|
1
|
Osterman MJK: Recent trends in vaginal
birth after cesarean delivery: United States, 2016-2018. NCHS Data
Brief. 359:1–8. 2020.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
2
|
No authors listed. National institutes of
health consensus development conference statement: Vaginal birth
after cesarean: New insights March 8-10, 2010. Obstet Gynecol.
115:1279–1295. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
3
|
ACOG practice bulletin no. 205: Vaginal
birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 133:e110–e127.
2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
4
|
Sghaier W, Hergon E and Desroches A:
Global risk management. Transfus Clin Biol. 22:158–167.
2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar : (In French).
|
|
5
|
Schifrin BS and Cohen WR: The effect of
malpractice claims on the use of caesarean section. Best Pract Res
Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 27:269–283. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
6
|
Scholefield H: Safety in obstetric
critical care. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 22:965–982.
2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
7
|
Sambo F, Ferrazzi F and Bellazzi R:
12-probabilistic modelling with bayesian networks. In: Modelling
methodology for physiology and medicine. 2nd edition. Carson E and
Cobelli C (eds). Elsevier, Oxford, pp257-280, 2014.
|
|
8
|
Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY,
Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ, Varner MW, Moawad AH, Caritis SN, Harper M, et
al: National institute of child health and human development
(NICHD) maternal-fetal medicine units network (MFMU): Development
of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean
delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 109:806–812. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
9
|
Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY,
Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ, Varner MW, Moawad AH, Simhan HN, Harper M, et
al: Does information available at admission for delivery improve
prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean? Am J Perinatol.
26:693–701. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
10
|
Metz TD, Stoddard GJ, Henry E, Jackson M,
Holmgren C and Esplin S: Simple, validated vaginal birth after
cesarean delivery prediction model for use at the time of
admission. Obstet Gynecol. 122:571–578. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
11
|
Harris BS, Heine RP, Park J, Faurot KR,
Hopkins MK, Rivara AJ, Kemeny HR, Grotegut CA and Jelovsek JE: Are
prediction models for vaginal birth after cesarean accurate? Am J
Obstet Gynecol. 220(492)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
12
|
Cahill AG, Stamilio DM, Odibo AO, Peipert
JF, Ratcliffe SJ, Stevens EJ, Sammel MD and Macones GA: Is vaginal
birth after cesarean (VBAC) or elective repeat cesarean safer in
women with a prior vaginal delivery? Am J Obstet Gynecol.
195:1143–1147. 2006.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
13
|
Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, Spong CY,
Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ, Varner MW, Moawad AH, Caritis SN, Harper M, et
al: Eunice kennedy shriver national institute of child health and
human development maternal-fetal medicine units network: Can a
prediction model for vaginal birth after cesarean also predict the
probability of morbidity related to a trial of labor? Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 200(56)2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
14
|
Lipschuetz M, Guedalia J, Rottenstreich A,
Persky MN, Cohen SM, Kabiri D, Levin G, Yagel S, Unger R and
Sompolinsky Y: Prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean
deliveries using machine learning. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
222(613)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
15
|
Witteman CL, Renooij S and Koele P:
Medicine in words and numbers: A cross-sectional survey comparing
probability assessment scales. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak.
7(13)2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
16
|
Al-Zirqi I and Vangen S: Prelabour uterine
rupture: Characteristics and outcomes. BJOG. 127:1637–1644.
2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
17
|
Cecchini F, Tassi A, Londero AP, Baccarini
G, Driul L and Xodo S: First trimester uterine rupture: A case
report and literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health.
17(2976)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
18
|
Bradley LM, Addas JAK and Herath JC:
Maternal and fetal death at 22 weeks following uterine rupture at
the site of the placenta percreta in a C-section scar. Forensic Sci
Med Pathol. 15:658–662. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
19
|
Martel MJ and MacKinnon CJ: No.
155-guidelines for vaginal birth after previous caesarean birth. J
Obstet Gynaecol Can. 40:e195–e207. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
20
|
Sarwar I, Akram F, Khan A, Malik S, Islam
A and Khan K: Validity of transabdominal ultrasound scan in the
prediction of uterine scar thickness. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad.
32:68–72. 2020.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
21
|
Cegolon L, Mastrangelo G, Maso G, Dal
Pozzo G, Ronfani L, Cegolon A, Heymann WC and Barbone F:
Understanding factors leading to primary cesarean section and
vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in the friuli-venezia giulia
region (North-Eastern Italy), 2005-2015. Sci Rep.
10(380)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
22
|
Lehmann S, Baghestan E, Børdahl PE, Irgens
LM and Rasmussen S: Low risk pregnancies after a cesarean section:
Determinants of trial of labor and its failure. PLoS One.
15(e0226894)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
23
|
Tenore JL: Methods for cervical ripening
and induction of labor. Am Fam Physician. 67:2123–2128.
2003.PubMed/NCBI
|
|
24
|
Dy J, DeMeester S, Lipworth H and Barrett
J: No. 382-trial of labour after caesarean. J Obstet Gynaecol Can.
41:992–1011. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar : Erratum in: J Obstet
Gynaecol Can 42: 1452, 2020.
|
|
25
|
Wingert A, Hartling L, Sebastianski M,
Johnson C, Featherstone R, Vandermeer B and Wilson RD: Clinical
interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean delivery
rates: Systematic review & meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy
Childbirth. 19(529)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
26
|
Catling-Paull C, Johnston R, Ryan C,
Foureur MJ and Homer CS: Clinical interventions that increase the
uptake and success of vaginal birth after caesarean section: A
systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 67:1646–1661. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
27
|
West HM, Jozwiak M and Dodd JM: Methods of
term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 6(CD009792)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
28
|
Yap OW, Kim ES and Laros RK Jr: Maternal
and neonatal outcomes after uterine rupture in labor. Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 184:1576–1581. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
29
|
Leung AS, Farmer RM, Leung EK, Medearis AL
and Paul RH: Risk factors associated with uterine rupture during
trial of labor after cesarean delivery: A case-control study. Am J
Obstet Gynecol. 168:1358–1363. 1993.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
30
|
Ridgeway JJ, Weyrich DL and Benedetti TJ:
Fetal heart rate changes associated with uterine rupture. Obstet
Gynecol. 103:506–512. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
31
|
Guiliano M, Closset E, Therby D, LeGoueff
F, Deruelle P and Subtil D: Signs, symptoms and complications of
complete and partial uterine ruptures during pregnancy and
delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 179:130–134.
2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
32
|
Walsh CA and Baxi LV: Rupture of the
primigravid uterus: A review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol
Surv. 62:327–334. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
33
|
Attarde VY, Patil P, Chaudhari R, Zope N
and Apte A: Sonographic findings of uterine rupture with expulsion
of the fetus into broad ligament. J Clin Ultrasound. 37:50–52.
2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
34
|
Ozdemir I, Yucel N and Yucel O: Rupture of
the pregnant uterus: A 9-year review. Arch Gynecol Obstet.
272:229–231. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
35
|
Chibber R, El-Saleh E, Al Fadhi R, Al
Jassar W and Al Harmi A: Uterine rupture and subsequent pregnancy
outcome-how safe is it? A 25-year study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal
Med. 23:421–424. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
36
|
Trojano G, Damiani GR, Olivieri C, Villa
M, Malvasi A, Alfonso R, Loverro M and Cicinelli E: VBAC: Antenatal
predictors of success. Acta Biomed. 90:300–309. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
37
|
Flamm BL, Fried MW, Lonky NM and Giles WS:
External cephalic version after previous cesarean section. Am J
Obstet Gynecol. 165:370–372. 1991.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
38
|
Clock C, Kurtzman J, White J and Chung JH:
Cesarean risk after successful external cephalic version: A
matched, retrospective analysis. J Perinatol. 29:96–100.
2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
39
|
Sela HY, Fiegenberg T, Ben-Meir A,
Elchalal U and Ezra Y: Safety and efficacy of external cephalic
version for women with a previous cesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet
Gynecol Reprod Biol. 142:111–114. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
40
|
Impey ORE, Greenwood CEL and Impey LWM:
External cephalic version after previous cesarean section: A cohort
study of 100 consecutive attempts. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod
Biol. 231:210–213. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
41
|
urcan N, Bohiltea RE, Ionita-Radu F,
Furtunescu F, Navolan D, Berceanu C, Nemescu D and Cirstoiu MM:
Unfavorable influence of prematurity on the neonatal prognostic of
small for gestational age fetuses. Exp Ther Med. 20:2415–2422.
2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
42
|
Bohîlțea R, Furtunescu F, Turcan N,
Navolan D, Ducu I and Cîrstoiu M: Prematurity and intrauterine
growth restriction: Comparative analysis of incidence and short
term complication. Proceedings of SOGR 2018. In: Proceedings of the
17th National Congress of The Romanian Society of Obstetrics and
Gynecology 2018, pp708-712, 2019.
|
|
43
|
Kaya GK, Ward JR and Clarkson PJ: A
framework to support risk assessment in hospitals. Int J Qual
Health Care. 31:393–401. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
44
|
Thompson S, Neal S and Clark V: Clinical
risk management in obstetrics: Eclampsia drills. BMJ. 328:269–271.
2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
45
|
Klein VR: Risk management in obstetrics
and gynecology. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 62:550–559. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
46
|
Romano AM, Gerber H and Andrews D: Social
media, power, and the future of VBAC. J Perinat Educ. 19:43–52.
2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
47
|
Keedle H, Peters L, Schmied V, Burns E,
Keedle W and Dahlen HG: Women's experiences of planning a vaginal
birth after caesarean in different models of maternity care in
Australia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 20(381)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
48
|
Poprzeczny AJ, Stocking K, Showell M and
Duffy JMN: Patient decision aids to facilitate shared decision
making in obstetrics and gynecology: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 135:444–451. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
49
|
Faiz AS and Ananth CV: Etiology and risk
factors for placenta previa: An overview and meta-analysis of
observational studies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 13:175–190.
2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
|
50
|
Cresswell JA, Ronsmans C, Calvert C and
Filippi V: Prevalence of placenta praevia by world region: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Trop Med Int Health.
18:712–724. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
|
