Category Archives: Infant Outcomes

"I donated my wedding dress to be made into Gowns for deceased infants to be buried in. I had pictures done in my dress before I donated it. This is one of my favorites." - Kaila Flory

When you are the statistic: Uterine rupture loss

Above: “I donated my wedding dress to be made into gowns for deceased infants to be buried in. I had pictures done in my dress before I donated it. This is one of my favorites.” – Kaila Flory

Kaila Flory lost her baby to a uterine rupture eight months ago. She recently reached out to me and gave me permission to share her story and pictures of her son Beau.  She is currently raising money to purchase Cuddle Cots in Beau’s memory. Cuddle Cots are refrigerated bassinets that enable loss parents to spend more time with their child. While t-shirt sales end on April 22, 2016 at midnight EST, you can donate anytime. Even just $10 will get her closer to her goal. Buy a t-shirt and/or donate here.  Connect with her Facebook page here

Women who have had uterine ruptures and lost their babies have endured some of our greatest fears. But they are part of our community as well. When the VBAC Facts Community, a Facebook group, was open to the public, we welcomed and embraced the parents who joined us after their loss. Often they felt like they were no longer part of the birth community. They didn’t know where they fit in. They felt isolated and yet they wanted to share their story. We had many loss moms as members and many parents who were planning VBACs wanted to hear their stories.

What follows is Kaila’s story.

Kaila’s Flory’s first son was born by cesarean after being induced for intrauterine growth restriction. When she was 38 weeks and a few days pregnant with her second son, 26-year-old Kaila started having cramps around 1 a.m. “Luckily I had stayed with my dad, so I was not alone with my 3 year old. My husband was at Basic Training. Then a contraction came. Ok, I thought, this is real. It’s time. Then another came. It had only been like a minute or 2. Then severe pain came over my abdomen, and my face and limbs went numb.”

Her father called the paramedics and she was rushed to the hospital, where a STAT c-section was ordered. She nearly bled to death.


“This is the only photo I have of myself holding him. I requested people to not take my photo, but I am so glad my best friend took this with her phone. THIS is what raw, real pain looks like. This is why I want people to have Infant Loss Awareness.”

She says:

While I wholeheartedly believe that women should be given the option for VBACs, I also believe women need to consider their child’s health as the most important in this situation. I would have loved to have 3 weeks of pain just to have my son in my arms. I know it is not my fault, and that they do not, normally, schedule a c-section until 39 weeks, but part of me still feels guilty.

When Kaila contacted me, my heart broke. I emailed her back:


Thank you so much for sharing your story with me and I am so sorry about your loss.

I want you to know that I hear you. I really hear you.

I talk quite a bit about how these small numbers represent real women and real babies and it doesn’t matter how small the risk is, if it happens to you, if you are that number, it’s devastating.

The difficulty is that there are serious risks both ways. With VBAC, we have uterine rupture. With repeat cesareans, we have accreta.

Accreta results in more maternal deaths, more maternal complications and comparable infant deaths and complications to uterine rupture. Accreta requires a more sophisticated response of which many hospitals are unable to offer which results in more deaths and complications. Many women are never told about the risks of accreta which prohibits them from making an informed decision. [View my sources and read more about accreta here.]

I discuss uterine rupture and accreta extensively in my workshops including how often it happens, variables that can impact the rate, and outcomes for mother and baby because there is so much confusion about where the risk lies and what could happen.

The other difficulty is that no can predict how an individual birth will play out. Will you be the one to have a uterine rupture? An accreta? And in either of these situations, will you be the one to lose your baby? Or will you have a safe VBAC or repeat cesarean with a healthy mom and baby? There are no guarantees in life and no crystal balls.

Some women who lose their babies to uterine rupture say, “Don’t plan VBACs.”

Some women who lose their babies to accreta say, “I wish I had access to VBAC.”

So the question is, if there are serious complications either way, who should make the decision on how to birth?

It always comes down to the mother.

Given the small chance of a bad outcome, women should have the option to decide what set of risks and benefits are tolerable to them. They should not be forced into cesareans or mislead into VBACs. This needs to be their decision based on information. Part of the reason why I started VBAC Facts is that I, as a consumer, wanted more information and it wasn’t easy for me to find.

To bring it full circle, I hear you.

Have you had the opportunity to connect with other loss moms? I have compiled a resource page here.

I know it may ring hollow, but you are not to blame. Sometimes things happen that we cannot predict and that are outside of our control and I’m so very sorry you were the statistic.

I’ll keep you in my heart Kaila. <3



Kaila replied:

I will be honest with you, my doctor did not mention accreta once. Wow that is scary too. 🙁 I don’t wish that or a rupture on anyone. Thank you so much for responding to me. And thank you for advising women on what to do after a C-section. If you ever want to use my story, please let me know. I would be happy to share it for statistic purposes. Thanks so much! 🙂

So I’m sharing Kaila’s story today. As I said in my email to her, I talk about the risks of uterine rupture and accreta in my workshops because they are both real risks on either side of the equation. Sadly, a small number of people will experience this reality, and they deserve our support and compassion.

I do hope you will support Kaila’s Cuddle Cots fundraiser. Even just $10 will get her closer to her goal. Donate here. Connect with her Facebook page here.

Learn more about Infant Loss Awareness here.

The best compilation of VBAC/ERCS research to date

“There is a major misperception that TOLAC [trial of labor after cesarean] is extremely risky” – Mona Lydon-Rochelle PhD, MPH, MS, CNM, March 2010

In terms of VBAC, “your risk is really, really quite low” – George Macones MD, MSCE, March 2010

Both Drs. Macones and Lyndon-Rochelle are medical professionals and researchers who made these statements at the 2010 NIH [National Institutes of Health] VBAC Conference. Now you may think, “Wait a sec. Everything I’ve heard from my family, friends, and medical provider is how risky VBAC is and how cesareans are the conservative, prudent, and safest choice.” Why the discrepancy between the statements of these two prominent care provider researchers and the conventional wisdom prevalent in America?

It’s likely that your family, friends, and even your medical provider are not familiar with the latest and best compilation of VBAC research that was released in March 2010. It’s also possible that they are not familiar with the latest VBAC recommendations published in July 2010 by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Additionally, there are often legal and non-medical factors at play that influence how care providers counsel women on VBAC, including pressure from hospital administrators.

When I come across any VBAC study, I always wonder if it made the cut to be included in the 400 page Guise 2010 Evidence Report that was the basis for the 2010 NIH VBAC Conference. Guise 2010 reviewed each published VBAC study, performed a quality assessment, and assembled an excellent review of the VBAC literature to date:

Quality assessment is an assessment of a study’s internal validity (the study’s ability to measure what it intends to measure). If a study is not conducted properly, the results that they produce are unlikely to represent the truth and thus are worthless (the old adage garbage in garbage out). If however, a study is structurally and analytically sound, then the results are valuable. A systematic review, is intended to evaluate the entire literature and distill those studies which are of the highest possible quality and therefore likely to be sound and defensible to affect practice.

Guise focused on these key questions: “1) a chain of evidence about factors that may influence VBAC, 2) maternal and infant benefits and harms of attempting a VBAC versus an elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD), and 3) factors that may influence maternal and infant outcomes.” Ultimately, this 400 page document was distilled into the 48 page VBAC Final Statement produced by the NIH VBAC Conference.

This is wonderful because people who want the big picture, can read the VBAC Final Statement whereas those who want to know the exact figures, how studies were included/excluded, and the strength of the data available, can read the Guise 2010 Evidence Report.

You can get a feel for the topics presented at the NIH VBAC Conference by reading the Programs & Abstracts document. If you want more detail, you can watch the individual presentations. I was there for the three day conference and it was eye opening. I wish more medical professionals and moms were aware of this information as they are excellent resources for anyone looking to learn more about VBAC.

Everyone wants to know the bottom line: what is the risk of death or major injury to mom and baby. Here is an overview of maternal and infant mortality and morbidity per Guise (2010). It’s important to remember that the quality of data relating to perinatal mortality was low to moderate due to the high range of rates reported by the strongest studies conducted thus far. Guise reports the high end of the range when they discuss perinatal mortality which was 6% for all gestational ages and 2.8% when limited to term studies. This is a long way of saying, we still don’t have a good picture of how many babies die due to uterine rupture.

It’s also important to remember that the statistics shared in Guise (2010) are for all VBACs. They include all scar types, women who have had multiple prior cesareans, induced/augmented labors, etc. It would have been helpful if they had broke out the data in these ways as we know we can reduce the risk of rupture (and thus perinatal mortality) through spontaneous labor.

While rare for both TOL [trial of labor after cesarean] and ERCD [elective repeat cesarean delivery], 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. Perinatal mortality was significantly increased for TOL at 1.3 per 1,000 versus 0.5 per 1,000 for ERCD… 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… The occurrence of maternal and infant mortality for women with prior cesarean is not significantly elevated when compared with national rates overall of mortality in childbirth. The majority of women who have TOL will have a VBAC, and they and their infants will be healthy. However, there is a minority of women who will suffer serious adverse consequences of both TOL and ERCD. While TOL rates have decreased over the last decade, VBAC rates and adverse outcomes have not changed suggesting that the reduction is not reflecting improved patient selection.

Women are entitled to accurate, honest, and high quality data. They don’t deserve to have the risks exaggerated by an OB who wishes to coerce them into a repeat cesarean nor do they deserve to have risks sugar-coated or minimized by a midwife or birth advocate who may not understand the risk or whose zealous desire for everyone to VBAC clouds their judgement. Sometimes it can be hard to find good data on VBAC which is why I’m so thankful for the 2010 NIH VBAC Conference and all the excellent data that became available to the public as a result. There are real risks and benefits to VBAC and repeat cesarean and once women have access to good data, they can individually choose which set of risks and benefits they want. I think the links I have provided above represents the best data we have to date.

Confusing fact: Only 6% of uterine ruptures are catastrophic

It is important to note that the information shared in Guise (2010), the 400 page Evidence Report on which the 2010 NIH VBAC Conference was based, collected the best data we have available on trial of labor after cesarean.  That said, they reported, “Overall, the strength of evidence on perinatal mortality was low to moderate” due to the wide range of perinatal mortality rates reported by the studies included in the report.  Bottom line: We still don’t have an accurate idea of how deadly uterine rupture is to babies.  This is a topic on which Guise recommended future researchers focus.  I highly recommend that anyone interested in TOLAC (trial of labor after cesarean), especially those who blog or share information on social networking sites, review this very important document as it is a fascinating analysis of the best research we have to date on TOLAC.

How many times have you heard, “Only 6% of uterine ruptures are catastrophic” or “Uterine rupture not only happens less that one percent of the time, but the vast majority of ruptures are non-catastrophic?” But what does that mean? Does that mean only 6% of uterine ruptures are “complete” ruptures? Result in maternal death? Infant death? Serious injury to mom or baby? This article will explain to you the difference between uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence as well as explain the source and meaning of the 6% statistic.

Distinguishing between uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence

First, it’s important to understand what a uterine rupture is and how that differs from a uterine dehiscence. Uterine rupture, also called true, complete, or even (to further add to the confusion) catastrophic rupture, is a opening through all the layers of the uterus. Per a Medscape article on Uterine Rupture in Pregnancy:

Uterine rupture is defined as a full-thickness separation of the uterine wall and the overlying serosa. Uterine rupture is associated with (1) clinically significant uterine bleeding; (2) fetal distress; (3) expulsion or protrusion of the fetus, placenta, or both into the abdominal cavity; and (4) the need for prompt cesarean delivery and uterine repair or hysterectomy.

Whereas a uterine dehiscence, also called a incomplete rupture or a uterine window, is not a full-thickness separation. It’s often asymptomatic, does not pose any risk to mom or baby, and does not require repair. Again, I refer to Medscape:

Uterine scar dehiscence is a more common event that seldom results in major maternal or fetal complications. By definition, uterine scar dehiscence constitutes separation of a preexisting scar that does not disrupt the overlying visceral peritoneum (uterine serosa) and that does not significantly bleed from its edges. In addition, the fetus, placenta, and umbilical cord must be contained within the uterine cavity, without a need for cesarean delivery due to fetal distress.

When reading medical studies, look for how they define uterine rupture in the “Methods” section. While some medical studies combine the statistics for rupture and dehiscence, ultimately reporting an inflated rate of rupture, other studies distinguish between the two events.

So, what does the 6% statistic mean and where did it come from?

The statistic “Only 6% of uterine ruptures are catastrophic” is from the Evidence Report (Guise 2010) which was the basis of the 2010 NIH VBAC Conference and it refers to the rate of infant death due to uterine rupture. Here is the exact quote:

The overall risk of perinatal death due to uterine rupture was 6.2 percent. The two studies of women delivering at term that reported perinatal death rates report that 0 to 2.8 percent of all uterine ruptures resulted in a perinatal death (Guise 2010).

In other words, of the women who had uterine ruptures, 6.2% (1 in 16) resulted in infant deaths. When we limited the data to women delivering at term, as opposed to babies of all gestational ages, the risk was as high as 2.8 (1 in 36)%.

When we look at the overall risk of an infant death during a trial of labor after cesarean, the NIH reported the rate of 0.13%, which works out to be one infant death per 769 trials of labor.

The source of the confusion

The problem with this statistic is that some people have misinterpreted it to mean that only 6% of ruptures are true, complete uterine ruptures. In other words, if we take the 0.4% (1 in 240) uterine rupture rate (Landon, 2004), they believe that only 6% of those ruptures or 0.024% (1 in 4166) are true, complete ruptures. This is false. The 0.4% uterine rupture statistic measured true, complete, uterine ruptures in spontaneous labors after one prior low, transverse (“bikini cut”) cesarean.

So how many dehiscences did Landon (2004) detect? Landon reported a 0.7% uterine rupture rate and a 0.7% dehiscence rate. (Note that these statistics include a variety of scar types as well spontaneous, augmented, and induced labors.) So Landon found that dehiscence occurs at the same rate as uterine rupture.

I think the best way to avoid confusion is to use very clear language: 6.2% (1 in 16) of uterine ruptures result in an infant death. Put another way, for every 16 uterine ruptures, there will be one baby that dies.

Elapsed time and infant death

What determines if a baby dies or has brain damage? Some research on infant cord blood gases has suggested that if the baby isn’t delivered (almost always by CS) within 16 – 17 minutes of a uterine rupture, there can be serious brain damage or death to baby. You can watch a presentation from the 2010 NIH VBAC Conference entitled “The Immediately Available Physician Standard” by Howard Minkoff, M.D. for more information or read his presentation abstract.

Now you know the difference between uterine rupture, uterine dehiscence and the meaning of the 6% statistic. It’s helpful to understand the terminology used in relation to uterine rupture otherwise it can be very confusing as you wade your way through the statistics! It’s also very important for people to use specific words whose definitions are clear instead of words such as “catastrophic” that could mean multiple things.

Read more about uterine rupture, scare tactics, birth myths, cesarean section, and the steps for planning a VBAC.

Afterward – The big picture

The following are excerpts from the Evidence Report (Guise 2010) , the 400 page evidence report assembled for the 2010 NIH VBAC Conference. The limitation of Guise (2010) is that these stats are for all VBACs – all scar types, multiple prior cesareans, induced/augmented labors, etc. It would have been helpful if they had broke out the data in these ways.

While rare for both TOL [trial of labor] and ERCD [elective repeat cesarean delivery], 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.” Perinatal death due to UR from term studies was 2.8%. “Perinatal mortality was significantly increased for TOL at 1.3 per 1,000 versus 0.5 per 1,000 for ERCD… 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… The occurrence of maternal and infant mortality for women with prior cesarean is not significantly elevated when compared with national rates overall of mortality in childbirth. The majority of women who have TOL will have a VBAC, and they and their infants will be healthy. However, there is a minority of women who will suffer serious adverse consequences of both TOL and ERCD. While TOL rates have decreased over the last decade, VBAC rates and adverse outcomes have not changed suggesting that the reduction is not reflecting improved patient selection.

A systematic review strives to be patient-centered and to provide both patients and clinicians with meaningful numbers or estimates so they can make informed decisions. Often, however, the data do not allow a direct estimate to calculate the numbers that people desire such as the number of cesareans needed to avoid one uterine rupture related death. The assumptions that are required to make such estimates from the available data introduce additional uncertainty that cannot be quantified. If we make a simplistic assumption that 6 percent of all uterine ruptures result in perinatal death (as found from the summary estimate), the range of estimated numbers of cesareans needed to be performed to prevent one uterine rupture related perinatal death would be 2,400 from the largest study,204 and 3,900-6,100 from the other three studies of uterine rupture for TOL and ERCD.10, 97, 205 Taken in aggregate, the evidence suggests that the approximate risks and benefits that would be expected for a hypothetical group of 100,000 women at term gestational age (GA) who plan VBAC rather than ERCD include: 10 fewer maternal deaths, 650 additional uterine ruptures, and 50 additional neonatal deaths. Additionally, it is important to consider the morbidity in future pregnancies that would be averted from multiple cesareans particularly in association with placental abnormalities.

Hospital’s Oxytocin Protocol Change Sharply Reduces Emergency C-Section Deliveries

This article published June 19, 2009 demonstrates one hospital’s experience when they changed their oxytocin (Pitocin) protocol.

I’ve included the entire article below and have emphasized what I consider to be the most interesting parts.

Hospital’s Oxytocin Protocol Change Sharply Reduces Emergency C-Section Deliveries
By Betsy Bates
Elsevier Global Medical News
Conferences in Depth

CHICAGO (EGMN) – The modification of the oxytocin infusion protocol at a large university-affiliated community hospital nearly halved the number of emergency cesarean deliveries over a 3-year period, reported Dr. Gary Ventolini.

As oxytocin utilization declined from 93.3% to 78.9%, emergency cesarean deliveries decreased from 10.9% to 5.7%, Dr. Ventolini said at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Other birth outcomes improved as well at an 848-bed community hospital that serves as the primary teaching hospital of the Boonshoft School of Medicine at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio.

These included significant declines in emergency vacuum and forceps deliveries and a sharp reduction in neonatal ICU team mobilization for signs of fetal distress (P = .0001 in year 3 compared with year 1).

“More and more data are showing us that we are using too much oxytocin too often,” Dr. Ventolini, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the university, said in an interview.

“Our pivotal change was to modify the oxytocin infusion from 2 by 2 units every 20 minutes to 1 by 1 unit every 30 minutes. And we see the results,” he said.

Outcomes of 14,184 births from 2005, 2006, and 2007 were retrospectively analyzed to determine any impact of the change in an oxytocin protocol implemented in 2005. Patient characteristics were similar in all three calendar years.

The most profound changes were in emergency deliveries, including caesarean deliveries, vacuum deliveries (which dropped from 9.1% to 8.5%), and forceps deliveries (which fell from 4% to 2.3%).

The overall cesarean section rate remained unchanged, as did the rates of cord prolapse, preeclampsia, and abruption.

Dr. Ventolini cited a recent article in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology that suggests guidelines for oxytocin use, including avoidance of dose increases at intervals shorter than 30 minutes in most situations (Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009;200:35.e1-.e6).

Dr. Ventolini and his associates reported no financial conflicts of interest relevant to the study.

Subject Codes:
Elsevier Global Medical News

June 19, 2009   10:04 AM EDT

The Role of Interpretation – ACOG Refines Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring Guidelines

Photo credit:

Photo credit:

I remember when I was pregnant with my first.  The CNM I hired worked at multiple hospitals, so my husband and I toured each one to get a feel for each hospital’s standard policies and procedures.  A few people I knew questioned why we were bothering doing this since, aren’t all hospitals the same?  While I was expecting some differences, I was really surprised with what I found.

The standard procedures of the three hospitals we toured varied greatly – everything from the use of telemetry (wireless fetal) monitoring to how much bonding time a mom and baby were permitted before baby was whisked away for mandatory hospital procedures to where babies slept at night and whether babies were routinely given sugar water, formula or a pacifier.

I came away realizing how important it is to carefully screen which hospital you chose as well as your OB/midwife and the L&D nurse who will be caring for you during your stay at the hospital.

This June 22, 2009 press release illustrates ACOG’s (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’) efforts to help standardize the care women receive from OBs.  Specifically, they wish to stabilize the variability in fetal heart rate interpretations which could considerably impact the frequency of the “fetal distress” diagnosis.

EFM refers to external fetal monitoring which most women know as the belt laboring women wear that measures the baby’s heart rate and is connected to a machine which produces a strip of the baby’s heart rate as well as mom’s contractions.

I found these quotes of particular interest (emphasis is mine).

“Since 1980, the use of EFM has grown dramatically, from being used on 45% of pregnant women in labor to 85% in 2002,” says George A. Macones, MD, who headed the development of the ACOG document. “Although EFM is the most common obstetric procedure today, unfortunately it hasn’t reduced perinatal mortality or the risk of cerebral palsy. In fact, the rate of cerebral palsy has essentially remained the same since World War II despite fetal monitoring and all of our advancements in treatments and interventions.”

“Our goal with the ACOG guidelines was to define existing terminology and narrow definitions and categories so that everyone is on the same page,” says Dr. Macones. One of the problems with FHR tracings is the variability in how they’re interpreted by different people. The ACOG guidelines highlight a case in which four obstetricians examined 50 FHR tracings; they agreed in only 22% of the cases. Two months later, these four physicians reevaluated the same 50 FHR tracings, and they changed their interpretations on nearly one out of every five tracings.

A meta-analysis study shows that although EFM reduced the risk of neonatal seizures, there is still an unrealistic expectation that a nonreassuring FHR can predict the risk of a baby being born with cerebral palsy. The false-positive rate of EFM for predicting cerebral palsy is greater than 99%. This means that out of 1,000 fetuses with nonreassuring readings, only one or two will actually develop cerebral palsy. The guidelines state that women in labor who have high-risk conditions such as preeclampsia, type 1 diabetes, or suspected fetal growth restriction should be monitored continuously during labor.

Note that VBAC is not listed under “high-risk conditions” that “should be monitored continuously during labor.”  Also, with a 99% false positive rate for cerebral palsy, I wonder about the rate of uterine rupture false positives.

Here is the link, ACOG Refines Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring Guidelines.


AAFP National VBAC Guidelines

Update: In May 2014, the AAFP released new guidelines.

This is a great piece for deciding between VBAC and repeat cesarean.  Those who wish to VBAC, but have husbands, family, and/or friends who don’t understand why, might find this document very useful.

I have found that people who are anti-VBAC really seem impressed by what doctors and medical organizations have to say, so I’m thinking they will find this document compelling.

Plus, VBAC has this reputation of being “risky” and repeat cesareans are thought of as the “conservative approach,” and this document challenges both lines of thinking.

Why not write a sweet little note like, “I know you are concerned about me choosing the VBAC, so I thought you would find this interesting,” and mail them a copy.  That way, they can read it, think it over, and you can chat about it later.

No one wants to see a loved one hurt or die, and since most believe that a repeat cesarean is the most conservative approach, they tend to lean in that direction.  However, once they understand that real, but small, risks are present with VBAC and repeat cesarean, and that the risks of VBAC go down with each VBAC whereas the risks of cesareans go up with each surgery, hopefully they will respect your decision.

I recommend bringing this document with you when you go to interview OBs about VBAC.  They might be unfamiliar with the data, and they too might be persuaded by a document written by a medical organization.  If your OB is anti-VBAC, this might be a good document to mail them once you have found a truly supportive OB or midwife.

I’ve included the entire text below because when I searched on Google for VBAC vs. Repeat Cesarean, it wasn’t on the first page of results, so I’d like to bring more attention to it.

Please note, they refer to VBAC as TOLAC (Trial of Labor After Cesarean.)

You can view and print the document in PDF format here: Trial of Labor After Cesarean: A Shared Patient-Physician Decision Tool.


In March 2005, the American Academy of
Family Physicians published an evidence based
clinical practice guideline on TOLAC
(Trial of Labor After Cesarean; formerly called
Trial of Labor Versus Elective Repeat Cesarean
Section for the Woman With a Previous
Cesarean Section).
The AAFP guideline
recommends offering a trial of labor to women
who have had one previous cesarean delivery
with a low transverse incision. The guideline
also recommends that physicians and other
maternity care professionals explore the risks
and benefits associated with a trial of labor with
each woman who is a candidate for TOLAC.
The following shared patient-physician decision
tool can be used to initiate the conversation
about the potential risks and benefits of TOLAC.
It is important to note that this piece is not
a patient education handout. It is not meant
to be used as a standalone tool. Physicians
should go through each section with the
TOLAC candidate and explain how each factor
may (or may not) affect her. After answering
any questions the patient may have, the
physician can give the annotated handout to
the patient so she and her partner can review
it as they consider their options.
To read the AAFP’s TOLAC Guideline, visit

Patient name: ____________________________________________________
Physician: _______________________________________________________

Trial of Labor After Cesarean:
Deciding What’s Right for You
and Your Baby

Women who have had a baby by cesarean section (C-section)
may have a choice about how to have their next
baby. They may choose to have another C-section. This
is called an “elective repeat cesarean delivery” (ERCD for
short). Or they may decide to try having the baby vaginally.
This is called a “trial of labor after cesarean” (TOLAC). When
a woman tries a trial of labor and is able to deliver vaginally,
this is called a “vaginal birth after cesarean” (VBAC).

If you’re reading this handout, it’s because your doctor
has decided that you have a choice between a planned
C-section and a trial of labor. To help you understand the
risks and benefits of each, you doctor will go through
this handout with you. He or she will explain how the
factors below apply to you. Be sure to ask your doctor any
questions you have. It’s important that you understand all
of the issues before you make a decision.

If I try labor, how likely am I to have my baby vaginally?
Because every situation is different, no one can tell if you
will be able to give birth vaginally. However, you should
know that about 76 out of 100 women who try a trial of
labor deliver their babies vaginally.

What happens to women who try labor but can’t
deliver vaginally?
Some women who try a trial of labor are not able to deliver
vaginally and end up having an unplanned C-section. You
should know that most of the babies born by unplanned
C-section are healthy and do not have long-term problems
from the C-section.

Is it is safer trying labor or having a planned C-section?
You already know that having a baby—whether vaginally or
by C-section—has some risks. The risks are generally small
whether you choose a trial of labor or planned C-section.
Studies have shown that there is no difference between
the two when it comes to the woman’s risk of death or
hysterectomy. There are, however, a few other risks to
consider. These are explained below.

Infection. Of women who choose a trial of labor,
7 out of 100 will get an infection. By comparison,
9 or 10 out of 100 women who choose planned
C-section will get an infection. This means that women
who choose C-section have a slightly higher risk of
infection (2% to 3% higher) than women who choose a trial
of labor.

Uterine rupture. A C-section leaves a scar on the
uterus. During a trial of labor, the scar can break open.
Usually this doesn’t affect you or the baby. In rare cases,
however, it can pose serious risks to you or your baby.
This is called symptomatic uterine rupture and it occurs
in 2.7 out of 1,000 women, or about ¼ of 1%, who try a
trial of labor.

Infant death. Sometimes—but not always—uterine rupture
results in the death of the baby. The chance of
this is about 15 in 100,000, or about 1/100th of 1%, in
women who try a trial of labor. There is no good data
about the risk of infant death for women who choose
elective repeat C-section.

What factors affect my chances of delivering
Doctors have studied thousands of women who have
attempted a trial of labor. They found that the following
factors affect a woman’s chance of delivering vaginally.
Your doctor will tell you how these factors apply to you.
You might want to ask your doctor to put a checkmark
next to the factors that may affect you and to cross out
the ones that probably won’t.

Factors that increase the likelihood of a
vaginal birth after C-section (VBAC)

• Being younger than 40 years old. If you’re under 40,
you are 2½ times more likely to have a VBAC.
My age: _________
Other notes: ________________________________

• Having a vaginal birth before. If you’ve ever had a
baby vaginally, you’re more likely to be able to deliver
that way again.
I had a baby vaginally, but it was before I had a
C-section. You are 1½ to 2 times more likely to
deliver vaginally again.
I had a baby vaginally after I had a baby by
C-section. You are 3 to 8 times more likely to
have a VBAC.
Notes about your previous delivery or deliveries:
Other notes: ________________________________

• Having favorable cervical factors during labor. This
means that your cervix is dilated (open) and effaced
(thinned out) enough to deliver vaginally. If you’re well
dilated and effaced, you are 1½ to 5 times more likely
to have a VBAC. If you’ve had a vaginal birth before,
your cervix may open and thin out more quickly than if
you haven’t. If you haven’t had a vaginal birth, it’s hard
to tell how well dilated and effaced your cervix will
become during labor.
I have had a previous vaginal birth.
Other notes: ________________________________

• If the reason you needed a C-section before isn’t
a factor this time. You might have needed a
C-section because of infection, difficult labor, breech
presentation, or concerns about the baby’s size or
heart rate. If you don’t have the same problem this
time, you are 2 times more likely to have a VBAC.
Reason for my previous C-section: ______________
Other notes: ________________________________
Factors that decrease the likelihood
of a VBAC

• Having had more than one C-section. If you have had
two or more C-sections, you’re 60% less likely to have
Number of C-sections I’ve had: _________
Other notes: ________________________________


• Going into labor after 40 weeks. After this time, you
are 20% to 30% less likely to have a VBAC.
My baby’s current gestational age: ________
My previous child(ren)’s gestational age(s) at birth:
Other notes: ________________________________

For all women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Less than 1 birth per 1,000
For women who have
not had a C-section . . . . . . . . . Less than 1 birth per 1,000
For women who have an
elective repeat C-section . . . . About 1 birth per 1,000
For women who have a trial
of labor after C-section . . . . . . 2 to 4 births per 1,000
(800) 274-2237 •

• Trying to deliver a baby that is 8 pounds, 13 ounces
(4,000 grams) or larger. If your baby weighs this much
(or more), you are 40% less likely to have a VBAC.
My baby’s current estimated weight: ____________
My previous child(ren)’s weight(s) at birth: _______
Other notes: ________________________________

• Using medicines to induce or augment labor. If you
need medicine to start or help your labor, you are 50%
less likely to have a VBAC.
Notes: _____________________________________

What if I have other concerns?
In addition to thinking about your health and that of your
baby, you’re probably dealing with emotional issues
and practical concerns about the birth. Some common
concerns are listed below. When you read through this
list, you may want to put a checkmark next to the issues
you really care about and cross out those that aren’t
as important to you. Talk with your doctor about your
concerns. These issues haven’t been studied like the ones
above, but your doctor may be able to give you some
insight into how they might affect you.

Recovery time. If you deliver vaginally, you’ll probably
spend less time in the hospital and be back on your
feet more quickly. Some women think this is important
because they’ll be caring for the new baby and their older
children too.

Involvement in the delivery. For some women, having a
baby vaginally is more emotionally satisfying than having
a C-section. You get to hold your baby sooner, which
may help with bonding and even with breastfeeding. Your
partner may feel more involved in a vaginal birth too.

Future childbearing. Doctors typically don’t want women
to have more than two or three C-sections. So, you’re more
likely to be able to have more children if you have a vaginal
birth instead of another C-section.

Planned versus unplanned delivery date. Because
it’s better to go into labor on your own when you’re
planning a trial of labor, you probably won’t be able to
be induced. Not knowing when you will go into labor can
be stressful. It can also be a problem if you can’t arrange
for someone to watch your other child or children at a
moment’s notice. For these reasons, some women prefer
to plan on a C-section.

Pain during labor and delivery. If you had an especially
difficult and painful labor before, you may fear going
through it again. For this reason, some women prefer to
have another C-section and avoid labor. It’s important to
remember, though, that there are ways to manage the pain
if you decide on a trial of labor.

How do I make this choice?
You and your partner should work with your doctor to
decide whether the benefits of a trial of labor outweigh
the risks.

If you decide to try labor, you and your doctor will talk
about what to do if it looks like your labor is running into
complications. It’s best to have a plan before you begin your
labor so that you don’t have to make decisions during labor.

1. Wall E, Roberts R, Deutchman M, Hueston W, Atwood LA, Ireland B.
Trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), formerly trial of labor versus
elective repeat cesarean section for the woman with a previous
cesarean section. Leawood, Kan.: American Academy of Family
Physicians; March 2005.
2. Guise J-M, McDonagh M, Hashima J, Kraemer DF, Eden KB,
Berlin M, et al. Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC). Evidence
Report/Technology Assessment No. 71. Rockville, Md.: Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality; March 2003. AHRQ Publication
No. 03-E018.
3. Gardeil F, Daly S, Turner MJ. Uterine rupture in pregnancy reviewed.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994;56:107-10.
4. Miller DA, Goodwin TM, Gherman RB, Paul RH. Intrapartum rupture
of the unscarred uterus. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:671-3.
5. Kieser KE, Baskett TF. A 10-year population based study of uterine
rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:749-53.