Is the growing trend for cesarean sections a cause for concern?

References

• Laws PJ, Hilder L. Australia’s Mothers and Babies 2006. Perinatal statistics series no. 22, Cat. no. PER 46. AIHW, National Perinatal Statistics Unit, Sydney, Australia (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Appleton B, Targett C, Rasmussen M, Readman E, Sale F, Permezel M; VBAC Study Group. Knowledge and attitudes about vaginal birth after caesarean section in Australian hospitals. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.40(2), 195–199 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinlivan JA, Petersen RW, Nichols CN. Patient preference the leading indication for elective caesarean section in public patients – results of a 2-year prospective audit in a teaching hospital. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.39(2), 207–214 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnbull DA, Wilkinson C, Yaser A, Carty V, Svigos JM, Robinson JS. Women’s role and satisfaction in the decision to have a caesarean section. Med. J. Aust.170(12), 580–583 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamble JA, Creedy DK. Women’s preference for a cesarean section: incidence and associated factors. Birth28(2), 101–110 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appleton B, Targett C, Rasmussen M, Readman E, Sale F, Permezel M. Vaginal birth after caesarean section: an Australian multicentre study. VBAC Study Group. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.40(1), 87–91 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone C, Halliday J, Lumley J, Brennecke S. Vaginal births after caesarean (VBAC): a population study. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol.14(4), 340–348 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas J, Paranjothy S. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, RCOG Press (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Chan A, Scott J, Nguyen A-M, Sage L. Pregnancy Outcome in South Australia 2005. Pregnancy Outcome Unit, South Australian Department of Health, Adelaide, Australia (2006).
   Google Scholar
• No authors listed. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet2(8452), 436–437 (1985).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabert HA, Bey M. History and development of cesarean operation. Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. North Am.15(4), 591–605 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todman D. A history of caesarean section: from ancient world to the modern era. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.47(5), 357–361 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lurie S. The changing motives of cesarean section: from the ancient world to the twenty-first Century. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet.271(4), 281–285 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anderson ER, Gates S. Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.4, CD004663 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Alderdice F, McKenna D, Dornan J. Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.2, CD003577 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Bamigboye AA, Hofmeyr GJ. Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.4, CD000163 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Dodd JM, Anderson ER, Gates S. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.3, CD004732 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Gates S, Anderson ER. Wound drainage for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.1, CD004549 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Hofmeyr GJ, Smaill FM. Antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.3, CD000933 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Chan A, Scott J, Nguyen A-M, Sage L. Pregnancy Outcome in South Australia 2007. Pregnancy Outcome Unit, South Australian Department of Health, Adelaide, Australia (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD et al. Births: final data for 2005. Natl Vital Stat. Rep.56(6), 1–103 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• HESonline Hospital Episode Statistics. Method of delivery, 1980 to 2007–2008. In: The Information Centre. NHS (Editor) (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Betran AP, Merialdi M, Lauer JA et al. Rates of caesarean section: analysis of global, regional and national estimates. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol.21(2), 98–113 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belizan JM, Althabe F, Barros FC, Alexander S. Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. Br. Med. J.319(7222), 1397–1400 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laws PJ, Abeywardana S, Walker J, Sullivan EA. Australia’s mothers and babies 2005. In: Perinatal Statistics Series. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit, Sydney, Australia (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Sreevidya S, Sathiyasekaran BW. High caesarean rates in Madras (India): a population-based cross sectional study. BJOG110(2), 106–111 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lailcaster P, Huang J, Pedisich E. Australia’s mothers and babies 1991. In: Perinatal Statistics Series. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit, Sydney, Australia, ISSN 1321-8336 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD et al.Births: Final Data for 2006. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System. 57(7), 7 January 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Nassar N, Sullivan EA. Australia’s mothers and babies 1999. In: Perinatal Statistics Series no. 11. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit, Sydney, Australia (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Naftalin J, Paterson-Brown S. A pilot study exploring the impact of maternal age and raised body mass index on caesarean section rates. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.28(4), 394–397 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Usha Kiran TS, Jayawickrama NS. Who is responsible for the rising caesarean section rate? J. Obstet. Gynaecol.22(4), 363–365 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Savage W. The rising caesarean section rate: a loss of obstetric skill? J. Obstet. Gynaecol.27(4), 339–346 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Devane D, Lalor J, Bonnar J. The use of intrapartum electronic fetal heart rate monitoring: a national survey. Ir. Med. J.100(2), 360–362 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alfirevic Z, Devane D, Gyte GML. Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a formof electronic fetalmonitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.3, CD006066 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. In: Intrapartum Care; Care of Healthy Women and Their Babies During Childbirth. Welsh REA (Ed.). RCOG Press at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK (2007).
   Google Scholar
• RANZCOG. Intrapartum Fetal Surveillance Clinical Guidelines (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Boulvain M, Marcoux S, Bureau M, Fortier M, Fraser W. Risks of induction of labour in uncomplicated term pregnancies. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol.15(2), 131–138 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wax JR, Cartin A, Pinette MG, Blackstone J. Patient choice cesarean: an evidence-based review. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv.59(8), 601–616 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams HO. The ethical debate of maternal choice and autonomy in cesarean delivery. Clin. Perinatol.35(2), 455–462, viii (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ176(4), 455–460 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergholt T, Stenderup JK, Vedsted-Jakobsen A, Helm P, Lenstrup C. Intraoperative surgical complication during cesarean section: an observational study of the incidence and risk factors. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.82(3), 251–256 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen TF, Hokegard KH. Cesarean section and intraoperative surgical complications. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.63(2), 103–108 (1984).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobande A, Eskandar M. Multiple repeat caesarean sections: complications and outcomes. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can.28(3), 193–197 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rajasekar D, Hall M. Urinary tract injuries during obstetric intervention. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.104(6), 731–734 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Henderson E, Love EJ. Incidence of hospital-acquired infections associated with caesarean section. J. Hosp. Infect.29(4), 245–255 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs RS. Clinical risk factors for puerperal infection. Obstet. Gynecol.55(5. Suppl.), 178S–184S (1980).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beattie PG, Rings TR, Hunter MF, Lake Y. Risk factors for wound infection following caesarean section. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.34(4), 398–402 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran TS, Jamulitrat S, Chongsuvivatwong V, Geater A. Risk factors for post cesarean surgical site infection. Obstet. Gynecol.95(3), 367–371 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneid-Kofman N, Sheiner E, Levy A, Holcberg G. Risk factors for wound infection following cesarean deliveries. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet.90(1), 10–15 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster J. Post-caesarean wound infection: a review of the risk factors. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.28, 201–206 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villar J, Carroli G, Zavaleta N et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. Br. Med. J.335(7628), 1025 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CEMACH (Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health, Improving care for mothers, babies and children). Why Mothers Die 2000–2002. RCOG Press at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Gherman RB, Goodwin TM, Leung B, Byrne JD, Hethumumi R, Montoro M. Incidence, clinical characteristics, and timing of objectively diagnosed venous thromboembolism during pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol.94(5 Pt 1), 730–734 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James AH, Jamison MG, Brancazio LR, Myers ER. Venous thromboembolism during pregnancy and the postpartum period: incidence, risk factors, and mortality. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.194(5), 1311–1315 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson EL, Lawrenson RA, Nightingale AL, Farmer RD. Venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and the puerperium: incidence and additional risk factors from a London perinatal database. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.108(1), 56–60 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Mantel GD, Buchmann E, Rees H, Pattinson RC. Severe acute maternal morbidity: a pilot study of a definition for a near-miss. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.105(9), 985–990 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Roosmalen J, Zwart J. Severe acute maternal morbidity in high-income countries. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol.23(3), 297–304 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwart JJ, Richters JM, Ory F, de Vries JI, Bloemenkamp KW, van Roosmalen J. Severe maternal morbidity during pregnancy, delivery and puerperium in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based study of 371,000 pregnancies. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.115(7), 842–850 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Pallasmaa N, Ekblad U, Gissler M. Severe maternal morbidity and the mode of delivery. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.87(6), 662–668 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vadnais M, Sachs B. Maternal mortality with cesarean delivery: a literature review. Semin. Perinatol.30(5), 242–246 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee YM, D’Alton ME. Cesarean delivery on maternal request: the impact on mother and newborn. Clin. Perinatol.35(3), 505–518 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonsdottir G, Smarason AK, Geirsson RT, Bjarnadottir RI. No correlation between cesarean section rates and perinatal mortality of singleton infants over 2,500 g. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.88(5), 621–623 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen AK, Wisborg K, Uldbjerg N, Henriksen TB. Elective caesarean section and respiratory morbidity in the term and near-term neonate. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.86(4), 389–394 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith JF, Hernandez C, Wax JR. Fetal laceration injury at cesarean delivery. Obstet. Gynecol.90(3), 344–346 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ly NP, Ruiz-Perez B, Onderdonk AB et al. Mode of delivery and cord blood cytokines: a birth cohort study. Clin. Mol. Allergy4(13), 13 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maitra A, Sherriff A, Strachan D, Henderson J. Mode of delivery is not associated with asthma or atopy in childhood. Clin. Exp. Allergy34(9), 1349–1355 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thavagnanam S, Fleming J, Bromley A, Shields MD, Cardwell CR. A meta-analysis of the association between caesarean section and childhood asthma. Clin. Exp. Allergy38(4), 629–633 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tollanes MC, Moster D, Daltveit AK, Irgens LM. Cesarean section and risk of severe childhood asthma: a population-based cohort study. J. Pediatr.153(1), 112–116 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardwell CR, Stene LC, Joner G et al. caesarean section is associated with an increased risk of childhood-onset Type 1 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Diabetologia51(5), 726–735 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith GC, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet362(9398), 1779–1784 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahtiyar MO, Julien S, Robinson JN et al. Prior cesarean delivery is not associated with an increased risk of stillbirth in a subsequent pregnancy: analysis of U.S. perinatal mortality data, 1995–1997. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.195(5), 1373–1378 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood SL, Chen S, Ross S, Sauve R. The risk of unexplained antepartum stillbirth in second pregnancies following caesarean section in the first pregnancy. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.115(6), 726–731 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Hemminki E. Long term maternal health effects of caesarean section. J. Epidemiol. Community Health45(1), 24–28 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemminki E. Impact of caesarean section on future pregnancy – a review of cohort studies. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol.10(4), 366–379 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemminki E, Merilainen J. Long-term effects of cesarean sections: ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.174(5), 1569–1574 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armstrong CA, Harding S, Matthews T, Dickinson JE. Is placenta accreta catching up with us? Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.44(3), 210–213 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collin SM, Marshall T, Filippi V. Caesarean section and subsequent fertility in sub-Saharan Africa. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.113(3), 276–283 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Latthe P, Mignini L, Gray R, Hills R, Khan K. Factors predisposing women to chronic pelvic pain: systematic review. Br. Med. J.332(7544), 749–755 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmeyr GJ, Say L, Gulmezoglu AM. WHO systematic review of maternal mortality and morbidity: the prevalence of uterine rupture. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.112(9), 1221–1228 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Tegerstedt G, Miedel A, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyren O, Hammarstrom M. Obstetric risk factors for symptomatic prolapse: a population-based approach. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.194(1), 75–81 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson C, Kallen K, Andolf E. Cesarean section and risk of pelvic organ prolapse: a nested case–control study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.200(3), 243.e1–4 (2009).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hodnett ED et al. Outcomes at 3 months after planned cesarean vs planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. JAMA287(14), 1822–1831 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannah ME, Whyte H, Hannah WJ et al. Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.191(3), 917–927 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMatteo MR, Morton SC, Lepper HS et al. Cesarean childbirth and psychosocial outcomes: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol.15(4), 303–314 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter M, van Teijlingen E, Chi Ying Yip L, Bhattacharya S. Satisfaction with cesarean section: qualitative analysis of open-ended questions in a large postal survey. Birth34(2), 148–154 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosich-Medina A, Shetty A. Paternal experiences of pregnancy and labour. Br. J. Midwifery15(2) (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Lavender T, Hofmeyr GJ, Neilson JP, Kingdon C, Gyte GML. Caesarean section for non-medical reasons at term. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.3, CD004660 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• NIH State-of-the-Science Conference Statement on Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request. NIH Consens Sci Statements. 23(1), 1–29, 27–29 March 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Worley KC, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. The prognosis for spontaneous labor in women with uncomplicated term pregnancies: implications for cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet. Gynecol.113(4), 812–816 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poobalan AS, Aucott LS, Gurung T, Smith WC, Bhattacharya S. Obesity as an independent risk factor for elective and emergency caesarean delivery in nulliparous women – systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Obes. Rev.10(1), 28–35 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callaway LK, Prins JB, Chang AM, McIntyre HD. The prevalence and impact of overweight and obesity in an Australian obstetric population. Med. J. Aust.184(2), 56–59 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abenhaim HA, Kinch RA, Morin L, Benjamin A, Usher R. Effect of prepregnancy body mass index categories on obstetrical and neonatal outcomes. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet.275(1), 39–43 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cedergren MI. Maternal morbid obesity and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Obstet. Gynecol.103(2), 219–224 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doherty DA, Magann EF, Francis J, Morrison JC, Newnham JP. Pre-pregnancy body mass index and pregnancy outcomes. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet.95(3), 242–247 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaCoursiere DY, Bloebaum L, Duncan JD, Varner MW. Population-based trends and correlates of maternal overweight and obesity, Utah 1991–2001. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.192(3), 832–839 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nohr EA, Bech BH, Davies MJ, Frydenberg M, Henriksen TB, Olsen J. Prepregnancy obesity and fetal death: a study within the Danish National Birth Cohort. Obstet. Gynecol.106(2), 250–259 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sebire NJ, Jolly M, Harris JP et al. Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome: a study of 287,213 pregnancies in London. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord.25(8), 1175–1182 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Usha Kiran TS, Hemmadi S, Bethel J, Evans J. Outcome of pregnancy in a woman with an increased body mass index. BJOG112(6), 768–772 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith GC, Cordeaux Y, White IR et al. The effect of delaying childbirth on primary cesarean section rates. PLoS Med.5(7), e144 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cragin EB. Conservatism in obstetrics. NY Med. J.CIV(1) (1916).
   Google Scholar
• Pickhardt MG, Martin JN Jr, Meydrech EF et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: are there useful and valid predictors of success or failure? Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.166(6 Pt 1), 1811–1815; discussion 1815–1819 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. In: Caesarean Section – Clinical Guideline. Moody J (Ed.). RCOG Press, London, UK (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Flamm BL, Geiger AM. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: an admission scoring system. Obstet. Gynecol.90(6), 907–910 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMahon MJ. Vaginal birth after cesarean. Clin Obstet. Gynecol.41(2), 369–381 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S. Births: final data for 2004. Natl Vital Stat. Rep.55(1), 1–101 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• MicIlwaine G, Boutlon-Jones C, Cole S, Wilkinson C. Caesarean section in Scotland 1994: a national audit. Scottish Programme for Clinical Effectiveness in Reproductive Health (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Sachs BP, Kobelin C, Castro MA, Frigoletto F. The risks of lowering the cesarean-delivery rate. N. Engl. J. Med.340(1), 54–57 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hibbard JU, Ismail MA, Wang Y, Te C, Karrison T, Ismail MA. Failed vaginal birth after a cesarean section: how risky is it? I. Maternal morbidity. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.184(7), 1365–1371; discussion 1371–1373 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N. Engl. J. Med.345(1), 3–8 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Huertas E, Guise JM, Horey D. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.4, CD004224 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Boulvain M, Fraser WD, Brisson-Carroll G, Faron G, Wollast E. Trial of labour after caesarean section in sub-Saharan Africa: a meta-analysis. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.104(12), 1385–1390 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dodd JM, Crowther CA. Vaginal birth after caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean for women with a single prior caesarean birth: a systematic review of the literature. Aust. N. Z. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.44(5), 387–391 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guise JM, McDonagh MS, Hashima J et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Evid. Rep. Technol. Assess. (Summ.)71(71), 1–8 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Mozurkewich EL, Hutton EK. Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.183(5), 1187–1197 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen MG, Dickinson JC. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a meta-analysis of indicators for success. Obstet. Gynecol.76(5 Pt 1), 865–869 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen MG, Dickinson JC, Westhoff CL. Vaginal birth after cesarean: a meta-analysis of morbidity and mortality. Obstet. Gynecol.77(3), 465–470 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N. Engl. J. Med.351(25), 2581–2589 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet. Gynecol.24, 266–268 (1964).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calder AA, Embrey MP, Hillier K. Extra-amniotic prostaglandin E2 for the induction of labour at term. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Br. Commonw.81(1), 39–46 (1974).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Calder AA, Embrey MP. The management of labour. Proceedings of: The Third Study Group of RCOG. 62–69 (1975).
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie IZ, Embrey MP. The influence of pre-induction vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel upon subsequent labour. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.85(9), 657–661 (1978).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kelly AJ, Malik S, Smith L, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.4, CD003101 (2009).
   Google Scholar