Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Sep 6;90(3):300-309.
doi: 10.23750/abm.v90i3.7623.

VBAC: antenatal predictors of success

Affiliations
Review

VBAC: antenatal predictors of success

Giuseppe Trojano et al. Acta Biomed. .

Abstract

To determine antenatal factors that may predict successful vaginal birth after Caesarean section (VBAC), to develop a relevant antenatal scoring system and a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after caesarean delivery. A non recurring indication for previous Caesarean section (CS), such as breech presentation or foetal distress, is associated with a much higher successful VBAC rate than recurrent indications, such as cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD). Prior vaginal deliveries are excellent prognostic indicators of successful VBAC, especially if the vaginal delivery follows the prior CS. A low vertical uterine incision does not seem to adversely affect VBAC success rates as compared to a low transverse incision. Maternal obesity and diabetes mellitus adversely affect VBAC outcomes. Foetal macrosomia does not appear to be a contraindication to VBAC, as success rates exceeding 50% are achieved and uterine rupture rates are not increased. An inter-pregnancy interval of <24 months is not associated with a decreased success of VBAC. Success rates decrease when interval increases. Twin gestation does not preclude VBAC. Post-dates pregnancies may deliver successfully by VBAC in greater than two-thirds of cases. There are few absolute contraindications to attempted VBAC. Attempted VBAC will be successful in the majority of attempted cases.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Each author declares that he or she has no commercial associations (e.g. consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangement etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Caesarean childbirth. Summary of an NIH consensus statement. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981 May 16;282(6276):1600–4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Birth after Previous Caesarean Birth. Green-top Guideline No. 45. 2015
    1. Trojano G, Vignali M, Busacca M, et al. The timing of elective caesarean delivery at term in lombardy: A comparison of 2010 and 2014. Ital J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;28(2):48–51.
    1. Hoskins IA, Gomez JL. Correlation between maximum cervical dilatation at caesarean delivery and subsequent vaginal birth after caesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):591–3. - PubMed
    1. Shipp TD, Zelop CM, Repke JT, et al. Labour after previous caesarean: influence of prior indication and party. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:913–6. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources