Assessment of maternal and fetal outcome in trial of labor after cesarean

Sunita Kumari Beer, Jaya Chaudhary, Kalpana Tiwari, Sonam Choudhary


Background: Nowadays, cesarean sections are increasing consistently. Repeat cesarean sections are performed for a large percentage and associated with a higher rate of surgical complications and Long-term morbidities. The trial of labor after cesarean offers an alternative choice. This study carried out to assess the maternal and fetal outcome and to evaluate various parameters as a predictor of success of TOLAC.

Methods: This prospective observational study conducted on 150 pregnant women with one previous LSCS who delivered at Mahatma Gandhi hospital, from January 2017 to July 2018. Patient having a singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation, adequate pelvis size with spontaneous onset of labor were included. Cases were monitored carefully during the labor. Emergency LSCS was done if any indication appeared.

Results: 78% of cases delivered safely by the vaginal birth and 22% of cases had an emergency repeat cesarean section (EmRCS). Favorable Bishop Score, active stage of labor and prior vaginal delivery were associated with higher success rate. One (0.66%) case of uterine scar rupture and 2 (1.33%) cases of scar dehiscence noted. No maternal mortality observed. Perinatal mortality occurred in 2 cases (1.33%).

Conclusions: Present study shows that appropriate clinical settings and the properly selected group of patients can make the TOLAC safe and effective.


Emergency repeat cesarean section, Trial of labor after cesarean, Uterine scar rupture, Vaginal birth after cesarean

Full Text:



American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 184: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130:e217-33.

Dweik D, Girasek E, Mészáros G, Töreki A, Keresztúri A, Pál A. Non-medical determinants of cesarean section in a medically dominated maternity system. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014;93(10):1025-33.

“WHO” news release. Cesarean sections should only be performed when medically necessary. Geneva. 10 April 2015.

Chan A, Scott J, Nguyen A, Keane R. Pregnancy outcome in South Australia 2000. Adelaide: Pregnancy Outcome Unit, Department of Human Services; 2001.

Silver, RM, Landon, MB, Rouse, DJ; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network: Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1226-32.

RCOG. Birth After Previous Caesarean Birth. Green-top guideline 45. Oct 2015.

Zaitoun MM, Eldin SAN, Mohammad EY. A prediction score for safe and successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: a prospective controlled study. J Women’s Health Care. 2013;2:129.

Tater A, Garg S, Jawa A, Jain M. Safety and efficacy of a trial of labor after cesarean. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5:4335-8.

Haresh UD, Rohit KJ, Aarti AV. Prognostic factors for successful vaginal birth after cesarean section - Analysis of 162 cases. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2010;60:498-502.

Guise JM, Denman MA, Emeis C, Marshall N, Walker M, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:1267-72.

Bangal VB, Giri PA, Shinde KK, Gavhane SP. Vaginal birth after cesarean section. North Am J Med Sci. 2013;5(2):140-4.

Balachandran L, Vaswani PR, Mogotlane R. Pregnancy outcome in women with previous one cesarean section. JCDR. 2014;8(2):99-102.

Singh PS, Bamaniya J, Shah A. Factors predicting the success of trial of labor after cesarean in the current scenario. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5:3893-7.

Patel RM, Kansara VM, Patel SK, Anand N. Impact of FLAMM scoring on cesarean section rate in previous one lower segment cesarean section patient. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5:3820-3.

Li WH, Yang MJ, Wang PH, Juang CM, Chang YW, Wang HI, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: 10 years of experience in a tertiary medical center in Taiwan. Taiwanese J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55(3):394-8.