Re: Je tady někdo, komu praskla děloha?

Read and think about the fact, that most of this studies work with only one previous C-section and that succes is going hand by hand with at least 1 previus spontaneous labour. No easy to find study on 3 or more previous cesarean.
Sorry, don´t have time to translate...

Rupture of the scarred uterus.
Grossetti E, Vardon D, Creveuil C, Herlicoviez M, Dreyfus M.
To assess the risk of uterine rupture of the scarred uterus according to mode of delivery in subsequent births recorded as spontaneous labour, labour induced by oxytocin, labour after ripening with prostaglandin E2, and planned cesarean section.
METHODS:
Retrospective study of 2,128 births with a low transversal scar after a previous cesarean section. The study population was realised in a level III university hospital from 1995 to 2003. The association between mode of delivery and uterine rupture was studied in a multivariate logistic regression model, and adjusted for specific antenatal confounding factors.
RESULTS:
Over 9 years, we collected 22 cases (1%), including 11 asymptomatic ruptures in a population of 2,128 scarred uteri out of 28,248 deliveries. Uterine rupture occurred at a rate of 0.3 per 100 among women with repeated cesarean delivery without labour, 1 per 100 among women with spontaneous onset of labour, 1.4 per 100 among women with oxytocin-induced labour, and 2.2 per 100 among women with prostaglandin cervical ripening. Compared to women with a planned cesarean section, women with spontaneous onset of labour were more likely to have uterine rupture (OR: 4.0; 95% CI: 0.8-42.0). A greater relative risk was observed among women with oxytocin-induced labour (OR: 4.3; 95% CI: 0.3-60.0), and particularly those with prostaglandin-induced labour (OR: 8.7; 95% CI: 1.5-97.3, p=0.01).
CONCLUSION:
In women with a scarred uterus, prostaglandin E2 induction of labour is a risk factor for uterine rupture. The practice of a systematic cesarean section in cases with Bishop score<3, appropriate induction procedure, and rigorous monitoring of the labour, could make for a safer delivery.

Predicting uterine rupture in women undergoing trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery.
Landon MB.
Source
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. Mark.Landon@osumc.edu
Uterine rupture is the most serious complication for women undergoing trial of labor (TOL) after prior cesarean delivery. While rates of uterine rupture vary significantly according to a variety of clinically associated risk factors, the absolute risk for this complication ranges between 0.5 and 4 percent. Previous vaginal delivery and prior successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery confer the lowest risk of rupture on women attempting TOL. In contrast, multiple prior cesareans, short interpregnancy interval, single layer uterine closure, prior preterm cesarean, labor induction and augmentation have all been suggested in some studies as factors which may increase the rate of uterine rupture. While considering these risk factors is important in counseling women regarding childbirth following cesarean delivery, the infrequency of uterine rupture coupled with relatively weak associations for most risk factors has prevented the development of an accurate prediction tool for uterine rupture. Preliminary studies suggest that sonographic evaluation of the uterine scar may hold some promise for identifying women at risk.

Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2010 Mar;(191):1-397.
Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights.
Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, Denman MA, Marshall N, Fu RR, Janik R, Nygren P, Walker M, McDonagh M.
OBJECTIVES:
To synthesize the published literature on vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Specifically, to review the trends and incidence of VBAC, maternal benefits and harms, infant benefits and harms, relevant factors influencing each, and the directions for future research.
DATA SOURCES:

Relevant studies were identified from multiple searches of MEDLINE; DARE; the Cochrane databases (1966 to September 2009); and from recent systematic reviews, reference lists, reviews, editorials, Web sites, and experts.
REVIEW METHODS:
Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed to determine study eligibility. The target population includes healthy women of reproductive age, with a singleton gestation, in the U.S. with a prior cesarean who are eligible for a trial of labor (TOL) or elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD). All eligible studies were quality rated and data were extracted from good or fair quality studies, entered into tables, summarized descriptively and, when appropriate, pooled for analysis. The primary focus of the report was term pregnancies. However, due to a small number of studies on term pregnancies, general population studies including all gestational ages (GA) were included in appropriate areas.
RESULTS:
We identified 3,134 citations and reviewed 963 papers for inclusion, of which 203 papers met inclusion and were quality rated. Studies of maternal and infant outcomes reported data based upon actual rather than intended router of delivery. The range for TOL and VBAC rates was large (28-82 percent and 49-87 percent, respectively) with the highest rates being reported in studies outside of the U.S. Predictors of women having a TOL were having a prior vaginal delivery and settings of higher-level care (e.g., tertiary care centers). TOL rates in U.S. studies declined in studies initiated after 1996 from 63 to 47 percent, but the VBAC rate remained unimproved. Hispanic and African American women were less likely than their white counterparts to have a vaginal delivery. Overall rates of maternal harms were low for both TOL and ERCD. While rare for both TOL and ERCD, maternal mortality was significantly increased for ERCD at 13.4 per 100,000 versus 3.8 per 100,000 for TOL. The rates of maternal hysterectomy, hemorrhage, and transfusions did not differ significantly between TOL and ERCD. The rate of uterine rupture for all women with prior cesarean is 3 per 1,000 and the risk was significantly increased with TOL (4.7/1,000 versus 0.3/1,000 ERCD). Six percent of uterine ruptures were associated with perinatal death. No models have been able to accurately predict women who are more likely to deliver by VBAC or to rupture. Women with one prior cesarean delivery and previa had a statistically significant increased risk of adverse events compared with previa patients without a prior cesarean delivery; blood transfusion (15 versus 32.2 percent), hysterectomy (0.7 to 4 percent versus 10 percent), and composite maternal morbidity (15 versus 23-30 percent). Perinatal mortality was significantly increased for TOL at 1.3 per 1,000 versus 0.5 per 1,000 for ERCD. Insufficient data were found on nonmedical factors such as medical liability, economics, hospital staffing, structure and setting, which all appear to be important drivers for VBAC.
CONCLUSIONS:
Each year 1.5 million childbearing women have cesarean deliveries, and this population continues to increase. This report adds stronger evidence that VBAC is a reasonable and safe choice for the majority of women with prior cesarean. Moreover, there is emerging evidence of serious harms relating to multiple cesareans. Relatively unexamined contextual factors such as medical liability, economics, hospital structure, and staffing may need to be addressed to prioritize VBAC services. There is still no evidence to inform patients, clinicians, or policymakers about the outcomes of intended route of delivery because the evidence is based largely on the actual route of delivery. This inception cohort is the equivalent of intention to treat for randomized controlled trials and this gap in information is critical. A list of future research considerations as prioritized by national experts is also highlighted in this report.

Prim Care Update Ob Gyns. 1998 Jul 1;5(4):188.
Elective repeat cesarean delivery vs trial of labor: a comparison of morbidities in a community hospital setting.
Scott TD, Flora R, Deveny TC.
Source
Summa Health Systems/Akron City Hospital, Ohio, Akron, USA
Abstract
Objective: In an attempt to reduce the cesarean delivery rate nationally, many obstetricians are offering a trial of labor to their patients who have had a prior low transverse cesarean delivery. Many studies have demonstrated the success and safety of a vaginal birth after cesarean. However, few studies have actually compared elective repeat cesareans with a trial of labor. Recent articles suggest that the morbidities associated with a failed trial of labor (TOL) may be more serious than that associated with an elective repeat cesarean delivery (RC/D). Our objective was to review and compare the morbidities and complications of repeat elective cesarean delivery versus patients attempting a trial of labor in our institution.Methods and Materials: A retrospective or nonconcurrent cohort study was conducted. Inclusion criteria included all women at our institution who had delivered from July 1993 through March 1997 and had a prior cesarean delivery. Patients were eligible for a trial of labor according to the recommendations of ACOG Practice Patterns. Exclusion criteria were nonvertex presentation, prior classical or T-incision, placenta previa, previous myomectomy, or multiple gestation. The patients were divided into those who underwent an elective repeat delivery and those who consented to a trial of labor. Outcomes studied included major complications (uterine rupture or operative injury) and minor complications (puerperal fever, postpartum hemorrhage requiring transfusion or operative intervention, or abdominal wound infection). Data were ascertained from medical records, the delivery log book, and the Quality Improvement data base. Prior to performing this study, a power analysis was conducted using an alpha of 0.05 and beta of 0.20. The required number in each arm was 2,280 to determine a 50% difference in outcome.Results: There were 1,148 women who had a repeat cesarean delivery during the study time period. Of that, 174 were excluded by the criteria, leaving 973 eligible. There were 1,030 women who underwent a trial of labor. Seven hundred seventy-three women successfully delivered vaginally (75%). The overall maternal morbidity was 2.4%; 0.8% had a major complication and 1.5% had a minor complication. The total complication rate was similar for both the trial of labor group (TOL) and the elective repeat cesarean delivery group (RC/D): 2.33% and 2.57%, respectively. However, major complications were more frequent among those that attempted a trial of labor than those who underwent an elective repeat cesarean delivery; 1.65% versus 0.1% (relative risk 16.08 with a 95% CI of 2.14-120.57; P =.00024). The relative risk for minor complications in the TOL group compared to the RC/D group was 0.28 with a 95% CI 0.12-0.64 (P =.001). Stratified analysis of the TOL group was performed. Compared to the RC/D group, those who failed VBAC had a relative risk for major complications of 56.85 using a 95% CI of 7.45-428.37. The successful VBAC group did not have statistically higher major complication rate (RR = 2.52, CI 0.23-27.74, P =.4).Conclusions: At our institution, there is a trend that major maternal complications are more frequent among those who have a trial of labor compared to those who have an elective repeat cesarean delivery. This trend was even more evident in those who failed a VBAC trial. When VBAC was successful, complications did not seem to be higher than repeat cesarean delivery. Our study did not have the power because of insufficient numbers in each arm. However, data collection is continuing to achieve the power to this study. This prompted us to reconsider the safety for a trial of labor. Perhaps more stringent criteria for selection of VBAC candidates and determination of when a trial of labor should be abandoned need to be defined. Ongoing study is warranted in this area.


Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Jun;184(7):1365-71; discussion 1371-3.
Failed vaginal birth after a cesarean section: how risky is it? I. Maternal morbidity.
Hibbard JU, Ismail MA, Wang Y, Te C, Karrison T, Ismail MA.
Source
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Section of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, University of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine, Illinois, USA.
OBJECTIVE:
Our purpose was to determine the maternal risks associated with failed attempt at vaginal birth after cesarean compared with elective repeat cesarean delivery or successful vaginal birth after cesarean.
STUDY DESIGN:
From 1989 to 1998 all patients attempting vaginal birth after cesarean and all patients undergoing repeat cesarean deliveries were reviewed. Data were extracted from a computerized obstetric database and from medical charts. The following three groups were defined: women who had successful vaginal birth after cesarean, women who had failed vaginal birth after cesarean, and women who underwent elective repeat cesarean. Criteria for the elective repeat cesarean group included no more than two previous low transverse or vertical incisions, fetus in cephalic or breech presentation, no previous uterine surgery, no active herpes, and adequate pelvis. Predictor variables included age, parity, type and number of previous incisions, reasons for repeat cesarean delivery, gestational age, and infant weight. Outcome variables included uterine rupture or dehiscence, hemorrhage >1000 mL, hemorrhage >2000 mL, need for transfusion, chorioamnionitis, endometritis, and length of hospital stay. The Student t test and the chi(2) test were used to compare categoric variables and means; maternal complications and factors associated with successful vaginal birth after cesarean were analyzed with multivariate logistic regression, allowing odds ratios, adjusted odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and P values to be calculated.
RESULTS:
A total of 29,255 patients were delivered during the study period, with 2450 having previously had cesarean delivery. Repeat cesarean deliveries were performed in 1461 women (5.0%), and 989 successful vaginal births after cesarean delivery occurred (3.4%). Charts were reviewed for 97.6% of all women who underwent repeat cesarean delivery and for 93% of all women who had vaginal birth after cesarean. Vaginal birth after cesarean was attempted by 1344 patients or 75% of all appropriate candidates. Vaginal birth after cesarean was successful in 921 women (69%) and unsuccessful in 424 women. Four hundred fifty-one patients undergoing cesarean delivery were deemed appropriate for vaginal birth after cesarean. Multiple gestations were excluded from analysis. Final groups included 431 repeat cesarean deliveries and 1324 attempted vaginal births after cesarean; in the latter group 908 were successful and 416 failed. The overall rate of uterine disruption was 1.1% of all women attempting labor; the rate of true rupture was 0.8%; and the rate of hysterectomy was 0.5%. Blood loss was lower (odds ratio, 0.5%; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-0.9) and chorioamnionitis was higher (odds ratio, 3.8%; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-6.4) in women who attempted vaginal births after cesarean. Compared with women who had successful vaginal births after cesarean, women who experienced failed vaginal births after cesarean had a rate of uterine rupture that was 8.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.9-42) higher, a rate of transfusion that was 3.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.1-13.3) higher, a rate of chorioamnionitis that was 1.5% (95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.1) higher, and a rate of endometritis that was 6.4% (95% confidence interval, 4.1-9.8) higher.
CONCLUSION:
Patients who experience failed vaginal birth after cesarean have higher risks of uterine disruption and infectious morbidity compared with patients who have successful vaginal birth after cesarean or elective repeat cesarean delivery. Because actual numbers of morbid events are small, caution should be exercised in interpreting results and counseling patients. More accurate prediction for safe, successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery is needed.