Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Preconceptional and Antepartum Assessment of Patients with a Previous Cesarean Section

Bernat Serra, Alberto R Melcón, Mireia Gutierrez

Keywords : Cesarean scar pregnancy, Cesarean section, Placenta accreta, Placenta previa, Preconceptional counseling, Uterine rupture, Uterine scar defect, Vaginal birth after cesarean

Citation Information : Serra B, Melcón AR, Gutierrez M. Preconceptional and Antepartum Assessment of Patients with a Previous Cesarean Section. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021; 15 (2):160-168.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1698

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 02-07-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Cesarean section (CS) is the most frequently performed surgical procedure around the world and during the last decades, the incidence of CSs has continuously risen in both, developed and developing countries. Consequently, women with a previous CS becoming pregnant again is constantly growing. This article aims to clarify how women who have had a previous CS should be counseled and managed, either before getting again pregnant or during pregnancy with regard to the different complications related to this previous surgical procedure.

PDF Share
  1. Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, et al., The Global Numbers and Costs of Additionally Needed and Unnecessary Caesarean Sections Performed per Year: Overuse as a Barrier to Universal Coverage. World Health Report 2010 Background Paper, 30.
  2. Moraitis AA, Oliver-Williams C, Wood AM, et al. Previous caesarean delivery and the risk of unexplained stillbirth: retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis. BJOG 2015;122(11):1467–1474. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13461.
  3. O'Neill SM, Kearney PM, Kenny LC, et al. Caesarean delivery and subsequent stillbirth or miscarriage: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2013;8(1):e54588. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054588.
  4. Gurol-Urganci I, Bou-Antoun S, Lim CP, et al. Impact of caesarean section on subsequent fertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2013;28(7):1943–1952. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det130.
  5. Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell DA, Mahmood TA, et al. A population-based cohort study of the effect of Caesarean section on subsequent fertility. Hum Reprod 2014;29(6):1320–1326. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu057.
  6. Downes KL, Hinkle SN, Sjaarda LA, et al. Previous prelabor or intrapartum cesarean delivery and risk of placenta previa. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212(5):669.e1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.004.
  7. Silver RM, Barbour KD. Placenta accreta spectrum: accreta, increta, and percreta. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2015;42(2):381–402. DOI: 10.1016/j.ogc.2015.01.014.
  8. Rosenberg T, Pariente G, Sergienko R, et al. Critical analysis of risk factors and outcome of placenta previa. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011;284(1):47–51. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-010-1598-7.
  9. Odibo A, Cahill A, Stamilio D, et al. Predicting placental abruption and previa in women with a previous cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol 2007;24(5):299–305. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-981430.
  10. Rouse DJ, MacPherson C, Landon M, et al. Blood transfusion and cesarean delivery. [erratum appears in Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Dec;108(6):1556] Obstet Gynecol 2006;108(4):891–897. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000236547.35234.8c.
  11. Society of Obstetricians and Gyaencologists of Canada. SOGC clinical practice guidelines. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous cesarean birth. No 155. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;89(3):319–331. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.03.015.
  12. Guise JM, Eden K, Emeis C, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2010(191):1–397.
  13. Guise JM, Denman MA, Emeis C, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115(6):1267–1278. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181df925f.
  14. Shimonovitz S, Botosneano A, Hochner-Celnikier D. Successful first vaginal birth after cesarean section: a predictor of reduced risk for uterine rupture in subsequent deliveries. Indian Med Assoc J 2000;2(7):526–528.
  15. Shipp TD, Zelop C, Cohen A, et al. Post-cesarean delivery fever and uterine rupture in a subsequent trial of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101(1):136–139. DOI: 10.1097/00006250-200301000-00026.
  16. Caughey AB, Shipp TD, Repke JT, et al. Rate of uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with one or two prior cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181(4):872–876. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70317-0.
  17. Landon MB, Spong CY, Thom E, et al. Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108(1):12–20. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000224694.32531.f3.
  18. Bujold E, Gauthier RJ. Risk of uterine rupture associated with an interdelivery interval between 18 and 24 months. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115(5):1003–1006. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d992fb.
  19. Kessous R, Sheiner E. Is there an association between short interval from previous cesarean section and adverse obstetric and perinatal outcome? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013;26(10):1003–1006. DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2013.765854.
  20. Roberge S, Chaillet N, Boutin A, et al. Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011;115(1):5–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.04.013.
  21. Bujold E, Goyet M, Marcoux S, et al. The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116(1):43–50. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181e41be3.
  22. Bujold E, Bujold C, Hamilton EF, et al. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186(6):1326–1330. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2002.122416.
  23. Al-Zirqi I, Daltveit AK, Forsén L, et al. Risk factors for complete uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216(2):165. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.10.017.
  24. Roberge S, Boutin A, Chaillet N, et al. Systematic review of cesarean scar assessment in the nonpregnant state: imaging techniques and uterine scar defect. Am J Perinatol 2012;29(6):465–471. DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1304829.
  25. Vikhareva Osser O, Valentin L. Clinical importance of appearance of cesarean hysterotomy scar at transvaginal ultrasonography in nonpregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117(3):525–532. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318209abf0.
  26. Weinstein D, Benshushan A, Tanos V, et al. Predictive score for vaginal birth after cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174(1 Pt 1):192–198. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70393-9.
  27. Lovell R. Vaginal delivery after caesarean section: factors influencing success rates. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;36(1):4–8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828x.1996.tb02910.x.
  28. Landon MB, Grobman WA. What we have learned about trial of labor after cesarean delivery from the maternal-fetal medicine units cesarean registry. Semin Perinatol 2016;40(5):281–286. DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2016.03.003.
  29. Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Cali G, et al. Easy sonographic differential diagnosis between intrauterine pregnancy and cesarean delivery scar pregnancy in the early first trimester. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215(2):225. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.028.
  30. Calì G, Timor-Trisch IE, Palacios-Jaraquemada J, et al. Outcome of cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;51(2):169–175. DOI: 10.1002/uog.17568.
  31. Birch Petersen K, Hoffmann E, Rifbjerg Larsen C, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review of treatment studies. Fertil Steril 2016;105(4):958–967. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.12.130.
  32. Kanat-Pektas M, Bodur S, Dundar O, et al. Systematic review: what is the best first-line approach for cesarean section ectopic pregnancy? Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2016;55(2):263–269. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2015.03.009.
  33. Timor-Trisch IE, Cali G, Monteagudo A, et al. Foley balloon catheter to prevent or manage bleeding during treatment for cervical and cesarean scar pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;45(1):118–123. DOI: 10.1002/uog.14708.
  34. Maheux-Lacroix S, Li F, Bujold E, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancies: a systematic review of treatment options. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017;24(6):915–925. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.05.019.
  35. Green L, Knight M, Seeney F, et al. The epidemiology and outcomes of women with postpartum haemorrhage requiring massive transfusion with eight or more units of red cells: a national cross-sectional study. BJOG 2016;123(13):2164–2170. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13831.
  36. Oya A, Nakai A, Miyake H, et al. Risk factors for peripartum blood transfusion in women with placenta previa: a retrospective analysis. J Nippon Med Sch 2008;75(3):146–151. DOI: 10.1272/jnms.75.146.
  37. Vintzileos AM, Ananth CV, Smulian JC. Using ultrasound in the clinical management of placental implantation abnormalities. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;213(4 Suppl):S70–S77.
  38. Cheng KK, Lee MM. Rising incidence of morbidly adherent placenta and its association with previous caesarean section: a 15-year analysis in a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Med J 2015;21(6):511–517. DOI: 10.12809/hkmj154599.
  39. Jauniaux E, Bhide A. Prenatal ultrasound diagnosis and outcome of placenta previa accreta after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217(1):27–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.050.
  40. D'Antonio F, Iacovella C, Bhide A. Prenatal identification of MAP using ultrasound: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42(5):509–517. DOI: 10.1002/uog.13194.
  41. Edward Wells C, Gary Cunningham F, Choosing the route of delivery [internet]. Uptodate: Vincenzo Berghella; 2017 [reviewed November 2017; consulted December 2017]. Available from:
  42. Rossi AC, Addario VD. Maternal morbidity following a trial of labor after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean delivery: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199(3):224–231. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.04.025.
  43. Torry de Metz. Use of calculators and models for predicting vaginal birth after a previous cesarean delivery [internet]. Uptodate: Vincenzo Berghella; 2017 [reviewed November 2017; consulted December 2017]. Available from:
  44. Eden KB, Mcdonagh M, Denman MA, et al. New insights on vaginal birth after cesarean: can it be predicted? Obstet Gynecol 2010;116(4):967–981. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f2de49.
  45. Daniels S, Ns D, Iglesias S, et al. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous cesarean birth. 2005;155(147).
  46. Landon BM, Heather F, Uterine rupture after previous cesarean delivery [internet]. Uptodate: Vincenzo Berghella; 2017 [reviewed November 2017; consulted December 2017]. Available from:
  47. Martel MJ, MacKinnon. No. 155-Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous cesarean birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2018;40(3):e195–e207. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.01.014.
  48. Macones GA, Cahill AG, Stamilio DM, et al. Can uterine rupture in patients attempting vaginal birth after cesarean delivery be predicted? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195(4):1148–1152. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.042.
  49. Jastrow N, Gauthier RJ, Gagnon G, et al. Impact of labor at prior cesarean on lower uterine segment thickness in subsequent pregnancy. YMOB 2010;202(6):563.e1–563.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.10.894.
  50. Kok N, Wiersma IC, Opmeer BC, et al. Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous cesarean section: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42(2):132–139. DOI: 10.1002/uog.12479.
  51. Grobman WA, Lai Y, Landon MB, et al. Prediction of uterine rupture associated with attempted vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199(1):30.e1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008. 03.039.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.