Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Section

Amira El-Messidi; Alan D. Cameron

doi:10.1017/9781108975780.021

Chapter 18 - Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Section

from Section 2 - Labor and Delivery

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 February 2023

Amira El-Messidi and

Alan D. Cameron

Edited by

Amira El-Messidi and

Alan D. Cameron

Show author details

Amira El-Messidi: Affiliation:
McGill University, Montréal
Alan D. Cameron: Affiliation:
University of Glasgow

Book contents

Get access

Summary

You are seeing a 29-year-old G2P1 with a singleton pregnancy at 34+6 weeks’ gestation for a routine prenatal visit. Pregnancy dating was confirmed by first-trimester sonography. She reports normal fetal activity and has no clinical complaints. Your colleague following her obstetric care is now on a two-month leave. Although mode of delivery was addressed early in prenatal care, your colleague left you a note to discuss a trial of vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery (VBAC) with the patient.

Keywords

Vaginal birth after Cesarean section Trial of labor after Cesarean section Counseling Contraindications Induction of labor Predictors of success Lower uterine segment thickness, sonography Intrapartum care Uterine rupture

Type: Chapter
Information: OSCEs in Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Medicine
An Evidence-Based Approach
, pp. 252 - 262

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108975780.021 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Suggested Readings

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins – Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: Vaginal birth after Cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(2):e110–e127.Google Scholar

Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Saccone, G, McCurdy, R, et al. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(5):578–583.Google Scholar

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(7):CD004906.Google Scholar PubMed

Dy, J, DeMeester, S, Lipworth, H, et al. No. 382 – trial of labour after Caesarean. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41(7):992–1011. [Corrections in J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019 Sep;41(9):1395; J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2020 Nov;42(11):1452]CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fox, NS. Pregnancy outcomes in patients with prior uterine rupture or dehiscence: a 5-year update. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(1):211–212.Google Scholar

Landon, MB, Grobman, WA; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. What we have learned about trial of labor after Cesarean delivery from the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Cesarean Registry. Semin Perinatol. 2016;40(5):281–286.Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Birth after previous Caesarean birth. Green-Top Guideline No. 45. London: RCOG; October 2015.Google Scholar

Swift, BE, Shah, PS, Farine, D. Sonographic lower uterine segment thickness after prior cesarean section to predict uterine rupture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98(7):830–841.Google Scholar

Tanos, V, Toney, ZA. Uterine scar rupture – prediction, prevention, diagnosis, and management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 59:115–131.Google Scholar

Tsakiridis, I, Mamopoulos, A, Athanasiadis, A, et al. Vaginal birth after previous Cesarean birth: a comparison of 3 national guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2018;73(9):537–543.Google Scholar