OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women who have had a delivery by caesarean section. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, HealthSTAR, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, reference lists, and national experts. Studies in all languages were eligible if published in full. REVIEW METHODS: Methodological quality was evaluated for each study by using criteria from the United States Preventive Services Task Force and the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Uterine rupture was categorised as asymptomatic or symptomatic. RESULTS: We reviewed 568 full text articles to identify 71 potentially eligible studies, 21 of which were rated at least fair in quality. Compared with elective repeat caesarean delivery, trial of labour increased the risk of uterine rupture by 2.7 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 4.73) per 1000 cases. No maternal deaths were related to rupture. For women attempting vaginal delivery, the additional risk of perinatal death from rupture of a uterine scar was 1.4 (0 to 9.8) per 10,000 and the additional risk of hysterectomy was 3.4 (0 to 12.6) per 10 000. The rates of asymptomatic uterine rupture in trial of labour and elective repeat caesarean did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Although the literature on uterine rupture is imprecise and inconsistent, existing studies indicate that 370 (213 to 1370) elective caesarean deliveries would need to be performed to prevent one symptomatic uterine rupture.

Trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery (TOLAC)* provides women who desire a vaginal delivery with the possibility of achieving that goal--a vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC). In addition to fulfilling a patient's preference for vaginal delivery, at an individual level VBAC is associated with decreased maternal morbidity and a decreased risk of complications in future pregnancies. At a population level, VBAC also is associated with a decrease in the overall cesarean delivery rate (1, 2). Although TOLAC is appropriate for many women with a history of a cesarean delivery, several factors increase the likelihood of a failed trial of labor, which compared with VBAC, is associated with increased maternal and perinatal morbidity (3-5). Assessment of individual risks and the likelihood of VBAC is, therefore, important in determining who are appropriate candidates for TOLAC. The purpose of this document is to review the risks and benefits of TOLAC in various clinical situations and provide practical guidelines for managing and counseling patients who will give birth after a previous cesarean delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To examine trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) success rates and its associated factors among women with a previous failed vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. The study group comprised all women with a prior failed vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery who subsequently delivered from 2008 to 2017 at a university hospital. RESULTS: Overall, 166 women with prior history of failed vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery delivered during the study period, with a median interdelivery interval of 28 (21-36) months. Of them, 53 (32%) had an elective repeat cesarean delivery, and 113 (68%) had a TOLAC. Although there were small statistical differences in the predelivery characteristics of the two groups, there were not clinically significant differences. Of the 113 women who underwent TOLAC in the subsequent pregnancy, the overall success rate was 67%. Neonatal 1- and 5-minute Apgar scores were lower among neonates born to women who experienced a failed TOLAC attempt compared with those who underwent successful TOLAC: 1-minute Apgar score less than 7 (6 [16%] vs 2 [3%], odds ratio [OR] 7.16, 95% CI 1.36-37.45, P=.01), 5-minute Apgar score less than 8 (3 [8%] vs 0 [0%], OR 15.5, 95% CI 1.78-308.7, P=.03). No events of obstetric anal sphincter injury, postpartum hemorrhage and uterine rupture were encountered among women who underwent TOLAC. CONCLUSION: Trial of labor after cesarean delivery in women with a previous failed vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery appears to be associated with an acceptable success rate. These data should improve patient counseling and provide reassurance for those who wish to deliver vaginally after a previous failed vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery.

BACKGROUND: Previous cesarean delivery is the most important risk factor for subsequent uterine rupture. Data are inconsistent regarding grand multiparity (>/=6th delivery) and a risk for uterine rupture. Specifically, no data exist regarding the risk that is associated with labor induction or augmentation in grand multiparous women after cesarean delivery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine whether grand multiparity elevates the risk for uterine rupture in trials of labor after 1 previous cesarean that involved induction or augmentation of labor. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective multicenter study was conducted that included all trials of labor after cesarean delivery at 24-42 gestational weeks with vertex presentation between the years 2003-2015. The study groups were defined in the following manner: (1) grand multiparous parturients (current delivery >/=6) who underwent labor induction or augmentation; (2) multiparous parturients (delivery 2-5) who underwent induction or augmentation; (3) grand multiparous parturients with no induction or augmentation of labor. The primary outcome was uterine rupture rate, which was defined as complete separation of all uterine layers. Secondary outcomes were obstetric and neonatal complications. RESULTS: A total of 12,679 labors were included in the study. The study group included 1304 labors of grand multiparous parturients after 1 previous cesarean delivery, of which 800 parturients underwent induction of labor and 504 parturients received labor augmentation. The multiparous group included 3681 parturients with either labor induction or augmentation. The third group included 7694 grand multiparous parturients without induction or augmentation. Incidence of uterine rupture was similar among the 3 study groups (0.3%, 0.3%, and 0.2%, respectively; P=.847). In the multivariable model that was adjusted for maternal age, ethnicity, diabetes mellitus, birthweight, and prolonged second stage of labor, no association was found between grand multiparity and uterine rupture in women with a scarred uterus who underwent labor induction or augmentation. CONCLUSION: Labor induction/augmentation during trial of labor after cesarean delivery in grand multiparous parturients appears to be a reasonable option that has a similar uterine rupture risk as in multiparous parturients. Avoiding a mandatory cesarean delivery enables reduction of the risk for future multiple cesarean deliveries.

BACKGROUND: Global cesarean section (CS) rates range from 1% to 52%, with a previous CS being the commonest indication. Labour following a previous CS carries risk of scar rupture, with potential for offspring hypoxic brain injury, leading to high rates of repeat elective CS. However, the effect of delivery by CS on long-term outcomes in children is unclear. Increasing evidence suggests that in avoiding exposure to maternal bowel flora during labour or vaginal birth, offspring delivered by CS may be adversely affected in terms of energy uptake from the gut and immune development, increasing obesity and asthma risks, respectively. This study aimed to address the evidence gap on long-term childhood outcomes following repeat CS by comparing adverse childhood health outcomes after (1) planned repeat CS and (2) unscheduled repeat CS with those that follow vaginal birth after CS (VBAC). METHODS AND FINDINGS: A data-linkage cohort study was performed. All second-born, term, singleton offspring delivered between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 2007 in Scotland, UK, to women with a history of CS (n = 40,145) were followed up until 31 January 2015. Outcomes assessed included obesity at age 5 y, hospitalisation with asthma, learning disability, cerebral palsy, and death. Cox regression and binary logistic regression were used as appropriate to compare outcomes following planned repeat CS (n = 17,919) and unscheduled repeat CS (n = 8,847) with those following VBAC (n = 13,379). Risk of hospitalisation with asthma was greater following both unscheduled repeat CS (3.7% versus 3.3%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.33) and planned repeat CS (3.6% versus 3.3%, adjusted HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.09-1.42) compared with VBAC. Learning disability and death were more common following unscheduled repeat CS compared with VBAC (3.7% versus 2.3%, adjusted odds ratio 1.64, 95% CI 1.17-2.29, and 0.5% versus 0.4%, adjusted HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.00-2.25, respectively). Risk of obesity at age 5 y and risk of cerebral palsy were similar between planned repeat CS or unscheduled repeat CS and VBAC. Study limitations include the risk that women undergoing an unscheduled CS had intended to have a planned CS, and lack of data on indication for CS, which may confound the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Birth by repeat CS, whether planned or unscheduled, was associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation with asthma but no difference in risk of obesity at age 5 y. Greater risk of death and learning disability following unscheduled repeat CS compared to VBAC may reflect complications during labour. Further research, including meta-analyses of studies of rarer outcomes (e.g., cerebral palsy), are needed to confirm whether such risks are similar between delivery groups.

PURPOSE: To determine the rates of trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) and complications in Japan. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive study of pregnant women with one prior cesarean section registered between January 2013 and December 2015 in the perinatal database of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. This database is a nationwide institution-based registry in Japan. This study included women who had undergone one prior cesarean delivery and who delivered a singleton by cephalic presentation between 37 and 41 weeks of gestation. We collected data on delivery method, particularly with regard to the involvement of TOLAC or elective repeated cesarean deliveries (ERCD). Rates of TOLAC were investigated by facility type, and we calculated the rates of maternal and perinatal complications including uterine rupture in TOLAC. RESULTS: During the study period, 647,098 births were registered. Among the 34,460 women who met the inclusion criteria, 1730 (5.0%) and 32,730 (95.0%) underwent TOLAC and ERCD, respectively. In total, 76.4% of hospitals did not perform TOLAC at all. Generally in perinatal medical centers, which are better equipped with facilities, 58.7% women did not perform TOLAC. With regard to complications, we identified eight cases (0.46%) of uterine rupture with TOLAC. TOLAC births did not include maternal death and perinatal death. Among women attempting TOLAC, 1532 (88.6%) had successful vaginal births. CONCLUSION: The TOLAC rate in Japan was considerably lower than that reported in other countries, despite comparable complication rates.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and implement a trial of labour after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) bundle-a group of interventions aimed at decreasing cesarean delivery (CD) for women who have had a prior CD (Robson group 5). METHODS: A TOLAC bundle was developed that included: (1) educational rounds for health care providers, (2) a physician-patient TOLAC discussion aid, and (3) patient-centred educational resources. A before-and-after study design was employed. A one-year chart review determined baseline CD rates in Robson group 5 patients at a tertiary care academic centre. Following this, from February 1, 2018 until May 31, 2019, each bundle intervention was sequentially introduced every four to six months and modified based on provider feedback. Obstetricians were provided with their individual CD rates using an audit-and-feedback approach prior to the introduction of the next intervention. RESULTS: The baseline CD rate for Robson group 5 patients was 71% (175/247 eligible patients). Following the introduction of the bundle, the CD rate decreased to 61% (131/214 eligible patients). This was a 10% decrease in the CD rate (P=0.029). A significant increase in rate of induction was noted, from 5% pre-intervention to 11% post-intervention (p=0.017). There were no significant decreases in the rate of vaginal birth after CD or increases in the rates of uterine rupture or NICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: A TOLAC bundle, consisting of provider education, a TOLAC discussion aid, and patient resources, combined with audit and feedback, decreased CD for Robson group 5 patients.

The increasing rate of elective and indicated caesarean sections worldwide has led to new pathologies and management challenges. The number of patients undergoing trial of labor after caesarean section (TOLAC) is also increasing. Three professional societies provide detailed guidelines based on scientific evidence for the management of patients attempting vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC). However, they do not provide any recommendations for the actual surgical steps to be followed to minimize the risks of uterine rupture (UR) during TOLAC. Uterine scar condition, intrapartum management and maternal health status correlate to uterine scar rupture risk and provide guidance for parturient TOLAC eligibility. TOLAC and vaginal delivery success rate as reported by the largest studies is between 60% and 77%. Uterine rupture is more prevalent in VBAC-2 patients (1.59%) in contrast to VBAC-1 (0.72%). Additionally, VBAC-2 patients have higher incidence of caesarean hysterectomy 0.56% vs. 0.19% for VBAC-1. The chances of successful VBAC increase when the interpregnancy/interdelivery interval is less than 6.3 years and less than 24 months, respectively. No difference was detected between the techniques of uterine incision closure of the previous CS and TOLAC results, although closure of the CS uterine incision in 2 layers seems to be practiced more widely. Niche or isthmocele presents another complication of CS. Secondary infertility due to niche, will eventually direct to hysteroscopic or laparoscopic repair, depending on the residual myometrial thickness (RMT) as measured by US scan. When RMT is below 3 mm or 2.5 mm surgery can be performed, to prevent any spontaneous UR in case of pregnancy. Monitoring by US scanning of hysterotomy scar after myomectomy can detect hematoma. In patients with severe postoperative pain but hemodynamically stable follow up by US scan examination can direct the management decision. In those patients with active bleeding and deterioration of hysterotomy scar edema will be an indication to surgery. There is no firm evidence regarding which type of thread, knotting or sequence of suturing is more favorable to reduce the risk of UR after VBAC or hysterotomy after myomectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a model based on factors available at the first prenatal visit that predicts chance of successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) for individual patients who undergo a trial of labor. METHODS: All women with one prior low transverse cesarean who underwent a trial of labor at term with a vertex singleton gestation were identified from a concurrently collected database of deliveries at 19 academic centers during a 4-year period. Using factors identifiable at the first prenatal visit, we analyzed different classification techniques in an effort to develop a meaningful prediction model for VBAC success. After development and cross-validation, this model was represented by a graphic nomogram. RESULTS: Seven-thousand six hundred sixty women were available for analysis. The prediction model is based on a multivariable logistic regression, including the variables of maternal age, body mass index, ethnicity, prior vaginal delivery, the occurrence of a VBAC, and a potentially recurrent indication for the cesarean delivery. After analyzing the model with cross-validation techniques, it was found to be both accurate and discriminating. CONCLUSION: A predictive nomogram, which incorporates six variables easily ascertainable at the first prenatal visit, has been developed that allows the determination of a patient-specific chance for successful VBAC for those women who undertake trial of labor. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to determine vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) success rates for patients with a prior cesarean delivery (CD) for arrest of descent, as well as determine any predictors for success. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients delivered by a single MFM practice from 2005 to 2017 with a singleton pregnancy and one prior CD for arrest of descent. We estimated the rate and associated risk factors for successful VBAC. RESULTS: We included 208 patients with one prior CD for arrest of descent, 100 (48.1%) of whom attempted a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) with a VBAC success rate was 84/100 (84%, 95% CI 76-90%). Among the women who attempted TOLAC, women with a prior vaginal delivery >24 weeks' had a significantly higher VBAC success rate (91.8% versus 71.8%, p = .01). Maternal age, body mass index, estimated fetal weight, induction of labor, and cervical dilation were not associated with a higher VBAC success rate. CONCLUSIONS: For women with a prior CD for arrest of descent, VBAC success rates are high. This suggests that arrest of descent is mostly dependent on factors unique to each pregnancy and not due to an inadequate pelvis or recurring conditions. Women with a prior CD for arrest of descent should not be discouraged from attempting TOLAC in a subsequent pregnancy due to concerns about the likelihood of success.

BACKGROUND: There are 2 prediction nomograms for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. The first is based on variables that are available at the first prenatal visit, and the second includes variables at the time of admission. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of prediction scores that are calculated by the intake and admission prediction nomograms in a modern cohort of racially and ethnically diverse women. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study that analyzed the data for women with at least 1 previous cesarean delivery who attempted a trial of labor from 2007-2016 at a tertiary medical center. Participants were stratified into 3 probability-of-success groups: low (<35%), moderate (35-65%), and high (>65%). The primary outcome was the difference between the intake- and admission-predicted success scores in the 3 groups. Secondary outcomes were characteristics that were associated with successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery . RESULTS: Of the 614 women included in the analysis, 444 (72.3%) had a successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery . Predicted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success rate ranged from 14.4-96.2%. Patients were stratified into 3 groups by intake predicted success rates: low (<35%; n=21), moderate (35-65%; n=136), and high (>65%; n=457). The change in predicted success rates was compared between the intake and admission nomograms. Women in the low and moderate groups improved their prediction score by approximately 7-8% when variables at the time of admission were included. As a result, more than one-half of these women (172/307; 56%) shifted to a higher predicted success group. The admission nomogram, as compared with the intake nomogram, more accurately predicted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success in all groups. Analysis of admission variables showed that cervical dilation >2 cm compared with a closed cervix was the strongest predictor of successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (relative risk, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.89). CONCLUSION: The admission prediction nomogram was more accurate and showed higher predicted success compared with the intake nomogram for the same cohort. Because prediction scores may improve at the time of admission, additional counseling on the risks and benefits of trial of labor may be helpful at that time.

PURPOSE: Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is an option to avoid major abdominal surgery and many consequences related to repeated caesarean delivery. In the last years, many efforts have been made to increase the number of patients attempting trial of labour after caesarean (TOLAC). The aim of our study was to identify the most important factors associated with the success of VBAC. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in two Italian referral centres. Subjects included were singleton and morphologically normal pregnancy with previous C-section. Subjects with an inter-pregnancy interval shorter than 18 months, a large for gestational age baby, a pregnancy complicated with gestational diabetes and a previous unclassified uterine scar were excluded. The characteristics of the subjects were compared and a logistic regression was performed to evaluate variables associated with successful VBAC. RESULTS: Of the 300 patients included, 224 (74.7%) achieved VBAC while 76 (25.3%) underwent C-section after failed TOLAC. The number of previous C-sections was not significantly associated with the success of TOLAC. Factors positively associated with achievement of VBAC were previous vaginal delivery (OR of 6.88 for one and 9.68 for more than one) and oxytocin implementation (OR 3.32). No maternal and neonatal adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Our results show that attempting VBAC is a feasible option in referral centres after adequate evaluation of the potential factors affecting the probability of success. A careful record of obstetrical history and management of labour can provide clinicians useful information to counsel women before and during labour.

OBJECTIVE: Maternal age is an established determinant of successful trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). While an increasing proportion of parturients are aged 40 years and older, and previously underwent a cesarean section, little data regarding TOLAC success for this age group is available. This study assessed TOLAC success, and its associated characteristics, among women >40 years who never delivered vaginally. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case-control study of all women who never delivered vaginally aged >/=40 years with a history of previous cesarean delivery, who delivered at our hospital during 2006-2017. Maternal, neonatal, and delivery characteristics were compared between women with successful and unsuccessful TOLAC. RESULTS: Of 335 older women who never delivered vaginally with a history of one cesarean delivery, 61 (18.2 %) elected TOLAC (18.2 %); the median age was 41[40-42] years and the inter-delivery interval 34 [25-50] months. Overall, 38/61 (62.3 %) had a successful TOLAC. Women with successful TOLAC had a higher rate of a non-recurrent indication for cesarean delivery in their previous cesarean delivery (42.1 % vs. 13.0 %, P=0.01), whereas dysfunctional labor at previous delivery was more common in the failed TOLAC group (47.8 % vs. 15.8 %, P=0.007). Failed TOLAC was associated with the presence of gestational diabetes (13.0 % vs. 0 %, P=0.02) and having a comorbidity (47.8 % vs. 21.0 %, P=0.02). Induction of labor at TOLAC was more common in the failed TOLAC group (34.8 % vs. 2.6 %, P<0.001). Birthweight was higher in the failed TOLAC group (3330 vs. 3107g, P=0.04), as well as the birthweight difference between deliveries (212g vs. 82g, P=0.03). Neonatal and maternal outcomes were comparable between groups, except for longer length of stay (5 vs. 4 days, P=0.04) in the failed TOLAC group. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, only two factors were independently associated with TOLAC failure: previous cesarean delivery due to dysfunctional labor (OR [95 % CI]: 13.40 (1.29, 138.71), P=0.03) and higher inter-delivery birthweight difference (OR [95 % CI]: 1.18 (1.11, 1.39), P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: TOLAC in older women who never delivered vaginally is associated with a moderate success rate. The indication for cesarean delivery at the first delivery and inter-delivery birthweight difference were identified as having strong predictive value for TOLAC outcome.

Background: Cesarean delivery (CD) is the most frequently performed surgical procedure worldwide. Trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) is associated with an increase in perinatal complications related to uterine rupture. However, in general, vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) is considered safe and women have less morbidity than those who undergo an elective repeat CD.Objective: To develop an integrated model with the best performance criteria for predicting vaginal delivery success after CD.Study design: Retrospective observational study including 2367 women who underwent a TOLAC. A predictive model using classification and regression tree modeling was constructed to predict vaginal delivery using maternal demographic, medical history, and labor predictors.Results: Vaginal delivery was best predicted by spontaneous onset of labor, estimated fetal weight <3775 g, maternal body mass index <25, previous CD as an elective or for fetal distress reasons, and interdelivery interval <2290 days. The algorithm showed a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 53%, and the area under the curve was 0.69.Conclusions: The classification and regression tree algorithm can be used to develop a predictive model for the success of TOLAC.

Introduction: To examine interobserver agreement in intrapartum cardiotocography (CTG) classification in women undergoing trial of labor after a cesarean section (TOLAC) at term with or without complete uterine rupture. Materials and methods: Nineteen blinded and independent Danish obstetricians assessed CTG tracings from 47 women (174 individual pages) with a complete uterine rupture during TOLAC and 37 women (133 individual pages) with no uterine rupture during TOLAC. Individual pages with CTG tracings lasting at least 20 min were evaluated by three different assessors and counted as an individual case. The tracings were analyzed according to the modified version of the Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) guidelines elaborated for the use of STAN (ST-analysis). Occurrence of defined abnormalities was recorded and the tracings were classified as normal, suspicious, pathological, or preterminal. The interobserver agreement was evaluated using Fleiss' kappa. Results: Agreement on classification of a preterminal CTG was almost perfect. The interobserver agreement on normal, suspicious or pathological CTG was moderate to substantial. Regarding the presence of severe variable decelerations, the agreement was moderate. No statistical difference was found in the interobserver agreement between classification of tracings from women undergoing TOLAC with and without complete uterine rupture. Conclusions: The interobserver agreement on classification of CTG tracings from high-risk deliveries during TOLAC is best for assessment of a preterminal CTG and the poorest for the identification of severe variable decelerations.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of induction in women with a single prior Caesarean section.This was a cohort study in which we included all singleton pregnancies in patients with a single prior Caesarean who delivered between 2007 and 2012. Methods of induction were ocytocic infusion plus amniotomy (if Bishop score a parts per thousand yen6) or insertion of a Foley catheter (Bishop < 6).Of the 2,075 patients included, 806 (38.8 %) had an elective repeat Caesarean, 1,045 (50.4 %) went into spontaneous labour, 89 (4.3 %) were induced by artificial rupture of the membranes and infusion of ocytocics and 135 (6.5 %) were induced using a Foley catheter. Rates of vaginal delivery were 79.2, 79.8 and 43.7 %, respectively. Six cases of uterine rupture were reported in the group of patients who went into spontaneous labour. There was no difference between groups with regard to neonatal morbidity. On multivariate analysis, risk factors for Caesarean delivery were macrosomia (OR 2.04, 95 % CI 1.31-3.18) and induction by Foley catheter (OR 3.73, 95 % CI 2.47-5.62); protective factors were previous vaginal delivery (OR 0.41, 95 % CI 0.29-0.57) and cervical dilatation (OR 0.84, 95 % CI 0.78-0.91).Uterine induction after a single Caesarean section with ocytocic infusion and amniotomy where the cervix is favourable does not appear to entail any significant added risk in terms of maternal or foetal morbidity. Foley catheter induction is a reasonable option if the cervix is not ripe.

Introduction: To assess trial of labor and vaginal delivery rates in pregnancies following cesarean delivery (CD) due to nonreassuring fetal heart rate (NRFHR) according to phase of labor at cesarean.Materials and methods: This was a retrospective cohort of deliveries at a university hospital between 2009 and 2016. We compared primary CDs performed due to NRFHR during nonactive labor (cervical dilatation < 5 cm) and active labor (cervical dilatation >/= 5 cm). Subsequent deliveries were reviewed for trial of labor and vaginal delivery rates, and maternal and obstetric outcomes compared.Results: Two hundred thirty-six patients underwent a CD during the nonactive phase of labor (nonactive phase group) and 126 patients during the active phase of labor (active phase group). Patients with a past active phase CD were more likely to attempt a trial of labor but equally likely to achieve a vaginal delivery. There was a trend for more CDs due to nonprogressive labor in this group. After adjustment, only past vaginal delivery was independently associated with a successful vaginal delivery, but not the phase of labor during which the past CD was performed.Conclusion: Our study points to a similar prognosis for patients with a past CD due to NRFHR, regardless of previous labor course.

Trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC) refers to a planned attempt to deliver vaginally by a woman who has had a previous cesarean delivery, regardless of the outcome. This method provides women who desire a vaginal delivery the possibility of achieving that goal-a vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC). In addition to fulfilling a patient's preference for vaginal delivery, at an individual level, VBAC is associated with decreased maternal morbidity and a decreased risk of complications in future pregnancies as well as a decrease in the overall cesarean delivery rate at the population level (1-3). However, although TOLAC is appropriate for many women, several factors increase the likelihood of a failed trial of labor, which in turn is associated with increased maternal and perinatal morbidity when compared with a successful trial of labor (ie, VBAC) and elective repeat cesarean delivery (4-6). Therefore, assessing the likelihood of VBAC as well as the individual risks is important when determining who is an appropriate candidate for TOLAC. Thus, the purpose of this document is to review the risks and benefits of TOLAC in various clinical situations and to provide practical guidelines for counseling and management of patients who will attempt to give birth vaginally after a previous cesarean delivery.

PROBLEM AND BACKGROUND: Vaginal birth after caesarean section is a safe option for the majority of women. Seeking women's views can be of help in understanding factors of importance for achieving vaginal birth in countries where the vaginal birth rates after caesarean is low. AIM: To investigate women's views on important factors to improve the rate of vaginal birth after caesareanin countries where vaginal birth rates after previous caesarean are low. METHODS: A qualitative study using content analysis. Data were gathered through focus groups and individual interviews with 51 women, in their native languages, in Germany, Ireland and Italy. The women were asked five questions about vaginal birth after caesarean. Data were translated to English, analysed together and finally validated in each country. FINDINGS: Important factors for the women were that all involved in caring for them were of the same opinion about vaginal birth after caesarean, that they experience shared decision-making with clinicians supportive of vaginal birth, receive correct information, are sufficiently prepared for a vaginal birth, and experience a culture that supports vaginal birth after caesarean. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Women's decision-making about vaginal birth after caesarean in these countries involves a complex, multidimensional interplay of medical, psychosocial, cultural, personal and practical considerations. Further research is needed to explore if the information deficit women report negatively affects their ability to make informed choices, and to understand what matters most to women when making decisions about vaginal birth after a previous caesarean as a mode of birth.