE A. MACONES. (2007) Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery: Evidence-based Practice. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 50:2, 518-525
CrossRef57
Claire L. Wendland. (2007) The Vanishing Mother: Cesarean Section and ?Evidence-Based Obstetrics?. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 21:2, 218-233
CrossRef58
Jason N. Hashima, Jeanne-Marie Guise. (2007) Vaginal birth after cesarean: a prenatal scoring tool. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 196:5, e22-e23
CrossRef59
Sindhu K. Srinivas, David M. Stamilio, Erika J. Stevens, Anthony O. Odibo, Jeffrey F. Peipert, George A. Macones. (2007) Predicting Failure of a Vaginal Birth Attempt After Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 109:4, 800-805
CrossRef60
Jennifer L. Bailit. (2007) Measuring the Quality of Inpatient Obstetrical Care. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey 62:3, 207-213
CrossRef61
Sindhu K. Srinivas, David M. Stamilio, Mary D. Sammel, Erika J. Stevens, Jeffrey F. Peipert, Anthony O. Odibo, George A. Macones. (2007) Vaginal birth after caesarean delivery: does maternal age affect safety and success?. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 21:2, 114-120
CrossRef62
Peng Chiong TAN, Revathy Nadesan SUBRAMANIAM, Siti Zawiah OMAR. (2007) Labour and perinatal outcome in women at term with one previous lower-segment Caesarean: A review of 1000 consecutive cases. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 47:1, 31-36
CrossRef63
Anthony G. Visco, Meera Viswanathan, Kathleen N. Lohr, Mary Ellen Wechter, Gerald Gartlehner, Jennifer M. Wu, Rachel Palmieri, Michele Jonsson Funk, Linda Lux, Tammeka Swinson, Katherine Hartmann. (2006) Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request. Obstetrics & Gynecology 108:6, 1517-1529
CrossRef64
CL Emmett, ARG Shaw, AA Montgomery, DJ Murphy, . (2006) Women’s experience of decision making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section: the role of health professionals and information about health risks. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 113:12, 1438-1445
CrossRef65
Golde G. Dudell, Lucky Jain. (2006) Hypoxic Respiratory Failure in the Late Preterm Infant. Clinics in Perinatology 33:4, 803-830
CrossRef66
Fay Menacker, Eugene Declercq, Marian F. Macdorman. (2006) Cesarean Delivery: Background, Trends, and Epidemiology. Seminars in Perinatology 30:5, 235-241
CrossRef67
Lucky Jain, Golde G. Dudell. (2006) Respiratory Transition in Infants Delivered by Cesarean Section. Seminars in Perinatology 30:5, 296-304
CrossRef68
CI Alexander, WA Liston. (2006) Review article: Operating on the obese woman-a review. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 113:10, 1167-1172
CrossRef69
Alison G. Cahill, David M. Stamilio, Anthony O. Odibo, Jeffrey F. Peipert, Sarah J. Ratcliffe, Erika J. Stevens, Mary D. Sammel, George A. Macones. (2006) Is vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) or elective repeat cesarean safer in women with a prior vaginal delivery?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 195:4, 1143-1147
CrossRef70
Celeste P. Durnwald, Dwight J. Rouse, Kenneth J. Leveno, Catherine Y. Spong, Cora MacPherson, Michael W. Varner, Atef H. Moawad, Steve N. Caritis, Margaret Harper, Ronald J. Wapner, Yoram Sorokin, Menachem Miodovnik, Marshall Carpenter, Alan M. Peaceman, Mary Jo O'Sullivan, Baha Sibai, Oded Langer, John M. Thorp, Susan M. Ramin, Brian M. Mercer, Steven G. Gabbe. (2006) The Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Cesarean Registry: Safety and efficacy of a trial of labor in preterm pregnancy after a prior cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 195:4, 1119-1126
CrossRef71
Melissa Gilliam. (2006) Cesarean Delivery on Request: Reproductive Consequences. Seminars in Perinatology 30:5, 257-260
CrossRef72
William A. Grobman, Joe Feinglass, Sumithra Murthy. (2006) Are the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality obstetric trauma indicators valid measures of hospital safety?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 195:3, 868-874
CrossRef73
JILL G. MAULDIN, ROGER B. NEWMAN. (2006) Prior Cesarean: A Contraindication to Labor Induction?. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 49:3, 684-697
CrossRef74
Deirdre J Murphy. (2006) Current thinking on maternal and neonatal morbidity related to cesarean section. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 1:1, 93-102
CrossRef75
Victoria M. Allen, Colleen M. O’Connell, Thomas F. Baskett. (2006) Cumulative Economic Implications of Initial Method of Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 108:3, Part 1, 549-555
CrossRef76
&NA;. (2006) Results of a Well-Defined Protocol for a Trial of Labor After Prior Cesarean Delivery. Obstetric Anesthesia Digest 26:3, 136-137
CrossRef77
Gerard Agnew, Michael Turner. (2006) Can a 29% Cesarean Delivery Rate Possibly Be Justified?. Obstetrics & Gynecology 108:2, 452
CrossRef78
Victoria M. Allen, Colleen M. O’Connell, Thomas F. Baskett. (2006) Maternal Morbidity Associated With Cesarean Delivery Without Labor Compared With Induction of Labor at Term. Obstetrics & Gynecology 108:2, 286-294
CrossRef79
Victoria Nisenblat, Shlomi Barak, Ofra Barnett Griness, Simon Degani, Gonen Ohel, Ron Gonen. (2006) Maternal Complications Associated With Multiple Cesarean Deliveries. Obstetrics & Gynecology 108:1, 21-26
CrossRef80
Judith U. Hibbard, Sharon Gilbert, Mark B. Landon, John C. Hauth, Kenneth J. Leveno, Catherine Y. Spong, Michael W. Varner, Steve N. Caritis, Margaret Harper, Ronald J. Wapner, Yoram Sorokin, Menachem Miodovnik, Marshall Carpenter, Alan M. Peaceman, Mary J. OʼSullivan, Baha M. Sibai, Oded Langer, John M. Thorp, Susan M. Ramin, Brian M. Mercer, Steven G. Gabbe. (2006) Trial of Labor or Repeat Cesarean Delivery in Women With Morbid Obesity and Previous Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 108:1, 125-133
CrossRef81
MJA Turner, G Agnew, H Langan. (2006) Uterine rupture and labour after a previous low transverse caesarean section. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 113:6, 729-732
CrossRef82
Olivier Sibony, Séverine Alran, Jean-François Oury. (2006) Vaginal birth after cesarean section: X-ray pelvimetry at term is informative. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 34:3, 212-215
CrossRef83
Alison G. Cahill, George A. Macones. (2006) Vital considerations for the use of vital statistics in obstetrical research. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 194:4, 909-910
CrossRef84
Yu Ming VICTOR Fang, Carolyn M Zelop. (2006) Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: Assessing Maternal and Perinatal Risks-Contemporary Management. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 49:1, 147-153
CrossRef85
Ron Gonen, Victoria Nisenblat, Shlomi Barak, Ada Tamir, Gonen Ohel. (2006) Results of a Well-Defined Protocol for a Trial of Labor After Prior Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 107:2, Part 1, 240-245
CrossRef86
Lucky Jain, Douglas C. Eaton. (2006) Physiology of Fetal Lung Fluid Clearance and the Effect of Labor. Seminars in Perinatology 30:1, 34-43
CrossRef87
David Hepner, Bhavani Shankar Kodali, Scott Segal. 2006. Pregnancy and Complications of Pregnancy. , 547-581.
CrossRef88
Emmanuelle Paré, Joanne N Quiñones, George A Macones. (2006) General obstetrics: Vaginal birth after caesarean section versus elective repeat caesarean section: assessment of maternal downstream health outcomes. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 113:1, 75-85
CrossRef89
John Yeh, Jean Wactawski-Wende, James A. Shelton, Jennifer Reschke. (2006) Temporal trends in the rates of trial of labor in low-risk pregnancies and their impact on the rates and success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 194:1, 144.e1-144.e12
CrossRef90
A B Caughey. (2006) Elective cesarean delivery: when is it justified?. Journal of Perinatology 26:1, 1-2
CrossRef91
C GASS. (2006) It is the right of every anaesthetist to refuse to participate in a maternal-request caesarean section. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 15:1, 33-35
CrossRef92
Joo Oh Kim, Jung Yeol Han, June Seek Choi, Hyun Kyong Ahn, Jae Hyug Yang, Inn Soo Kang, Mi Jin Song, Alejandro A. Nava-Ocampo. (2005) Oral misoprostol and uterine rupture in the first trimester of pregnancy: A case report. Reproductive Toxicology 20:4, 575-577
CrossRef93
George A. Macones, Jeffrey Peipert, Deborah B. Nelson, Anthony Odibo, Erika J. Stevens, David M. Stamilio, Emmanuelle Pare, Michal Elovitz, Anthony Sciscione, Mary D. Sammel, Sarah J. Ratcliffe. (2005) Maternal complications with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: A multicenter study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 193:5, 1656-1662
CrossRef94
Emmanuel Bujold, Ahmad Hammoud, Christiane Schild, Martin Krapp, Peter Baumann. (2005) The role of maternal body mass index in outcomes of vaginal births after cesarean. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 193:4, 1517-1521
CrossRef95
Mark B. Landon, Sharon Leindecker, Catherine Y. Spong, John C. Hauth, Steven Bloom, Michael W. Varner, Atef H. Moawad, Steve N. Caritis, Margaret Harper, Ronald J. Wapner, Yoram Sorokin, Menachem Miodovnik, Marshall Carpenter, Alan M. Peaceman, Mary Jo O'Sullivan, Baha M. Sibai, Oded Langer, John M. Thorp, Susan M. Ramin, Brian M. Mercer, Steven G. Gabbe. (2005) The MFMU Cesarean Registry: Factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 193:3, 1016-1023
CrossRef96
Lisa M. Korst, Kimberly D. Gregory, Michael C. Lu, Carolina Reyes, Calvin J. Hobel, Gilberto F. Chavez. (2005) A Framework for the Development of MaternalQuality of Care Indicators. Maternal and Child Health Journal 9:3, 317-341
CrossRef97
Petra Klemm, Christhardt Koehler, Mandy Mangler, Uwe Schneider, Achim Schneider. (2005) Laparoscopic and vaginal repair of uterine scar dehiscence following cesarean section as detected by ultrasound. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 33:4, 324-331
CrossRef98
Victoria M. Allen, Colleen M. O'Connell, Scott A. Farrell, Thomas F. Baskett. (2005) Economic implications of method of delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 193:1, 192-197
CrossRef99
Kimberly Kenton, Cynthia Brincat, Martina Mutone, Linda Brubaker. (2005) Repeat cesarean section and primary elective cesarean section: Recently trained obstetrician-gynecologist practice patterns and opinions. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 192:6, 1872-1875
CrossRef100
D. Fischer, R. Axt-Fliedner, D. Hornung, D. Finas, M. Friedrich. (2005) Entbindung nach Uterotomie oder bei Uterusanomalien. Der Gynäkologe 38:6, 514-521
CrossRef101
Greg Gochnour, Stephen Ratcliffe, Mary Bishop Stone. (2005) The UTAH VBAC Study. Maternal and Child Health Journal 9:2, 181-188
CrossRef102
George A. Macones, Alison Cahill, Emmanuelle Pare, David M. Stamilio, Sarah Ratcliffe, Erika Stevens, Mary Sammel, Jeffrey Peipert. (2005) Obstetric outcomes in women with two prior cesarean deliveries: Is vaginal birth after cesarean delivery a viable option?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 192:4, 1223-1228
CrossRef103
Joanne N. Quiñones, David M. Stamilio, Emmanuelle Paré, Jeffrey F. Peipert, Erika Stevens, George A. Macones. (2005) The Effect of Prematurity on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery: Success and Maternal Morbidity. Obstetrics & Gynecology 105:3, 519-524
CrossRef104
Catalin S. Buhimschi, Irina A. Buhimschi, Shilpa Patel, Andrew M. Malinow, Carl P. Weiner. (2005) Rupture of the uterine scar during term labour: contractility or biochemistry?. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 112:1, 38-42
CrossRef105
Gordon C. S. Smith, Ian R. White, Jill P. Pell, Richard Dobbie. (2005) Predicting Cesarean Section and Uterine Rupture among Women Attempting Vaginal Birth after Prior Cesarean Section. PLoS Medicine 2:9, e252
CrossRef106
Landon, Mark B., Hauth, John C., Leveno, Kenneth J., Spong, Catherine Y., Leindecker, Sharon, Varner, Michael W., Moawad, Atef H., Caritis, Steve N., Harper, Margaret, Wapner, Ronald J., Sorokin, Yoram, Miodovnik, Menachem, Carpenter, Marshall, Peaceman, Alan M., O'Sullivan, Mary Jo, Sibai, Baha, Langer, Oded, Thorp, John M., Ramin, Susan M., Mercer, Brian M., Gabbe, Steven G., . (2004) Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with a Trial of Labor after Prior Cesarean Delivery. New England Journal of Medicine 351:25, 2581-2589
Full Text107
J GUISE, J HASHIMA, P OSTERWEIL. (2004) Evidence-based vaginal birth after Caesarean section. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology
CrossRef108
Birgit Reime, Michael C. Klein, Ann Kelly, Nancy Duxbury, Lee Saxell, Robert Liston, Frederique Josephine Petra Maria Prompers, Robert Stefan Willem Entjes, Victor Wong. (2004) Do maternity care provider groups have different attitudes towards birth?. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 111:12, 1388-1393
CrossRef109
Emmanuel Bujold, Sean C. Blackwell, Israel Hendler, Susan Berman, Yoram Sorokin, Robert J. Gauthier. (2004) Modified Bishop's score and induction of labor in patients with a previous cesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 191:5, 1644-1648
CrossRef110
Jodie M Dodd, Marianna R Dare, Philippa Middleton, Jodie M Dodd. 2004. Treatment for women with postpartum iron deficiency anaemia. .
CrossRef111
Jodie M Dodd, Caroline A Crowther, Erasmo Huertas, Jeanne-Marie Guise, Dell Horey, Jodie M Dodd. 2004. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. .
CrossRef112
Jodie DODD, Caroline CROWTHER. (2004) Vaginal birth after Caesarean versus elective repeat Caesarean for women with a single prior Caesarean birth: A systematic review of the literature. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 44:5, 387-391
CrossRef113
Cynthia Gyamfi, Gabor Juhasz, Phyllis Gyamfi, Joanne L. Stone. (2004) Increased Success of Trial of Labor After Previous Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. Obstetrics & Gynecology 104:4, 715-719
CrossRef114
Israel Hendler, Emmanuel Bujold. (2004) Effect of Prior Vaginal Delivery or Prior Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery on Obstetric Outcomes in Women Undergoing Trial of Labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology 104:2, 273-277
CrossRef115
ALEX MACARIO, YASSER Y. EL-SAYED, MAURICE L. DRUZIN. (2004) Cost-Effectiveness of a Trial of Labor After Previous Cesarean Delivery Depends on the A Priori Chance of Success. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 47:2, 378-385
CrossRef116
Kaisa Juntunen, Leo Makarainen, Pertti Kirkinen. (2004) Outcome after a high number (4-10) of repeated caesarean sections. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 111:6, 561-563
CrossRef117
THOMAS D. SHIPP. (2004) Trial of Labor After Cesarean: So, What Are the Risks?. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 47:2, 365-377
CrossRef118
Emmanuel Bujold, Ahmad O Hammoud, Israel Hendler, Susan Berman, Sean C Blackwell, Louise Duperron, Robert J Gauthier. (2004) Trial of labor in patients with a previous cesarean section: does maternal age influence the outcome?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 190:4, 1113-1118
CrossRef119
Allison Shorten, Marie Chamberlain, Brett Shorten, Azar Kariminia. (2004) Making choices for childbirth: development and testing of a decision-aid for women who have experienced previous caesarean. Patient Education and Counseling 52:3, 307-313
CrossRef120
Jeanne-Marie Guise, Michelle Berlin, Marian McDonagh, Patricia Osterweil, Benjamin Chan, Mark Helfand. (2004) Safety of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: A Systematic Review. Obstetrics & Gynecology 103:3, 420-429
CrossRef121
Jason N Hashima, Karen B Eden, Patricia Osterweil, Peggy Nygren, Jeanne-Marie Guise. (2004) Predicting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: A review of prognostic factors and screening tools. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 190:2, 547-555
CrossRef122
Emmanuel Bujold, Sean C. Blackwell, Robert J. Gauthier. (2004) Cervical Ripening With Transcervical Foley Catheter and the Risk of Uterine Rupture. Obstetrics & Gynecology 103:1, 18-23
CrossRef123
A. Hammoud, I. Hendler, R. J. Gauthier, S. Berman, A. Sansregret, E. Bujold. (2004) The effect of gestational age on trial of labor after Cesarean section. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 15:3, 202-206
CrossRef124
AO Aisien, AU Oronsaye. (2004) Vaginal birth after one previous caesarean section in a tertiary institution in Nigeria. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 24:8, 886-890
CrossRef125
G Loebel, CM Zelop, JFX Egan, J Wax. (2004) Maternal and neonatal morbidity after elective repeat Cesarean delivery versus a trial of labor after previous Cesarean delivery in a community teaching hospital. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 15:4, 243-246
CrossRef126
Anthony O Odibo, George A Macones. (2003) Current concepts regarding vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 15:6, 479-482
CrossRef127
Richard L Kravitz, David Krackhardt, Joy Melnikow, Carol E Franz, William M Gilbert, Andra Zach, Debora A Paterniti, Patrick S Romano. (2003) Networked for change? identifying obstetric opinion leaders and assessing their opinions on caesarean delivery. Social Science & Medicine 57:12, 2423-2434
CrossRef128
Rita E. Fisler, Amy Cohen, Steven A. Ringer, Ellice Lieberman. (2003) Neonatal Outcome after Trial of Labor Compared with Elective Repeat Cesarean Section. Birth 30:2, 83-88
CrossRef129
Henci Goer. (2003) “Spin Doctoring” the Research. Birth 30:2, 124-129
CrossRef130
Arijit Biswas. (2003) Management of previous cesarean section. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 15:2, 123-129
CrossRef131
Kin Sun Wong, Alice Y.K. Wong, Lowina H.Y. Tse, Lawrence C.H. Tang. (2003) Use of fetal-pelvic index in the prediction of vaginal birth following previous cesarean section. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 29:2, 104-108
CrossRef132
Joanne Morrison, I.Z. MacKenzie. (2003) Cesarean section on demand. Seminars in Perinatology 27:1, 20-33
CrossRef133
Michael L. Socol. (2003) VBAC-Is it worth the risk?. Seminars in Perinatology 27:1, 105-111
CrossRef134
Fujio Mizunoya, Megumi Nakata, Tokumasa Kondo, Sadao Yamashita, and Shigeo Inoue. (2002) Management of vaginal birth after cesarean. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 28:5, 240-244
CrossRef135
Henci Goer, BA, LCCE. (2002) VBAC and the New England Journal of Medicine. Birth 29:2, 150-151
CrossRef136
Katie M Groom, Sara Paterson-Brown. (2002) Is it yet appropriate to perform caesarean section on request?. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist 4:1, 4-9
CrossRef137
MARTIN T. NOVEMBER. (2001) Cost Analysis of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 44:3, 571-587
CrossRef138
BRUCE COHEN, MEREDITH ATKINS. (2001) Brief History of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Section. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 44:3, 604-608
CrossRef139
VIRGINIA A. BECKETT, LESLEY REGAN. (2001) Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: The European Experience. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 44:3, 594-603
CrossRef140
Lydon-Rochelle, Mona, Holt, Victoria L., Easterling, Thomas R., Martin, Diane P., . (2001) Risk of Uterine Rupture during Labor among Women with a Prior Cesarean Delivery. New England Journal of Medicine 345:1, 3-8
Full Text141
J Bais. (2001) Vaginal birth after caesarean section in a population with a low overall caesarean section rate. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 96:2, 158-162
CrossRef142
N Jackson. (2001) Physical sequelae of caesarean section. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 15:1, 49-61
CrossRef143
B Flamm. (2001) Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC). Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 15:1, 81-92
CrossRef144
Z Penn. (2001) Indications for caesarean section. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 15:1, 1-15
CrossRef145
Pascal Guihard, Béatrice Blondel. (2001) Trends in risk factors for caesarean sections in France between 1981 and 1995: lessons for reducing the rates in the future. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 108:1, 48-55
CrossRef146
Susan Houston, Robin Fleschler, Rosemary Luquire. (2001) Reflections on a Decade of Outcomes Management in Women's Services. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, <html_ent glyph="@amp;" ascii="&"/> Neonatal Nursing 30:1, 89-97
CrossRef147
Riccardo Ponzone, Piero Sismondi. (2001) Term breech trial. The Lancet 357:9251, 226-227
CrossRef148
C. Stone, J. Halliday, J. Lumley, S. Brennecke. (2000) Vaginal births after Caesarean (VBAC): a population study. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 14:4, 340-348
CrossRef149
Suneet P. Chauhan, Lisa R. Troyer, Nancy W. Hendrix, James A. Scardo. (2000) Neonatal acidemia with trial of labor among parturients with prior cesarean delivery: A case-control study. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal Medicine 9:5, 278-281
CrossRef150
H. Gee. (2000) Delivery following previous Caesarean section. Current Obstetrics & Gynaecology 10:2, 86-90
CrossRef151
J. E. FERGUSON, C. L. SISTROM. (2000) Can Fetal–Pelvic Disproportion Be Predicted. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 43:2, 247-264
CrossRef152
DEBORAH A. WING, RICHARD H. PAUL. (1999) Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Section: Selection and Management. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 42:4, 836
CrossRef153
Aaron B. Caughey, Thomas D. Shipp, John T. Repke, Carolyn M. Zelop, Amy Cohen, Ellice Lieberman. (1999) Rate of uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with one or two prior cesarean deliveries. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 181:4, 872-876
CrossRef154
George A. Macones. (1999) The utility of clinical tests of eligibility for a trial of labour following a caesarean section: a decision analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 106:7, 642-646
CrossRef155
J MASTROBATTISTA. (1999) VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN DELIVERY. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 26:2, 295-304
CrossRef156
Sachs, Benjamin P., Kobelin, Cindy, , Castro, Mary Ames, Frigoletto, Fredric, . (1999) The Risks of Lowering the Cesarean-Delivery Rate. New England Journal of Medicine 340:1, 54-57
Full Text157
Inbar Ben Shachar, Daniel Weinstein. (1998) High risk pregnancy outcome by route of delivery. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynaecology 10:6, 447-452
CrossRef158
Aaron B. Caughey, Thomas D. Shipp, John T. Repke, Carolyn Zelop, Amy Cohen, Ellice Lieherman. (1998) Trial of labor after cesarean delivery: The effect of previous vaginal delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 179:4, 938-941
CrossRef159
C. R. Leitch, J. J. Walker. (1998) The rise in caesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 105:6, 621-626
CrossRef160
MICHAEL J. McMAHON. (1998) Vaginal Birth After Cesarean. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 41:2, 369-381
CrossRef161
Hiromi Obara, Hisanori Minakami, Toshimitsu Koike, Satoru Takamizawa, Shigeki Matsubar, Ikuo Sato. (1998) Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Delivery: Results in 310 Pregnancies. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 24:2, 129-134
CrossRef162
Cabot, Richard C.Scully, Robert E., Mark, Eugene J., McNeely, William F., Ebeling, Sally H.Phillips, Lucy D., Greene, Michael F.Roberts, Drucilla J.Mark, Eugene J.. (1998) Case 9-1998. New England Journal of Medicine 338:12, 821-826
Full Text163
C. B. Lunan. (1997) Vaginal delivery after caesarean section in sub-Saharan Africa. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 104:12, 1335-1338
CrossRef164
JAMES R. SCOTT. (1997) Avoiding Labor Problems During Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 40:3, 533-541
CrossRef165
B.L. Stalnaker, James E. Maher, Gary E. Kleinman, Joan M. Macksey, Loel A. Fishman, Jacqueline M. Bernard. (1997) Characteristics of successful claims for payment by the Florida Neurologic Injury Compensation Association Fund. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 177:2, 268-273
CrossRef166
Marion H Hall. (1997) What is the right number of caesarean sections?. The Lancet 349:9064, 1557
CrossRef167
(1997) Trial of Labor Compared with an Elective Second Cesarean Section. New England Journal of Medicine 336:9, 658-659
Full Text168
Paul, Richard H., . (1996) Toward Fewer Cesarean Sections — The Role of a Trial of Labor. New England Journal of Medicine 335:10, 735-736
Full Text
- Letters
