Comparison of a trial of labor with an elective second cesarean section

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 335, Issue 10, 1996, Pages 689-695

  Mcmahon, Michael J ^a,b   Luther, Edwin R ^a,c   Bowes Jr , Watson A ^a   Olshan, Andrew F ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^c DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANADA; CESAREAN SECTION; COMPLICATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABOR; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL MORBIDITY; MATERNAL MORTALITY; PREGNANCY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CESAREAN SECTION, REPEAT; FEMALE; FETAL DEATH; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MATERNAL AGE; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; ODDS RATIO; PARITY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY, HIGH-RISK; PUERPERAL DISORDERS; RISK FACTORS; SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION; TRIAL OF LABOR; VAGINAL BIRTH AFTER CESAREAN;

EID: 0029822091     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199609053351001     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Rates of cesarean delivery - United States, 1991. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1993;42:285-9.
2. Eskew PN Jr, Say well RM ]r, Zollinger TW, Erner BK, Oser TL. Trends in the frequency of cesarean delivery: a 21-year experience, 1970-1990. J Reprod Med 1994;39:809-17.
3. Taffel SM, Placek PJ, Kosary CL. U.S. cesarean section rates 1990: an update. Birth 1992;19:21-2.
4. Taffel SM, Placek PJ, Moien M, Kosary CL. 1989 U.S. cesarean section rate steadies - VBAC rate rises to nearly one in five Birth 1991; 18:73-7.
5. Soliman SRH, Burrows RF. Cesarean section: analysis of the experience before and after the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth. Can Med Assoc J 1993;148:1315-20.
6. National Institutes of Health. Cesarean childbirth. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981:351-74. (NIH publication no. 82-2067)
7. Indications for cesarean section: final statement of the panel of the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth. Can Med Assoc J 1986;134:1348-52.
8. Miller DA, Diaz FG, Paul RH. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a 10-year experience. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:255-8.
9. Cowan RK, Kinch RAH, Ellis B, Anderson R. Trial of labor Following cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:933-6.
10. Flamm BL, Goings JR, Liu Y, Wolde-Tsadik G. Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a prospective multicenter study. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:927-32.
11. Flamm BL, Newman LA, Thomas SJ, Fallon D, Yoshida MM. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: results of a 5-year multicenter collaborative study. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:750-4.
12. Rosen MG, Dickinson JC. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a meta-analysis of indicators for success. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:865-9.
13. Paul RH, Phelan JP, Yeh SY. Trial of labor in the patient with a prior cesarean birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;151:297-304.
14. Rosen MG, Dickinson JC, Westhoff CL. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a meta-analysis of morbidity and mortality. Obstct Gynecol 1991;77:465-70.
15. Gellman E, Goldstein MS, Kaplan S, Shapiro WJ. Vaginal delivery after cesarean section: experience in private practice. JAMA 1983;249:2935-7.
16. Gibbs CE. Planned vaginal delivery following cesarean section. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1980;23:507-15.
17. Trover LR, Parisi VM. Obstetric parameters affecting success in a trial of labor: designation of a scoring system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167: 1099-104.
18. Thurnau GR, Scatcs DH, Morgan MA. The fetal-pelvic index: a method of identifying fetal-pelvic disproportion in women attempting vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Am I Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:353-8.
19. Weinstein DW, Benshushan A, Tanos V, Zilberstein R, Rojansky N. Predictive score for vaginal birth after cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:192-8.