Successful VBAC Research Articles

Current predictors for morbidity regarding choice of birth after a previous caesarean section, show poor predictive value in prediction modelling

IntroductionAfter a previous caesarean section, morbidity in the subsequent delivery in general is considered to depend on the probability of a vaginal birth after caesarean. However counselling could be improved by adding individualized probability of serious morbidity following either trial of labour or elective repeat caesarean section. The objective of this study was to develop prediction models for morbidity for both a repeat caesarean section and a trial of labor for a Dutch population. Material and methodsIn this cohort study, data were joined from three previous studies (SIMPLE 1, SIMPLE 2 and SIMPLE 2-implementation study). A cohort of 2592 women with one previous caesarean section and a singleton pregnancy who delivered ≥37 weeks, without a contraindication for vaginal delivery was formed. Maternal morbidity was defined as postpartum hemorrhage, blood transfusion, uterine rupture, ICU admittance or death. Neonatal morbidity was defined as asphyxia, NICU-admittance or death. Potential predictors for morbidity were chosen based on literature and expert opinion. Logistic regression was used to develop the models. Internal validation was intended using bootstrapping techniques. Main outcome measures were predictors for morbidity and for validation of the model we used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for discriminative capacity and calibration for accuracy. ResultsIn 324 out of the 2592 cases (12.7 %) maternal or fetal complications occurred. In general total morbidity was higher in women choosing TOL as compared to ERCS (p < 0.001). The performance of the several developed models was insufficient, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve did not rise above 0.6. Due to poor model performance, before correction for overfitting, interval validation was not conducted. ConclusionIn this large cohort, developing a Dutch population based prediction model that aimed to improve counselling on the mode of delivery, by predicting individual chances of morbidity for different delivery modes was not possible, due to lack of performance. Further study could be directed to cut off on VBAC success rates to a more general advice regarding the safest mode of delivery.

Determinants of Success and Complications in Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Section: A Systematic Literature Review

Trial of Labor After Cesarean (TOLAC) is the process of attempting a vaginal delivery after a prior cesarean section. TOLAC offers an alternative to repeat cesarean delivery but requires careful assessment of risks and benefits. This research aims to evaluate the factors affecting VBAC success and associated risks, providing guidance for clinical practice in determining VBAC eligibility. Relevant literature on VBAC was sourced from databases such as PubMed and Cochrane Library using the keywords "VBAC," "VBAC success," and "VBAC risks." Literature searches for these articles are conducted through databases of scientific journals such as PubMed and Google Scholar. Analysis was conducted to assess predictive factors for VBAC success, including previous vaginal delivery history, cervical conditions, and other parameters. VBAC success is significantly influenced by previous vaginal delivery history, cervical conditions at admission, and factors such as BMI and interpregnancy interval. The main risk associated with VBAC is uterine rupture, occurring in approximately 0.2–0.9% of cases. Proper management and careful risk assessment can minimize complications. VBAC can be a safe and effective option for women who meet specific criteria. Adequate monitoring and assessment are crucial to minimize risks and enhance success rates. Individual evaluation and thorough planning are essential for achieving optimal delivery outcomes. The decision to implement VBAC should be made with careful consideration of the benefits and risks to ensure safe and optimal outcomes for both mother and baby.

Trial of labour after caesarean section in Sub‐Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

AbstractObjectiveThe objective of this study is to determine the proportion of women undergoing trial of labour after caesarean (TOLAC) and vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) in Sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA), and to estimate associated adverse events.MethodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, CAB, EMBASE and African‐specific databases from 1966 to July 2023, including SSA studies reporting on women with previous caesarean section (CS). We extracted data on study design, planned (TOLAC versus elective repeat CS (ERCS)) and actual delivery mode, and adverse outcomes. We calculated mean TOLAC and VBAC proportions, and pooled proportion of adverse events, comparing between TOLAC and ERCS where available. We assessed bias using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies.ResultsFrom 62 studies with 36 611 births, the estimated proportion undergoing TOLAC and achieving VBAC, adjusted for study variability, were 79% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 74%, 85%) and 47% (95% CI: 42%, 51%), respectively, for all births. Mean estimated uterine rupture proportion and maternal mortality were 2.1% (95% CI: 1.1%, 3.2%) and 0.1% (95% CI: 0.02%, 0.2%) respectively. We found no differences between TOLAC and ERCS for uterine rupture (1.2% vs. 0.2%, pooled odds ratio [OR]: 1.54; 95% CI: 0.63, 3.8) or maternal mortality (0.3% vs. &lt;0.1%, pooled OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.30, 2.0), respectively. However perinatal mortality was higher with TOLAC compared to ERCS (5% vs. 1%; pooled OR: 3.3; 95% CI: 1.5, 6.9).DiscussionWe found high proportions of women undergoing TOLAC and moderate proportions of successful VBAC across SSA, with a higher perinatal mortality associated with TOLAC. Few studies reported on adverse outcomes and used inconsistent definitions. Further research is needed to understand outcomes in this population of women in these settings.RegistrationThe study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020175434).

Elective Induction of Labor Following Prior Cesarean Delivery.

Following the ARRIVE trial, induction of labor at 39 weeks has increased in the United States. The risk of uterine rupture and optimal timing of elective induction in those patients with a prior cesarean delivery is not well described, and they were not included in the original trial. We aim to determine the risk of uterine rupture in those patients undergoing elective induction of labor with prior cesarean delivery. This was a retrospective cohort of participants with prior cesarean delivery from 1996 to 2000. Participants were included if they had ≤ 2 prior cesareans. Participants were excluded if they had a history of an unknown prior incision, a classical incision, gestational age < 39 weeks, any diabetes, chronic hypertension, twin gestation, collagen or vascular disease, or HIV. Those undergoing expectant management were compared to those undergoing elective induction with no medical or obstetrical indications for delivery. Analysis was performed at three gestational age groups: 39 weeks, 40 weeks, and 41 weeks. The primary outcomes were uterine rupture, rates of successful vaginal delivery, and a composite major morbidity risk. Multivariable logistic regression was performed. At 39 weeks, 618 (10.3%) elective inductions were compared to 5365 (89.7%) undergoing expectant management; uterine rupture occurred more frequently (13 patients (2.1%) vs. 49 patients (0.9%); aOR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3 - 4.6) with fewer successful VBAC (66.8% vs. 75%; aOR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5 - 0.7). The risk of uterine rupture was similar between groups at 40 (5 patients (0.8%) vs. 21 patients (1.2%); P=0.387) and 41 weeks (7 patients (1.4%) vs. 2 patients (0.8%); P=0.448). Patients undergoing elective induction of labor with a prior cesarean scar had an increased risk of uterine rupture when compared to expectant management at 39 weeks, with fewer successful VBAC.

Examining provider practice-level disparities in delivery outcomes among patients with a history of Cesarean Delivery

BackgroundChoosing whether to pursue a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) or scheduled repeat cesarean delivery (SRCD) requires prenatal assessment of risks and benefits. Providers and patients play a central role in this process. However, the influence of provider-associated characteristics on delivery methods remains unclear. We hypothesized that different provider practice groups have different obstetric outcomes in patients with one prior cesarean delivery (CD).MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of deliveries between April 29, 2015 – April 29, 2020. Subjects were divided into three cohorts: SRCD, successful VBAC, and unsuccessful VBAC (patients who chose TOLAC but had a CD). Disparities were reviewed between five different obstetric provider practice groups, determined from a breakdown of different providers delivering at the study site during the study period. Proportional differences were examined using Chi-squared tests and logistic regression models.Results1,439 deliveries were included in the study. There were significant proportional disparities between patients in the different groups. Specifically, patients from Group D were significantly more likely to undergo successful VBAC, while patients seeing a provider from Group A were more likely to deliver by SRCD. In our multivariate analysis of successful versus unsuccessful VBAC, patients from Group D had greater odds ratios of successful VBAC compared to Group A. Patients delivered by Group E had a significantly lower odds ratio of successful VBAC.ConclusionThis study suggests an association between provider practice groups and delivery outcomes among patients with one prior CD. These data contribute to a growing body of literature around patient choice in pregnancy and the interplay of patients and providers. These findings help to guide future investigations to improve outcomes among patients with a history of CD.

Birth after Caesarean Section: A Retrospective Audit of 10 Years of State-Wide Data

Rates of Caesarean Section (CS) have been increasing worldwide with varying rates of [5] percent in Sub-Saharan Africa to 43 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean [1]. In Australia too rates have increased from 32 percent in 2011 to 38 percent in 20212. Attempts have been made to seek ways at slowing the rise in rates of CS but with little success [3]. Women who have had a previous CS may elect to have a Elective Repeat CS (ERCS) or have an attempt at a Vaginal Birth (VBAC) in their subsequent pregnancy. A planned VBAC, considering the woman’s individual history and needs, is viewed as a safe option for many women with a single previous lower segment caesarean section [4]. Studies have shown that a Trial of Labour (TOL) ending in a VBAC is most favourable for the mother, newborn, and the health service [5,6]. Likelihood of success rates are reported to be between 60 and 80 percent [7]. A recent meta-analysis [8] noted successful vaginal birth rates of 74.3 percent if labour was spontaneous and 60.7 percent if induced. Achieving successful VBAC has also been reported to be less expensive and more effective than undergoing an ERCS [9,10]. There has recently been an international multi-centre trial that aims to increase the proportion of women having VBAC by increasing woman-centred care and facilitating women’s empowerment in their choice of birth in three countries – Germany, Ireland and Italy [1]. An attempt at vaginal birth is also supported by various colleges across countries [4,7,12]. One of the reasons for the preference of ERCS may be a concern of a failed trial at vaginal birth resulting in an emergency CS. In one study of 29 352 women who attempted a vaginal birth after CS compared to 169 377 women without previous CS, Odds Ratio (OR) for emergency CS was 3.65 (CI: 3.26-4.08) higher when compared to women without previous CS [13]. The scibasejournals.org aim of this retrospective study however was to use a large dataset with a specific objective to report on the success and failure rate and to identify any specific predictors of a successful or an unsuccessful vaginal birth in women who are pregnant after one previous CS.

Exploring Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: Success Rates and Cultural Decisions in the United Arab Emirates.

This study explores the success rates and cultural influences on the decision-making process for vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). An observational cohort study was conducted at a hospital in the UAE accredited by Joint Commission International, enrolling 263 women eligible for VBAC from March 1, 2018, to February 28, 2019. The study focused on maternal-fetal outcomes, the proportions of women opting for trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) versus elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS), and the impact of cultural backgrounds on these decisions. The study found significant cultural variations in VBAC acceptance and success rates. Among local Emirati/Omani women, 86% (152 out of 177) opted for TOLAC, with an 83% success rate (126 out of 152). In contrast, lower TOLAC uptake and success rates were observed among other nationalities, such as Egyptian and other Arab women. The study also noted higher VBAC success rates in women with prior vaginal deliveries and those who experienced spontaneous labor. NICU admissions and maternal readmissions were lower in the TOLAC group (1% NICU admissions and 2% maternal readmissions) compared to the ERCS group (8.2% NICU admissions). The study underscores the influence of cultural factors in VBAC decision-making and outcomes, highlighting the need for culturally tailored counseling and care. It also confirms the safety and efficacy of VBAC in appropriately selected cases, advocating for more research into counseling practices and long-term outcomes in culturally diverse populations. Impact statement: This research adds to the understanding of how cultural and ethnic backgrounds influence VBAC decisions and outcomes, offering critical insights for clinical practice, especially in multicultural societies like the UAE. It emphasizes the role of tailored counseling and suggests avenues for future research in this domain.

Incidence and Predictors of Successful Vaginal Birth Among Women With a History of Cesarean Section in Public Health Facilities of Southern Ethiopia in 2021

BACKGROUND:Even though a cesarean section (CS) performed greater than 15% has no significant association with a reduction in maternal and neonatal mortality, repeat elective CS continues to play a major role in unnecessary CS worldwide. Trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) is one of the strategies to reduce the rate of unnecessary CS. However, the selection of candidates for a TOLAC is not an easy task without evidence. This study was conducted to determine the incidence of successful vaginal birth after one CS and the associated factors in public health facilities in southern Ethiopia.METHODS:An institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted from June 10, 2020, to December 10, 2021, on laboring women, and the data were collected using a pretested interviewer-administered questionnaire and a data extraction sheet. A binary logistic regression model was used to assess the factors associated with successful vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) section using SPSS version 25. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed, and independent variables withp&lt; .05 along with an odd ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) declare the associated factors.RESULTS:A total of 417 women participated in this study making a response rate of 98.8%. The incidence of vaginal births after cesarean was 51.1% (CI, 46%–56%). The likelihood of successful VBAC was observed in women with a history of vaginal delivery before CS (AOR, 3.7, CI = 1.06, 13.19), favorable Bishop score at admission (AOR, 19.1, CI = 2.69, 134.98), greater than 4-cm cervical dilation at admission (AOR, 171.3, CI = 1.8, 16,722), and clear color of amniotic fluid (AOR, .096, CI = .02, .38).CONCLUSION:The incidence of VBAC in this study is promising and should be practiced. In choosing a woman for the TOLAC, health professionals might need to pay attention to intrapartum variables, such as cervical dilation, Bishop score, and color of the amniotic fluid.

Continuity obstetric care demonstrates greater vaginal birth after caesarean success.

Australia's caesarean rate is higher than Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average, and is rising. Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) is safe for selected women. Midwifery continuity of care (CoC) is associated with higher rates of vaginal birth compared to other models; however, impacts on VBAC attempts and success are unknown. The primary aim was to determine if there is a difference in achieving VBAC between CoC and non-CoC (NCoC) models. The secondary aim was to determine if there is a difference in the proportion of women attempting VBAC between these models. Retrospective review of antenatal records and birthing data of all women who birthed in 2021 with one or more previous caesareans. Women were included if they had two or fewer caesareans. Women were excluded if contraindications to VBAC existed. There were 142/1109 (12.8%) women who had previous caesareans and were eligible to attempt VBAC. There were 47/109 (43.1%) women who attempted vaginal birth after one caesarean with 78.7% success. After one caesarean, women in CoC were more likely to achieve VBAC than NCoC (45.2% vs 26.1%; relative risk (RR) 1.76, 95% CI 1.04-3.00), although when stratified by private and midwifery CoC models, women in midwifery CoC models were more likely to be successful (private RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.23-2.07 vs midwifery RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.50-4.11). Women in CoC were more likely to attempt VBAC (54.7% vs 34.8%; RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.02-2.41), and receive counselling about VBAC (92.5% vs 62%; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.41-3.11). CoC improves the rate of attempted and successful VBAC through several factors, including increased counselling and greater provision of birth choices.

Variations over time in mode of birth and perinatal outcomes in women with one previous cesarean in the Netherlands: A 20-year population-based study.

Globally, cesarean birth rates are rising, and while it can be a lifesaving procedure, cesarean birth is also associated with increased maternal and perinatal risks. This study aims to describe changes over time about the mode of birth and perinatal outcomes in second-pregnancy women with one previous cesarean birth in the Netherlands over the past 20 years. We conducted a nationwide, population-based study using the Dutch perinatal registry. The mode of birth (intended vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) compared with planned cesarean birth) was assessed in all women with one previous cesarean birth and no prior vaginal birth who gave birth to a term singleton in cephalic presentation between 2000 and 2019 in the Netherlands (n = 143,146). The reported outcomes include the trend of intended VBAC, VBAC success rate, and adverse perinatal outcomes (perinatal mortality up to 7 days, low Apgar score at 5 min, asphyxia, and neonatal intensive care unit admission ≥24 h). Intended VBAC decreased by 21.5% in women with one previous cesarean birth and no prior vaginal birth, from 77.2% in 2000 to 55.7% in 2019, with a marked deceleration from 2009 onwards. The VBAC success rate dropped gradually, from 71.0% to 65.3%, across the same time period. Overall, the cesarean birth rate (planned and unplanned) increased from 45.2% to 63.6%. Adverse perinatal outcomes were higher in women intending VBAC compared with those planning a cesarean birth. Perinatal mortality initially decreased but remained stable from 2009 onwards, with only minimal differences between both modes of birth. In the Netherlands, the proportion of women intending VBAC after one previous cesarean birth and no prior vaginal birth has decreased markedly. Particularly from 2009 onwards, this decrease was not accompanied by a synchronous reduction in perinatal mortality.

Patient-Led Approaches to a Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery Calculator.

To describe patient approaches to navigating their probability of a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) within the context of prediction scores generated from the original Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units' VBAC calculator, which incorporated race and ethnicity as one of six risk factors. We invited a diverse group of participants with a history of prior cesarean delivery to participate in interviews and have their prenatal visits recorded. Using an open-ended iterative interview guide, we queried and observed these individuals' mode-of-birth decisions in the context of their VBAC calculator scores. We used a critical and feminist approach to analyze thematic data gleaned from interview and visit transcripts. Among the 31 participants who enrolled, their self-identified racial and ethnic categories included: Asian or South Asian (2); Black (4); Hispanic (12); Indigenous (1); White (8); and mixed-Black, -Hispanic, or -Asian background (4). Predicted VBAC success probabilities ranged from 12% to 95%. Participants completed 64 interviews, and 14 prenatal visits were recorded. We identified four themes that demonstrated a range of patient-led approaches to interpreting the probability generated by the VBAC calculator: 1) rejecting the role of race and ethnicity; 2) reframing failure, finding success; 3) factoring the physical experience of labor; and 4) modifying the probability for VBAC. Our findings demonstrate that a numeric probability for VBAC may not be highly valued or important to all patients, especially those who have strong intentions for VBAC. Black and Hispanic participants challenged the VBAC calculator's incorporation of race and ethnicity as a risk factor and resisted the implication it produced, especially that their bodies were less capable of achieving a vaginal birth. Our findings suggest that patient-led approaches to assessing and interpreting VBAC probability may be an untapped resource for achieving a more person-centered, equitable approach to counseling.

Mid-trimester cervical length and prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in Chinese parturients: A retrospective study

BackgroundA successful trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) is linked with the best maternal/neonatal outcomes and is more cost-effective than elective repeat cesarean section (ERCS). Predictive models of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) have been established worldwide to improve the success rate of TOLAC. ObjectiveTo validate a VBAC prediction model (the updated Grobman's predictive model without ethnicity) and identify whether mid-trimester cervical lengths (MCL) improve the prediction of VBAC among Chinese women undergoing a TOLAC. MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, the inclusion criteria were a previous history of cesarean delivery (CD) as well as a singleton gestation in the vertex position with routine CL measurements between 20 and 24 weeks and the experience of a TOLAC. MCL as well as identifiable characteristics in early prenatal care that have been used in updated Grobman's predictive model (maternal age, height, pre-pregnancy weight, vaginal delivery history, VBAC history, arrest disorder in previous CD, and treated chronic hypertension) were obtained from the medical records. Associations of maternal characteristics and MCL with VBAC were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression. Two multivariable regression models with and without MCL as one of the risk factors were established and their predictive accuracy for VBAC was critically compared based on receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. ResultsThis study involved 409 women, among which, 347 (84.8%) achieved a VBAC. The mean MCL was significantly shorter in women who had a successful VBAC than in those who required an intrapartum CD (4.16±0.49 cm vs. 4.35±0.46 cm, P=0.007). Multivariable logistic regression revealed that a longer MCL (cm) was significantly related to a lower success rate of TOLAC [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.26−0.88]. The areas under the ROCs of Grobman's model with and without MCL as one of the risk factors were 0.785 (95% CI, 0.725−0.844) and 0.774 (95% CI, 0.710−0.837), respectively, but not significantly different (Z = −0.968, P = 0.333). ConclusionsWe first evaluated the efficiency of the updated Grobman's model (without race and ethnicity) in the Chinese population. The area under the curve is relatively high, indicating that the model can be used efficiently in China. The shorter MCL was associated with a greater chance of VBAC and MCL was the independent factor from the factors of Grobman's model. However, the predictive capacity of the modified model by adding MCL as one of the risk factors did not improve significantly.

Maternal Morbidity Following a Trial of Labor After Cesarean Section vs. Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery at KIU Teaching Hospital

This study aimed to determine maternal morbidity and predictors of successful vaginal birth control (VBAC) among women at KIU Teaching Hospital. A retrospective cohort study was used, with 384 files of women who delivered between 2014 and 2018 selected. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the incidence of maternal morbidities. Univariate analysis and bivariate logistic regression were performed using STATA version 14.0 to identify predictors of successful VBAC. The mean age of the study participants was 25.62 years, with 63.54% of them elective repeat caesarean sections (ERCD) and 36.46% trial of labor after caesarean sections (TOLAC). Morbidities included uterine rupture, thromboembolism, transfusion requirement, and endometritis. Risks of TOLAC versus ERCD included uterine rupture, thromboembolism, and blood transfusion requirement. BMI, birth weight, spontaneous onset of labor, previous safe vaginal birth, and non-diabetic status were found to be predictors of successful VBAC. Delivering women with previous cesarean sections is a complex process that involves the physician's knowledge, experience, and fear of litigation, as well as the previous maternal experience and knowledge. Any decision made will affect the present pregnancy's outcome, future obstetric performance, and fertility of the patient. Keywords: Maternal Mortality Rate, Cesarean delivery, Women, pregnancy, Labour.

A comparative study for feto-maternal outcome of trial of labour after caesarean: spontaneous versus induction

Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the foeto-maternal outcome of trial of labour after previous one lower segment caesarean section in spontaneous and induced labour and to ascertain the success rate of VBAC.(Vaginal birth after cesarean section) Methods It was a prospective study conducted from May2019-November2020.The pregnant women admitted in BPSGMC (BPS Government Medical College), labour ward who had previous one caesarean section undergoing trial of labour after either spontaneous onset or induction of labour, were included in the study. Results Total patients were 130, [65 each, in group I(spontaneous) and group II (induced)]. Successful TOLAC (Trial of labour after cesarean section) happened in 80% in spontaneous labour (gp I) patients and 66.2 % women in induced patients (group II), (p value-0.075). There was no significant difference in age, parity and gestational age (p value &gt;0.05), APGAR score and NICU (Neonatal intensive care unit) admissions in both spontaneous labour(gp I) and induced patients (gp II). There incidence of fetal distress was not statistically significant in spontaneous (group I) and induced patients (group II), (p value-0.744). Indication of primary LSCS (Lower segment cesarean section) showed no significant effect on outcome of TOLAC in spontaneous and induced group patients. History of prior vaginal delivery had more chances of VBAC. Hospital stay and PPH was more in induced patients(group II). The dfference of scar dehiscence in group I(spontaneous) and II (induced) were not statistically significant (p value=0.721). There were no cases of scar rupture in both the groups. Conclusion Induction of labour and spontaneous labour both have almost similar VBAC success rates. Also with fewer scar dehiscence and no rupture, IOL (Induction of labour) is a good option in previous one cesarean patients.

Study of maternal and neonatal outcome in women with one previous lower segment caesarean scar in Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Hospital (RIPAS)

Background: The rate of primary caesarean section (CS) is on the rise; it was 30.8% for primiparous women and 11.5% for multiparous women. A trial of vaginal delivery can prevent the risk of repeat CS. Aim: The study was to determine the success rate, and also maternal and neonatal implications of VBAC (Vaginal Birth after Caesarean), attempted in women with one previous lower segment caesarean section (LSCS). Materials and Methods: The retrospective and descriptive study was carried out in a tertiary care hospital, RIPAS Hospital, Brunei Darussalam, over a period of three months (from February 2010 to May 2010). All women with prior LSCS who are suitable for a trial of labour after the previous caesarean (TOLAC) were included in our study. Sixty-one pregnant women with a history of one previous LSCS were enrolled in the study. Results: In our study (38/61) 62.3% of patients had a successful VBAC, and (23/61) 37.7% had undergone a repeat emergency LSCS. In those who had the previous VBAC, cervical dilatation of &gt;4 cm at the time of admission and those who had the previous VBAC are significant factors for a successful VBAC. Conclusion: The trial of VBAC in selected cases has great importance in the present era of the rising rate of primary CS, as it has a considerable success rate and is not associated with serious maternal and foetal morbidity and mortality.

Epistemic Silences and Experiential Knowledge in Decisions After a First Cesarean: The case of a vaginal birth after cesarean calculator.

Evidence-based obstetrics can employ statistical models to justify greater use of cesareans, sometimes excluding experiential elements from informed decision making. Over the past decade, prenatal providers adopted a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) calculator designed to support patients in making informed decisions about their births by estimating their probability for a VBAC. Among other factors, the calculator used race and ethnicity to make its estimate, assigning lower probabilities for a successful VBAC to Black and Hispanic patients. I analyze how a diverse group of women and their providers engaged with the VBAC calculator. Some providers used low calculator scores to remove a shared decision-making model by prescriptively counseling Black and Hispanic women who desired a VBAC into undergoing repeat cesareans. Consequently, women racialized by the calculator as Black or Hispanic used experiential knowledge to challenge the calculator's assessment of their supposed lesser ability to give birth vaginally.

Validation of Grobman’s graphical nomogram for prediction of vaginal delivery in Indian women with previous caesarean section

To validate Grobman's nomogram for prediction of trial of labour after caesarean section (TOLAC) success in the Indian population. A prospective observational study of women with previous lower segment caesarean sections (LSCS) who were admitted for TOLAC between January 2019 and June 2020 at a tertiary care hospital We compared the Grobman's predicted VBAC success probability to the observed VBAC rate in the study population and devised a receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) curve for the nomogram. Among the 124 women with prior LSCS who chose TOLAC and were included in the study, 68 (54.8%) had a successful VBAC and 56 (45.2%) had a failed TOLAC. The mean Grobman's predicted success probability for the cohort was 76.7%, significantly higher in VBAC women versus CS women (80.6% vs. 72.1%; p 0.001). The VBAC rate was 69.1% with a predicted probability of >75% and only 42.9% with a probability of 50%. Women in the >75% probability group had a nearly similar observed and predicted VBAC rate (69.1% vs. 86.3%; p=0.002), and a greater number of women in the 50% probability group had successful VBAC than predicted (42.9% vs. 39.5%; p=0.018). The area under the ROC curve for the study was 0.703 (95% CI 0.609-0.797; p 0.001). Grobman's nomogram had a sensitivity of 57.35%, a specificity of 82.14%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 79.59%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 61.33% at a predicted probability cut-off of 82.5%. Women who had a higher Grobman's predicted probability had greater VBAC success rates than those with low predicted probability scores. The prediction ability of the nomogram was highly accurate at higher predicted probabilities, and even at lower predicted probabilities, women did have good odds of delivering vaginally.

Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Trial of Labor Compared With Elective Cesarean Delivery According to Predicted Likelihood of Vaginal Delivery

(Abstracted from J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022;35(26):10487–10493 In 2007, the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Unit (MFMU) Network developed the vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) calculator to help optimize the likelihood of a successful vaginal delivery. One study found that the risk of maternal and neonatal morbidity is no greater than that of elective repeat cesarean delivery (CD)—specifically when the likelihood of successful VBAC is &gt;70%.

Retrospective evaluation of outcomes of vaginal birth after caesarean section in a tertiary center: a single-center study from Türkiye.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the trial of labor after caesarean (TOLAC) outcomes and determine its reliability by comparing it with elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) and vaginal delivery. For this purpose, the outcomes of patients aged 18-40 years who had 57 TOLACs, 72 vaginal deliveries, and 60 elective caesarean sections in Ankara Koru Hospital between January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2022 were compared. Gestational age was lower in the normal vaginal delivery (NVD) group than in the elective caesarean section and vaginal birth after caesarean delivery (VBAC) groups (p < 0.0005). The birth weight was statistically significantly lower in the NVD group than in the elective caesarean section and VBAC groups (p < 0.0002). No statistically significant correlation was found between the BMI values in all three groups (p < 0.586). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of pre- and post-natal haemoglobin and APGAR scores (p < 0.575) (p < 0.690) (p < 0.747). The rate of epidural and oxytocin use was higher in the NVD group than in the VBAC group (p < 0.001) (p < 0.037). There was no statistically significant correlation between the birth weights of the infants in the TOLAC group and failed VBAC (p < 0.078). No statistically significant correlation was observed between the use of oxytocin for induction and failed VBAC (p < 0.842). There was no statistically significant correlation between epidural anaesthesia and failed VBAC (p < 0.586). A statistically significant correlation was found between gestational age and caesarean section as a result of a failed VBAC (p < 0.020). The main reason for not preferring TOLAC continues to be uterine rupture. It can be recommended to eligible patients in tertiary centers. Because even when the factors increasing the success of VBAC were excluded, the rate of successful VBAC remained high.

Grand multiparity, is it a help or a hindrance in a trial of labor after cesarean section (TOLAC)?

Objective Parity is a prognostic variable when considering trial of labor after cesarean section (TOLAC). This study aimed to determine whether grandmultiparous patients are at increased risk of poor TOLAC outcomes such as uterine rupture. Study design A retrospective cohort was conducted at a single university-affiliated medical center with approximately 10,000 deliveries per year. The study group included women post one cesarean section who attempted TOLAC carrying a singleton fetus in vertex presentation. We divided the cohort into three groups: group 1 – women who had a parity of 1; group 2 – parity of 2–4; group 3 – parity of 5 and above. The primary outcome was successful VBAC. Secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, uterine rupture, and combined maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes. Data were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test, Chi-square test, ANOVA, and paired t-test. Results Five thousand four hundred and forty-seven women comprised the study group: group 1 – 879 patients, group 2 – 2374 patients, and group 3 − 2194 patients. No significant between-group differences were found in gestational age at delivery. Rates of a successful VBAC were 80.6%, 95.4%, and 95.5%, respectively. Group 1 were more likely to have a failed TOLAC compared to group 2 (OR 5.02, 95% CI 3.9–6.5, p<.001) and group 3 (OR 5.17, 95% CI 4.0–6.7, p<.001). There was no increased risk of failed TOLAC when comparing groups 2 and 3 (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.8–1.4, p=.89). Operative delivery rate differed significantly between all three groups; 25.1%, 6.2%, and 3.6%, for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p<.001). The rate of uterine rupture was significantly higher in group 1 compared to group 2 (1.02% vs. 0.29% p=.02) and group 3 (1.02% vs. 0.2%, p=.01, respectively). There were no differences between group 2 and group 3 (0.29% vs. 0.2% p=.78). Conclusions Grandmultiparity is not associated with an increased risk of uterine rupture during TOLAC.