Referencias Bibliográficas

1. Tognon F, Borghero A, Putoto G, Maziku D, Torelli GF, Azzimonti G, et al. Analysis of caesarean section and neonatal outcome using the Robson classification in a rural district hospital in Tanzania: an observational retrospective study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e033348. doi: 10.1136/bmjop-en-2019-033348 [ Links ]

2. Abdo AA, Hinderaker SG, Tekle AG, Lindtjørn B. Caesarean section rates analysed using Robson's 10-Group Classification System: a cross-sectional study at a tertiary hospital in Ethiopia. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):e039098. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039098 [ Links ]

3. Medeiros MQ, Lima PHM, Augusto CLC, Viana BJA, Pinheiro BAK, Peixoto AB, et al. Comparison of obstetrical interventions in women with vaginal and cesarean section delivered: cross-sectional study in a reference tertiary center in the Northeast of Brazil. Ceska Gynekol. 2019;84(3):201-7. [ Links ]

4. Rose A, Raja EA, Bhattacharya S, Black M. Intervention thresholds and cesarean section rates: A time-trends analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97(10):1257-66. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13409 [ Links ]

5. Ogunyemi D, McGlynn S, Ronk A, Knudsen P, Andrews-Johnson T, Raczkiewicz A, et al. Using a multifaceted quality improvement initiative to reverse the rising trend of cesarean births. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(5):567-79. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1292244 [ Links ]

6. Rudzinski P, Lopuszynska I, Pieniak K, Stelmach D, Kacperczyk-Bartnik J, Romejko-Wolniewicz E. Feeding practices, maternal and neonatal outcomes in vaginal birth after cesarean and elective repeat cesarean delivery. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(13):7696. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19137696 [ Links ]

7. Dalvi SA. Difficult deliveries in cesarean section. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2018;68(5):344-8. doi: 10.1007/s13224-017-1052-x [ Links ]

8. Gupta N, De A, Batra S. VBAC: Changes over Last 10 Years. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2019;69(2):110-4. doi: 10.1007/s13224-018-1101-0 [ Links ]

9. Maroyi R, Naomi B, Moureau MK, Marceline BS, Ingersoll C, Nerville R, et al. Factors associated with successful vaginal birth after a primary cesarean section in women with an optimal inter-delivery interval. Int J Womens Health. 2021;13:903-9. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S334269 [ Links ]

10. Rosman AN, van Dillen J, Zwart J, Overtoom E, Schaap T, Bloemenkamp K, van den Akker T. Lessons learned from the perinatal audit of uterine rupture in the Netherlands: A mixed-method study. Health Sci Rep. 2022;5(5):e664. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.664 [ Links ]

11. Németh G, Molnár A. Vaginal birth after cesarean section in light of international opinions. Orv Hetil. 2017;158(30):116874. doi: 10.1556/650.2017.30810 [ Links ]

12. Basile Ibrahim B, Kennedy HP, Holland ML. Demographic, socioeconomic, health systems, and geographic factors associated with vaginal birth after cesarean: An analysis of 2017 U.S. birth certificate data. Matern Child Health J. 2021;25(7):1069-80. doi: 10.1007/s10995-020-03066-3 [ Links ]

13. Dereje L, Tilahun T, Markos J. Determinants of successful trial of labor after a previous cesarean delivery in East Wollega, Western Ethiopia: A case-control study. SAGE Open Med. 2022;10:20503121221097597. doi: 10.1177/20503121221097597 [ Links ]

14. Bjellmo S, Andersen GL, Hjelle S, Klungsøyr K, Krebs L, Lydersen S, Romundstad PR, Vik T. Does caesarean delivery in the first pregnancy increase the risk for adverse outcome in the second? A registry-based cohort study on first and second singleton births in Norway. BMJ Open. 2020;10(8):e037717. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037717 [ Links ]

15. Warren JB, Hamilton A. Clinical Inquiry: What's the best way to predict the success of a trial of labor after a previous C-section? J Fam Pract. 2015;64(12):E3-7. [ Links ]

16. Wu Y, Kataria Y, Wang Z, Ming WK, Ellervik C. Factors associated with successful vaginal birth after a cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):360. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2517-y [ Links ]

17. Barbounaki S, Gourounti K, Sarantaki A. Vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) model using fuzzy analytic hierarch process. Acta Inform Med. 2021;29(4):275-80. doi: 10.5455/aim.2021.29.275-280 [ Links ]

18. Nahum-Yerushalmy A, Walfisch A, Lipschuetz M, Rosenbloom JI, Kabiri D, Hochler H. Uterine rupture risk in a trial of labor after cesarean section with and without previous vaginal births. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022;305(6):1633-9. doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06368-1 [ Links ]

19. Gobillot S, Ghenassia A, Coston AL, Gillois P, Equy V, Michy T, Hoffmann P. Obstetric outcomes associated with induction of labour after caesarean section. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018;47(10):539-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2018.09.006 [ Links ]

20. Zhan W, Zhu J, Hua X, Ye J, Chen Q, Zhang J. Epidemiology of uterine rupture among pregnant women in China and development of a risk prediction model: analysis of data from a multicentre, cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2021;11(11):e054540. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054540 [ Links ]

21. Ayenew AA, Zewdu BF. Partograph utilization as a decision-making tool and associated factors among obstetric care providers in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2020;9(1):251. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01505-4 [ Links ]

22. Wilson RD, Caughey AB, Wood SL, Macones GA, Wrench IJ, Huang J, et al. Guidelines for antenatal and preoperative care in cesarean delivery: enhanced recovery after surgery society recommendations (Part 1). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(6):523.e1-523.e15. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.015 [ Links ]

23. Vigorito R, Montemagno R, Saccone G, De Stefano R. Obstetric outcome associated with trial of labor in women with three prior cesarean delivery and at least one prior vaginal birth in an area with a particularly high rate of cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(22):3741-3. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2016.1142968 [ Links ]

24. Fobelets M, Beeckman K, Faron G, Daly D, Begley C, Putman K. Vaginal birth after caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery after one previous caesarean section: a cost-effectiveness analysis in four European countries. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12884018-1720-6 [ Links ]

25. Salman L, Hiersch L, Shmueli A, Krispin E, Wiznitzer A, Gabbay-Benziv R. Complicated primary cesarean delivery increases the risk for uterine rupture at subsequent trial of labor after cesarean. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298(2):2737. doi: 10.1007/s00404-018-4801-x [ Links ]

26. Kumari N, Jain N, Dhar RSG. Effect of a locally tailored clinical pathway tool on VBAC outcomes in a private hospital in India. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2021;71(3):246-53. doi: 10.1007/s13224-021-01446-5 [ Links ]

27. Tesema O, Tilahun T, Kejela G. Determinants of uterine rupture at public hospitals of western Ethiopia: A case-control study. SAGE Open Med. 2022;10:20503121221092643. doi: 10.1177/20503121221092643 [ Links ]

28. Siddiqui SA. Obstetric factors for unsuccessful trial of labor in second-order birth following previous cesarean. Ann Saudi Med. 2013;33(4):356-62. doi: 10.5144/02564947.2013.356 [ Links ]