title: Vaginal birth after cesarean section.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The rate of primary cesarean section (CS) is on the rise. More and more women report with a history of a previous CS. A trial of vaginal delivery can save these women from the risk of repeat CS.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The study was conducted to assess the safety and success rate of vaginal birth after CS (VBAC) in selected cases of one previous lower segment CS (LSCS).
  
  
  METHODS
  The prospective observational study was carried out in a tertiary care teaching hospital over a period of two years. One hundred pregnant women with a history of one previous LSCS were enrolled in the study.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In the present study, 85% cases had a successful VBAC and 15% underwent a repeat emergency LSCS for failed trial of vaginal delivery. Cervical dilatation of more than 3 cm at the time of admission was a significant factor in favor of a successful VBAC. Birth weight of more than 3,000 g was associated with a lower success rate of VBAC. The incidence of scar dehiscence was 2% in the present study. There was no maternal or neonatal mortality.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Trial of VBAC in selected cases has great importance in the present era of the rising rate of primary CS especially in rural areas.
authors: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Rural Medical College and Pravara Rural Hospital of Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences, (Deemed University) Loni, Maharashtra, India.
authors: Vidyadhar B
authors: VB
authors: Bangal
authors: Purushottam A
authors: PA
authors: Giri
authors: Kunaal K
authors: KK
authors: Shinde
authors: Satyajit P
authors: SP
authors: Gavhane
keywords: Lower segment cesarean section; Rural India; Scar dehiscence; Trial of labor; Vaginal birth after cesarean section
references: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987;66(5):413-6
references: 3425241
references: Birth. 1998 Jun;25(2):81-4
references: 9668741
references: J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 1998 Apr;24(2):129-34
references: 9631601
references: J Am Med Assoc. 1951 Mar 24;145(12):884-8
references: 14803280
references: Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Apr;89(4):591-3
references: 9083318
references: N Am J Med Sci. 2011 Apr;3(4):201-5
references: 22540092
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1966 Feb 15;94(4):571-6
references: 5903680
references: Lancet. 1996 Feb 3;347(8997):281-4
references: 8569360
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Oct;185(4):903-5
references: 11641675
references: Obstet Gynecol. 1985 May;65(5):628-32
references: 3982739
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jun;166(6 Pt 1):1811-5; discussion 1815-9
references: 1615990
references: Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1989 Apr 1;133(13):666-9
references: 2716886
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988 Sep;159(3):636-9
references: 3421262
references: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1999 Feb;64(2):201-8
references: 10189037
references: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1992 Dec;39(4):285-9
references: 1361461
references: Tunis Med. 2006 Jan;84(1):16-20
references: 16634207
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1982 Mar 15;142(6 Pt 1):640-2
references: 7065036
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Sep;193(3 Pt 2):1016-23
references: 16157104
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Dec;157(6):1510-5
references: 3425654
references: J Reprod Med. 1983 Nov;28(11):785-8
references: 6655637
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1961 Mar;81:501-10
references: 13741925
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Feb;97(2):175-7
references: 11165577
references: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Mar 15;148(6):759-63
references: 6702945
references: Clin Perinatol. 1981 Feb;8(1):131-43
references: 7237886
references: Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1980 Jun;23(2):507-15
references: 7398161