Secondary Logo

Share this article on:

Vaginal Birth After Previous Cesarean Birth: A Comparison of 3 National Guidelines

Tsakiridis, Ioannis, MSc*; Mamopoulos, Apostolos, PhD; Athanasiadis, Apostolos, PhD; Dagklis, Themistoklis, PhD§

Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey: September 2018 - Volume 73 - Issue 9 - p 537–543
doi: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000596
Take CME

Importance Vaginal birth after previous cesarean birth (VBAC) is a reasonable option for many women with previous cesarean delivery.

Objective The aim of this study was to summarize evidence and compare recommendations from national guidelines regarding VBAC.

Evidence Acquisition A descriptive review of 3 national guidelines on VBAC was conducted: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on “Birth After Previous Caesarean Birth,” American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on “Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery,” and Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada on “Guidelines for Vaginal Birth After Previous Caesarean Birth.” These guidelines were summarized and compared in terms of the recommended antenatal and intrapartum care of women. Recommendations and strength of evidence were also reviewed based on method of reporting.

Results The variations mentioned on the different guidelines reflect the heterogeneity of the published data on the management of VBAC during the antenatal and intrapartum care.

Conclusions Evidence-based medicine could support the conception of international recommendations for VBAC, which may improve both safety and efficacy of this procedure.

Target Audience Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians.

Learning Objectives After completing this activity, the learner should be better able to (1) examine all the aspects of vaginal birth after cesarean birth: indications and contradictions; (2) summarize antenatal care recommendations in cases of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery; and (3) propose the necessary intrapartum care in cases of vaginal birth after cesarean birth.

*Resident Assistant,

Associate Professor,

Professor, and

§Consultant in Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Third Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

All authors, faculty, and staff in a position to control the content of this CME activity and their spouses/life partners (if any) have disclosed that they have no financial relationships with, or financial interests in, any commercial organizations pertaining to this educational activity.

Correspondence requests to: Ioannis Tsakiridis, MSc, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54642, Thessaloniki, Greece. E-mail:

There is a continuing debate on the optimal cesarean delivery rate and the following risks and benefits for both the mother and the newborn. In 1985, World Health Organization recommended that national rates of cesarean deliveries should not exceed 10% to 15% of live births1; however, it was recently stated that each country should aim for an optimal national rate rather than adopt a universal one.2 In many countries, cesarean delivery rates are substantially higher: in England approximately 26.5%,3 in Canada 25.6%,4 and in the United States approximately 31.9%.5 The dictum “once a cesarean always a cesarean” may have partially contributed to the high rates of cesarean deliveries.6

Hence, the National Institutes of Health, in the United States, convened a consensus conference to examine the safety and outcomes of Trial of Labor After Cesarean delivery (TOLAC) and recognized it as a reasonable option for many women with previous cesarean delivery.7 As a result, TOLAC could be used as an alternative to elective repeat cesarean delivery, in pregnant women belonging to group 5 of the Robson classification system (previous cesarean delivery, singleton, cephalic ≥37 weeks' gestation).8 The success rate of TOLAC (or vaginal birth after previous cesarean birth [VBAC]) may be as high as 72% to 75% of cases.9,10 These rates vary based on the demographic and obstetric characteristics of the women. Hence, factors that negatively influence the chance of a successful VBAC include increasing maternal age, high body mass index, high birth weight, and advanced gestational age at delivery (>40 weeks).11–18 A reduced success rate of VBAC is also documented in cases of preeclampsia and shorted interdelivery intervals.19,20 On the other hand, previous vaginal birth, especially successful VBAC, is the strongest predictor of success, with VBAC rates of 87% to 91% in that group.11,21–23

The aim of this review is to summarize evidence of consensus and controversy between 3 published national guidelines on VBAC and to focus, specifically, on the antenatal and intrapartum care of pregnant women with a previous cesarean delivery.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The most recent published clinical guidelines, statements, and practice bulletins by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG 2015),24 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG 2017),25 and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC 2005)26 were reviewed and compared; then a descriptive review was conducted. A summary of recommendations of the 3 guidelines is presented on Table 1.



Back to Top | Article Outline


All 3 guidelines recommend the implementation in antenatal counseling of a VBAC clinical pathway for women with a history of cesarean delivery.24–26 They promote a shared decision making and clear documentation in the pregnancy notes. Especially, the women should be informed on the potential risks and benefits of both VBAC and elective cesarean delivery by a member of the maternity team. Many of the factors related to the chance of a successful VBAC or the risk of uterine rupture are already known early in pregnancy27–29; however, the risks or benefits of VBAC may change as the pregnancy progresses. In addition, a VBAC calculator may be used to provide more specific information about the chance of a successful VBAC. A discussion regarding the option of VBAC should ideally take place early in gestation and in most of the cases the decision regarding the mode of delivery should be finalized by 36 gestational weeks.

Cochrane reviews suggest that there are both benefits and risks associated with either a planned repeat cesarean delivery or a planned induction of labor in women with a prior cesarean delivery.30–32 Women should be informed that planned VBAC is associated with approximately 0.5% risk of uterine rupture.33 Most of the maternal morbidity related to VBAC occurs when a cesarean delivery is eventually necessary.34–37 Thus, a successful VBAC is associated with fewer complications than elective repeat cesarean delivery, whereas a failed VBAC is associated with more complications.34–36,38 Moreover, a meta-analysis showed that the overall risk of perinatal death is higher in women attempting VBAC (odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28–2.28).39 On the contrary, women should be informed that elective repeat cesarean delivery is associated with a higher risk of placenta previa in future pregnancies24 and respiratory problems of the newborn (6%).40 Furthermore, an increased risk of maternal mortality (1.3/10000) with elective repeat cesarean delivery compared with planned VBAC (0.4/10000) has been reported by several studies.33,35 According to the AHRQ meta-analysis, the rates of hysterectomy, thromboembolic disease, transfusion, and endometritis do not differ significantly between planned VBAC and repeat cesarean delivery.33

In addition, all guidelines approve a planned VBAC for the majority of women carrying a singleton pregnancy with a cephalic presentation at 37+0 weeks or beyond who have had a single previous lower segment cesarean delivery, with or without history of previous vaginal birth.24–26 As shown by systematic reviews, planned VBAC is a safe and appropriate mode of delivery for women with prior cesarean delivery.30,31,33 Moreover, evidence suggests that women with at least a 60% to 70% likelihood of achieving a VBAC experience the same or less maternal morbidity than women who have an elective repeat cesarean delivery.41,42 In cases of a breech presentation, the ACOG and the SOGC both state that external cephalic version is not a contraindication in candidates for VBAC, whereas there is no specific comment in the RCOG guideline.

The RCOG states that women who have had 2 or more prior lower segment cesarean deliveries may be offered VBAC after appropriate counseling by a senior obstetrician,24 whereas the SOGC states that VBAC may be successful in women with more than 1 previous cesarean delivery, but they note that it is associated with a higher risk of uterine rupture.26 Finally, the ACOG mentions that it is reasonable to consider women with 2 previous cesarean deliveries to be candidates for VBAC.25 Two large studies with sufficient size to control for confounding factors reported on the risks for women with 2 previous cesarean deliveries undergoing VBAC.43,44 One study found no increased risk of uterine rupture (0.9% vs 0.7%) in women with one versus multiple prior cesarean deliveries,44 whereas the other showed a higher risk of uterine rupture (1.8%) in women with 2 prior cesarean deliveries.43 There are limited data regarding the risks of VBAC after more than 2 previous cesarean deliveries.45 A systematic review suggested that women with 2 previous cesarean deliveries should be counseled about the success rate (71.1%) and the uterine rupture rate (1.36%) of attempted VBAC.46 The rates of hysterectomy (5.6/1000) and transfusion (1.99%) were increased in women with VBAC after 2 previous cesarean births.46

Special care should be taken in certain circumstances. The RCOG states that there is uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of a planned VBAC in pregnancies complicated by post-dates, twin gestations, fetal macrosomia, antepartum stillbirth, or maternal age of 40 years or more.24 However, according to the ACOG and the SOGC, fetal macrosomia, gestation beyond 40 weeks, twin gestation, and obesity are not contraindications for VBAC.25,26 One study47 showed an increased risk of uterine rupture beyond 40 weeks of gestation, whereas other studies have not found this association.48 As for twin gestations, various studies have reported similar rates of successful VBAC in twins (45% to 84%) compared with singleton pregnancies.49–52 In addition, birth weight of 4 kg or more is associated with an increased risk of uterine rupture (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.001–6.85), unsuccessful VBAC (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.82–3.34), and shoulder dystocia (OR, 25.13; 95% CI, 9.31–67.86).53 Moreover, maternal age of 40 years or more is an independent risk factor for stillbirth and unsuccessful VBAC.27,28,54 It should also be noted that, according to the SOGC, diabetes mellitus is not a contraindication for VBAC, whereas there is no guidance on this issue by either the RCOG or the ACOG.

Regarding the contraindications for attempting VBAC, all guidelines state that women with a history of uterine rupture, classical cesarean scar, or uterine surgery, during which the uterine cavity has been breached, are considered as high risk for uterine rupture and should avoid VBAC. In addition, in women with complicated uterine scars, caution is needed and decisions should be individualized by a senior obstetrician who has access on the details of the previous surgery. Obviously, VBAC should also be avoided in cases when other conditions that constitute absolute contraindications to vaginal birth are present (eg, placenta previa). A systematic review reported that women with 1 or 2 cesarean deliveries present with a 1% and 1.7% risk of placenta previa, respectively, in subsequent pregnancies.33 This was also confirmed by the findings of a recent meta-analysis.55

Back to Top | Article Outline


All 3 guidelines state that VBAC should take place in a suitably staffed and equipped delivery resource, available for immediate cesarean delivery and neonatal resuscitation. The ACOG alone, further states that home birth is contraindicated for women undergoing VBAC. Continuous fetal heart rate monitoring is recommended during labor, whereas regarding analgesia, epidural analgesia is neither contraindicated nor necessary. A recent meta-analysis has proven that in all labors, epidural analgesia increases the risk for assisted vaginal delivery (risk ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.29–1.60).56 As for VBAC specifically, there is conflicting evidence: the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development study showed that epidural analgesia increased the success rate of VBAC,11 whereas other studies reported contradictory findings.57,58 An increasing requirement of pain relief in labor should raise awareness of the possibility of an impending uterine rupture. A consortium on safe labor found that women at term in spontaneous labor with VBAC have a similar labor curve with nulliparous women.59

Regarding induction or augmentation of labor, the RCOG states that women have a 2-fold to 3-fold higher risk of uterine rupture and approximately 1.5-fold higher risk of cesarean delivery in cases of an induced or augmented labor.24 The ACOG states that induction of labor remains an option,25 whereas the SOGC notes that oxytocin for induction should be used carefully.26 A study of 20,095 women found a rate of uterine rupture of 0.52% in VBAC with spontaneous labor, 0.77% for labor induced without prostaglandins, and 2.24% for prostaglandin-induced labor.60 The RCOG also states that induction of labor using mechanical methods (amniotomy or Foley catheter) is associated with a lower risk of scar rupture compared with induction using prostaglandins, whereas the ACOG and the SOGC mention that mechanical methods may be an option for VBAC in cases of an unfavorable cervix. As for prostaglandins' use for cervical ripening, the SOGC states that they should not be used, whereas the ACOG is against the use of misoprostol, but they found it difficult to make recommendations regarding the use of prostaglandin E2. In the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development study, induction with prostaglandins was associated with a higher uterine rupture risk (0.87%) and a related higher risk of perinatal death (0.11%).6 A recent Cochrane review concluded that evidence from randomized controlled trials on methods of induction of labor for women with a prior cesarean delivery is inadequate and existing studies were underpowered to detect clinically relevant differences for many outcomes.61 As for the augmentation of labor, both the ACOG and the SOGC state that oxytocin augmentation is not contraindicated and may be used in VBAC. A large multicenter study showed that augmentation or induction of labor is associated with an increased risk of uterine rupture (1.4% for induction with prostaglandins with or without oxytocin, 1.1% for oxytocin alone, 0.9% for augmented labor, and 0.4% for spontaneous labor).35

According to the RCOG, women in preterm labor should be informed that VBAC in this case carries a lower risk of uterine rupture compared with term pregnancies. The ACOG states that VBAC may be judged appropriate for women with second trimester preterm delivery or delivery after fetal death, whereas the SOGC makes no relevant statement. A study showed that planned VBAC success rates for preterm and term pregnancies were similar (72.8% and 73.3%, respectively), but rates of uterine rupture (3.4/1000) and dehiscence (2.6/1000) were significantly lower in preterm VBAC.62

Back to Top | Article Outline


The number of references for each guideline range from 119 (SOGC) to 154 (ACOG) with dates of publications between 1916 and 2017. All the guidelines state that the specific recommendations were developed after an extensive search of electronic databases. Furthermore, the quality of evidence is described using the GRADE system by the RCOG, the ranking system of the US Preventive Services Task Force by the ACOG, and the Evaluation of Evidence criteria outlined in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Exam by the SOGC. Expert consensus as a method of recommendation was performed, and all rated the strength of their recommendations. Only the RCOG suggested audit topics, which are represented in Table 2.



Back to Top | Article Outline


Many women will have to opt on the mode of delivery for a subsequent pregnancy after a cesarean delivery. Both alternatives—VBAC or planned cesarean delivery—present risks and benefits. Involvement of the pregnant woman, her family, and the obstetrician or other obstetric care provider on the final decision is strongly supported. The strengths of this review include the synthesis of the major guidelines in the recommendations for VBAC including antenatal and intrapartum care. However, there are certain limitations. First, the review is limited to 3 English language national guidelines, but the aim of this study is to compare guidelinesfrom similarly resourced settings. Second, the publication dates of the guidelines differ, which may have an impact on their recommendations, which are based on up-to-date studies.

To summarize, the existing evidence suggests that planned VBAC exposes the pregnant woman to a 0.25% additional risk for perinatal mortality or serious neonatal morbidity and an additional 1.5% risk of any significant morbidity compared with an elective repeat cesarean delivery, after 39+0 gestational weeks. However, it seems helpful to emphasize to women that the absolute risk of delivery-related perinatal death associated with VBAC is extremely low (0.04%) and comparable with that of nulliparous women.63,64 As a result, VBAC is a good alternative to cesarean delivery with high safety and efficacy rates.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. WHO (World Health Organization). Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2:436–437.
2. World Health Organization Human Reproduction Programme, 10 April 2015. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Reprod Health Matters. 2015;23:149–150.
3. NHS Maternity Statistics - England, 2014–15 - NHS Digital. Available at: Accessed July 6, 2018.
4. Health P. Canadian Perinatal Health Report. Public Heal Agency Canada Can Perinat Heal Rep. 2008 Edition. p. 78.
5. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJK, et al. Births: provisional data for 2017. NVSS Vital Stat Rapid Release. 2018;2:1–21.
6. Phelan JP. VBAC: time to reconsider? OBG Manage. 1996;8:64–68.
7. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights March 8–10, 2010. Semin Perinatol. 2010;34:351–365.
8. Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2001;12:23–39.
9. Guise JM, Berlin M, McDonagh M, et al. Safety of vaginal birth after cesarean: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:420–429.
10. Mozurkewich EL, Hutton EK. Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:1187–1197.
11. Landon MB, Leindecker S, Spong CY, et al. The MFMU Cesarean Registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(3 pt 2):1016–1023.
12. Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Cohen A, et al. Trial of labor after 40 weeks' gestation in women with prior cesarean. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:391–393.
13. Zelop CM, Shipp TD, Repke JT, et al. Outcomes of trial of labor following previous cesarean delivery among women with fetuses weighing >4000 g. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:903–905.
14. Chauhan SP, Magann EF, Carroll CS, et al. Mode of delivery for the morbidly obese with prior cesarean delivery: vaginal versus repeat cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:349–354.
15. Carroll CS Sr, Magann EF, Chauhan SP, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean section versus elective repeat cesarean delivery: weight-based outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:1516–1520.
16. Srinivas SK, Stamilio DM, Sammel MD, et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean delivery: does maternal age affect safety and success? Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007;21:114–120.
17. Goodall PT, Ahn JT, Chapa JB, et al. Obesity as a risk factor for failed trial of labor in patients with previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1423–1426.
18. Juhasz G, Gyamfi C, Gyamfi P, et al. Effect of body mass index and excessive weight gain on success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:741–746.
19. Huang WH, Nakashima DK, Rumney PJ, et al. Interdelivery interval and the success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:41–44.
20. Srinivas SK, Stamilio DM, Stevens EJ, et al. Safety and success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in patients with preeclampsia. Am J Perinatol. 2006;23:145–152.
21. van der Merwe AM, Thompson JM, Ekeroma AJ. Factors affecting vaginal birth after caesarean section at Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. N Z Med J. 2013;126:49–57.
22. Smith GC, White IR, Pell JP, et al. Predicting cesarean section and uterine rupture among women attempting vaginal birth after prior cesarean section. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e252.
23. Gyamfi C, Juhasz G, Gyamfi P, et al. Increased success of trial of labor after previous vaginal birth after cesarean. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:715–719.
24. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Birth after previous caesarean birth (Green-top Guideline No. 45). R Coll Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;1–17.
25. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin No. 184: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:e217–e233.
26. Martel MJ, MacKinnon CJ. SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines - Guidelines for Vaginal Birth after Previous Caesarean Birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2005;27:164–188.
27. Srinivas SK, Stamilio DM, Stevens EJ, et al. Predicting failure of a vaginal birth attempt after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:800–805.
28. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Development of a nomogram for prediction. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:806–812.
29. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Prediction of uterine rupture associated with attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199: 30.e1–30.e5.
30. Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Grivell RM, et al. Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD004906.
31. Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E, et al. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;CD004224.
32. Horey D, Kealy M, Davey MA, et al. Interventions for supporting pregnant women's decision-making about mode of birth after a caesarean. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;CD010041.
33. Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2010;191:1–397.
34. Hibbard JU, Ismail MA, Wang Y, et al. Failed vaginal birth after a cesarean section: how risky is it? I. Maternal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:1365–1371; discussion 1371–1373.
35. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2581–2589.
36. Macones GA, Peipert J, Nelson DB, et al. Maternal complications with vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1656–1662.
37. Gregory KD, Korst LM, Cane P, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean and uterine rupture rates in California. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:985–989.
38. McMahon MJ, Luther ER, Bowes WA Jr, et al. Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:689–695.
39. Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, et al. Intrapartum uterine rupture and dehiscence in patients with prior lower uterine segment vertical and transverse incisions. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94(5 pt 1):735–740.
40. Hook B, Kiwi R, Amini SB, et al. Neonatal morbidity after elective repeat cesarean section and trial of labor. Pediatrics. 1997;100:348–353.
41. Cahill AG, Stamilio DM, Odibo AO, et al. Is vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) or elective repeat cesarean safer in women with a prior vaginal delivery? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1143–1147.
42. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Can a prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean also predict the probability of morbidity related to a trial of labor? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:56. e1–56.e6.
43. Macones GA, Cahill A, Pare E, et al. Obstetric outcomes in women with two prior cesarean deliveries: is vaginal birth after cesarean delivery a viable option? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1223–1228.
44. Landon MB, Spong CY, Thom E, et al. Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:12–20.
45. Cahill AG, Tuuli M, Odibo AO, et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean for women with three or more prior caesareans: Assessing safety and success. BJOG. 2010;117:422–427.
46. Tahseen S, Griffiths M. 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. 2010;117:5–19.
47. Kiran TS, Chui YK, Bethel J, et al. Is gestational age an independent variable affecting uterine scar rupture rates? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;126:68–71.
48. Coassolo KM, Stamilio DM, Paré E, et al. Safety and efficacy of vaginal birth after cesarean attempts at or beyond 40 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:700–706.
49. Varner MW, Leindecker S, Spong CY, et al. The maternal-fetal medicine unit cesarean registry: trial of labor with a twin gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:135–140.
50. Ford AA, Bateman BT, Simpson LL. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in twin gestations: a large, nationwide sample of deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1138–1142.
51. Aaronson D, Harlev A, Sheiner E, et al. Trial of labor after cesarean section in twin pregnancies: maternal and neonatal safety. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010;23:550–554.
52. Cahill A, Stamilio DM, Paré E, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) attempt in twin pregnancies: is it safe? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(3 pt 2):1050–1055.
53. Jastrow N, Roberge S, Gauthier RJ, et al. Effect of birth weight on adverse obstetric outcomes in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:338–343.
54. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Induction of Labour at Term in Older Mothers. Sci Impact Pap No 34. 2013.
55. Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, et al. Risk of placenta previa in second birth after first birth cesarean section: a population-based study and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11: 95.
56. Anim-Somuah M, Smyth RM, Cyna AM, et al. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5:CD000331.
57. Zwart JJ, Richters JM, Ory F, et al. Uterine rupture in The Netherlands: a nationwide population-based cohort study. BJOG. 2009;116:1069–1078; discussion 1078–1080.
58. Barger MK, Weiss J, Nannini A, et al. Risk factors for uterine rupture among women who attempt a vaginal birth after a previous cesarean: a case-control study. J Reprod Med. 2011;56:313–320.
59. Grantz KL, Gonzalez-Quintero V, Troendle J, et al. Labor patterns in women attempting vaginal birth after cesarean with normal neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213:226.e1–226.e6.
60. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, et al. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:3–8.
61. West HM, Jozwiak M, Dodd JM. Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6:CD009792.
62. Durnwald CP, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, et al. The maternal-fetal medicine units cesarean registry: safety and efficacy of a trial of labor in preterm pregnancy after a prior cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1119–1126.
63. Smith GC, Pell JP, Cameron AD, et al. Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies. JAMA. 2002;287:2684–2690.
64. Smith GC. Life-table analysis of the risk of perinatal death at term and post term in singleton pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:489–496.
Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.