The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Vaginal birth after Caesarean section: an Australian multicentre study
Abstract
SUMMARY: Retrospective analysis of medical records and individual case review was undertaken at 11 major obstetric hospitals for a 5 year period from July 1992 to June 1997 to investigate rates of vaginal birth after Caesarean section (VBAC), the occurrences of uterine rupture, and the outcomes for mother and infant following rupture. Total deliveries were 234,015, of which 21,452 or 9.2% were associated with one or more previous Caesarean sections. Within this scar group, 5419 patients or 25.3% were delivered vaginally. There were 62 cases of significant uterine rupture with no maternal deaths. Perinatal mortality with rupture was 25% and serious maternal complications (usually hysterectomy) occurred in 25% of those with uterine rupture. In women attempting vaginal delivery after a previous lower segment Caesarean section, the uterine rupture rate was estimated at 0.3%, with 0.05% experiencing a perinatal death and 0.05% requiring a hysterectomy. Although VBAC rates in Australia remain lower than many overseas reported series, rates are increasing. While rupture continues to be associated with serious adverse outcomes, the incidence of rupture during trial of labour is low and appears to be associated with a better outcome than rupture of an unscarred uterus.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“the success rate for spontaneous vaginal delivery is 60–80%.”
From Preference and determinants of delivery mode in pregnant women with one cesarean scar: a cross-sectional study in two urban Ugandan public hospitals (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
Citations
Cites
Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery Versus Trial of Labor
Flamm, B. L., Goings, J. R., LIU, Y., & Wolde-Tsadik, G. (1994) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/00006250-199406000-00005 · Cited by 239
Phelan, J. P., Clark, S. L., Diaz, F., & Paul, R. H. (1987) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(87)80252-1 · Cited by 198
Vaginal birth after cesarean section: Results of a multicenter study
Flamm, B. L., Lim, O. W., Jones, C., Fallon, D., Newman, L. A., & Mantis, J. K. (1988) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/0002-9378(88)90224-4 · Cited by 136
Mandatory trial of labor after cesarean delivery: an alternative viewpoint.
Scott (1991) · PubMed · Cited by 90
Rupture of low transverse cesarean scars during trial of labor.
Jones, R., Nagashima, A., Hartnett-Goodman, M. M., & Goodlin, R. C. (1991) · PubMed · Cited by 89
Labor After Prior Cesarean Section
Pridjian, G. C. (1992) · Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/00003081-199209000-00004 · Cited by 48
Vaginal birth after cesarean or repeat cesarean section: Medical risks or social realities?
Kirk, E. P., Doyle, K. A., Leigh, J., & Garrard, M. L. (1990) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/0002-9378(90)90898-h · Cited by 45
Vaginal birth after cesarean section: The impact of patient resistance to a trial of labor
Joseph, G. F., Stedman, C. M., & Robichaux, A. G. (1991) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/0002-9378(91)91422-s · Cited by 44
Mandatory trial of labor after cesarean delivery: an alternative viewpoint.
Gleicher, N. (1991) · PubMed · Cited by 43
Delivery after one previous cesarean section
Turner, M. J. (1997) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(97)70596-9 · Cited by 38
Vaginal Delivery After Caesarean Section
Miller, M., & Leader, L. R. (2008) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1479-828x.1992.tb01949.x · Cited by 34
Symptoms and Signs with Scar Rupture - Value of Uterine Activity Measurements
Arulkumaran, S., Chua, S., & Ratnam, S. S. (2008) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1479-828x.1992.tb01948.x · Cited by 32
Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Delivery: Results in 310 Pregnancies
Obara, H., Minakami, H., Koike, T., Takamizawa, S., Matsubar, S., & Sato, I. (1998) · Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · doi:10.1111/j.1447-0756.1998.tb00063.x · Cited by 31
Delivery Following Cesarean Section and Perinatal Mortality
Meehan, F. P., Burke, G., Casey, C., & Sheil, J. (1989) · American Journal of Perinatology · doi:10.1055/s-2007-999554 · Cited by 19
Videla, F. L., Satin, A. J., Barth, W. H., & Hankins, G. (1995) · American Journal of Perinatology · doi:10.1055/s-2007-994447 · Cited by 16
Caesarean Section and Trial of Scar
Targett, C. S. (1988) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1479-828x.1988.tb01677.x · Cited by 15
Self-citationObstetric Outcome after One Previous Ceasarean Section
Perveen, F., & Shah, Q. (1997) · Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · doi:10.1111/j.1447-0756.1997.tb00855.x · Cited by 10
Cited by
Hofmeyr, G. J., Say, L., & Gülmezoglu, A. M. (2005) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00725.x · Cited by 386
Rietberg, C. C. T., Elferink‐Stinkens, P. M., & Visser, G. H. A. (2005) · BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00317.x · Cited by 267
Shorten, A., Shorten, B., Keogh, J., West, S., & Morris, J. M. (2005) · Birth · doi:10.1111/j.0730-7659.2005.00383.x · Cited by 180
Dodd, J. M., Crowther, C. A., Huertas, E., Guise, J., & Horey, D. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004224.pub3 · Cited by 174
Risks of Adverse Outcomes in the Next Birth After a First Cesarean Delivery
Kennare, R., Tucker, G., Heard, A., & Chan, A. (2007) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000250469.23047.73 · Cited by 153
Metadata
- Authors
- Appleton, B., Targett, C., Rasmussen, M., Readman, E., Sale, F., Permezel, M., & the VBAC Study Group
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Rasmussen, Michael
- Venue
- Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-02
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 87-91
- ISSN
- 0004-8666 (ISSN-L)
- 1479-828X
- OpenAlex
- W1995644108
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 5.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Health and Medical Research Council
- National Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Maternal and fetal healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
- Keywords
- vaginal birth after cesarean, uterine rupture, previous cesarean section, lower segment caesarean section, perinatal mortality, hysterectomy, trial of labor, maternal outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Australia, Female, Humans, Medical Records, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Retrospective Studies, Uterine Rupture, Vaginal Birth after Cesarean
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.