Melanoma is increasingly common among reproductive-age women and is one of the most common cancers diagnosed during pregnancy. The literature for melanoma in pregnancy, especially among those with prior uterine scars, is limited. We present an interesting case of a 22-year-old woman who went to her dermatologist for a suspicious lesion on her thigh. The lesion was excised, and histopathology confirmed that it was a melanoma. The dermatologist recommended immediate delivery. The patient then urged her obstetrician to undergo the risks of an induction of labor (IOL) for a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) because she desired a large family, and a second cesarean would make this more difficult to happen. She ultimately had a successful vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) and subsequent excision of the melanoma with surgical oncology in the immediate postpartum period. Therefore, the decision for IOL for TOLAC in this case was based on the patient\'s fears regarding melanoma disease progression in her 39th week. Given the short time course between delivery and excision of her melanoma, it is possible that she may have been able to wait for spontaneous labor, which would have avoided the risks associated with IOL for TOLAC. The optimal timing of surgical intervention for melanoma in pregnant patients who desire TOLAC is unknown. In pregnancies that are approaching their due date, waiting for spontaneous labor may be a reasonable approach to avoid the risks of labor induction, especially in women with prior cesarean delivery. A multidisciplinary approach involving dermatology, surgical oncology, and the obstetric team is warranted to optimize both dermatologic and obstetric outcomes.

(1) Background: Trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) can be associated with significant maternal and neonatal complications, and the aim of this retrospective study was to calculate the risks and probabilities of these complications in two tertiary maternity centers in Romania. (2) Methods: A total of 216 patients who attempted TOLAC were included in the study and were segregated into two groups, depending on TOLAC success. Medical records were assessed, and clinical data were used to determine the maternal and neonatal risks and complications, using multinomial logistic regression and postestimation predictions. (3) Results: Our data indicated that patients who had a failed TOLAC had significantly higher risks and probabilities of uterine rupture, either complete or incomplete; intensive care unit (ICU) admission; and emergency hysterectomy. The newborns of these mothers had significantly higher risks and probabilities of low Apgar score at birth, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, and invasive ventilation. (4) Conclusions: Failed TOLAC could lead to significant maternal and neonatal complications, and women who attempt this procedure should be monitored in a tertiary center where a multidisciplinary team and an emergency operating room are available.

UNASSIGNED: A cesarean delivery (CD) can affect health of both mother and child and future pregnancies. Since the abandonment of the one-child policy in China, obstetricians tend to perform a repeat CD rather than a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC). This study aims to reduce CD rates by increasing vaginal births after cesarean (VBAC) rates and introducing electrohysterography (EHG) for accurate monitoring.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 82 women received counseling regarding TOLAC at the Shijiazhuang Sixth Hospital in China. Women opting for TOLAC were randomized for either external tocodynamometry (TOCO, i.e. standard care) or EHG. The primary outcome was the VBAC rate. Secondary outcomes were indications for CD, percentage of assisted vaginal deliveries, labor duration, maternal blood loss, complications and neonatal outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: After accounting for preterm delivery and dropouts, all counseled women opted for a TOLAC (100%). After randomization, 42 women were included in the TOCO-group and 37 in the EHG-group. Women did not receive pain medication and labor was not augmented with oxytocin. The VBAC rate was 71.4% in the TOCO-group, versus 78.4% in the EHG-group (p = .48). Birth was assisted with forceps in 11.9% of TOCO-group versus 2.7% of EHG-group (p = .21). One secondary CD (i.e. a shift from intended vaginal delivery to surgical delivery within the same labor) was performed because of a suspicion of uterine rupture (TOCO-group). Other indications for CD were: fetal distress, labor dystocia, fetal position, cephalopelvic disproportion. There were no significant differences in secondary study outcomes. No complications were reported.
UNASSIGNED: This study showed an average VBAC rate of 75%, without any complications, in a hospital with no previous experience with TOLAC. The VBAC rate with EHG-monitoring was higher than TOCO, although this difference was not significant. To demonstrate a significant difference, larger clinical studies are necessary.
UNASSIGNED: The Daily Board of the Medical Ethics Committee of The Maternal and Child Hospital of Shijiazhuang approved the study protocol (number 20171018, Dutch Trial Register NL8199).

Few studies have examined the relationship between pelvic size and the success or failure of trial of labor after cesarean delivery (TOLAC). Here we aimed to determine whether pelvic size and morphological data obtained from radiography contribute to the first successful TOLAC. This retrospective single-center observational study enrolled pregnant women who underwent TOLAC between 2010 and 2021. The results of X-ray pelvimetry data, including obstetric conjugate (OC), transverse diameter of the pelvic inlet (TD), anteroposterior diameter of the pelvic inlet (APD), shape of the pelvic inlet, and other obstetrical clinical data, were compared between the success and failure groups. Seventy-five patients in successful group after excluding 35 patients with previous successful TOLAC, and 21 patients in failure group were eligible. The failure group had a higher rate of previous cesarean sections due to failed labor trials (p = 0.042) and heavier newborns (p = 0.014). OC, TD, and APD on X-ray pelvimetry did not differ significantly between the two groups nor did the shape of the pelvic inlet affect the success rate for TOLAC. The generalized linear model identified a history of failed trials of labor as a significant predictor of failed TOLAC (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval 0.071-0.923; p = 0.037), whereas no pelvimetric parameters were found. Pelvic size and morphological findings have no discernible impact on the outcomes of TOLAC. The universal application of X-ray pelvimetry in all women attempting TOLAC may not have significant clinical relevance.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the obstetric, maternal and neonatal outcome in the subsequent pregnancy after a pregnancy with an accidental uterine extension (AUE) during cesarean delivery (CD), as well as the relationship between the different types of AUE (inferior, lateral and superior).
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all CD with AUE in a tertiary medical center between 01/2011-01/2022. Women with a prior CD with AUE were compared to a 1:3 ratio matched control group of women with a prior CD without AUE. All AUE were defined in their direction, size and mode of suturing. CD with deliberate uterine extensions were excluded. We evaluated obstetric, maternal and neonatal outcomes in the subsequent pregnancy after a pregnancy with AUE during CD.
RESULTS: Comparing women with a prior CD with AUE (n=177) to the matched control group of women with a prior CD without AUE (n=528), we found no significant differences in proportions of uterine rupture or any other major complication or adverse outcome between the groups. There were no significant differences in the outcomes of the subsequent pregnancy in relation to the characteristics of the AUE (direction, size and mode of suturing).
CONCLUSIONS: Subsequent pregnancies after AUE are not associated with higher maternal or neonatal adverse outcomes including higher proportions of uterine rupture compared to pregnancies without previous AUE. Different characteristics of the AUE do not impact the outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To compare mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal outcomes using cervical ripening balloon (CRB) for induction of labor (IOL) in nulliparous patients vs. those undergoing first trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC).
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including data from two tertiary medical centers. Included were all patients with a singleton pregnancy and a gestational age > 37+0 weeks and no prior vaginal birth undergoing IOL with CRB. Nulliparous patients (nulliparous group) were compared to patients with one prior cesarean delivery (CD) and no prior vaginal delivery (TOLAC group). Patients who withdrew consent for trial of labor at any time in both groups were excluded. The primary outcome was mode of delivery.
RESULTS: Overall, 161 patients were included in the TOLAC group and 1577 in the nulliparous group. The rate of CD was similar in both groups and remained similar after adjusting for confounders (29.8 % vs. 28.9 %, p = 0.86, OR 1.1, 95 %, CI 0.76-1.58). CD due to fetal distress was more common in the TOLAC group (75 % vs. 56 %, p = 0.014). Other maternal outcomes and neonatal outcomes were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparable vaginal delivery rates may be achieved in patients with or without a previous CD attempting their first trial of labor, with a cervical ripening balloon for labor induction, without increasing adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.

Trial of labor after cesarean after 2 cesarean deliveries is linked to a lower success rate of vaginal delivery and higher rates of adverse obstetrical outcomes than trial of labor after cesarean after 1 previous cesarean delivery.
This study aimed to investigate the factors associated with failed trial of labor after cesarean among women with 2 previous cesarean deliveries.
This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study, which included all women with singleton pregnancies attempting trial of labor after cesarean after 2 previous cesarean deliveries between 2003 and 2021. This study compared labor, maternal, and neonatal characteristics between women with failed trial of labor after cesarean and those with successful trial of labor after cesarean. Univariate analysis was initially performed, followed by multivariable analysis (adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals).
The study included a total of 1181 women attempting trial of labor after cesarean after 2 previous cesarean deliveries. Among these cases, vaginal birth after cesarean was achieved in 973 women (82.4%). Women with failed trial of labor after cesarean had higher rates of maternal and neonatal morbidities. Several factors were found to be associated with failed trial of labor after cesarean, including longer interpregnancy and interdelivery intervals, lower gravidity and parity, lower rates of previous successful vaginal delivery, smoking, earlier gestational age at delivery (38.3±2.1 vs 39.5±1.3 weeks), late preterm delivery (34-37 weeks of gestation), lower cervical dilation on admission, no use of epidural, and smaller neonatal birthweight. Our multivariable model revealed that late preterm delivery (adjusted odds ratio, 3.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-10.47) and cervical dilation on admission for labor <3 cm (adjusted odds ratio, 2.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-4.54) were associated with higher odds of failed trial of labor after cesarean.
In the investigated population of women with 2 previous cesarean deliveries undergoing trial of labor after cesarean, admission at the late preterm period with a cervical dilation of <3 cm, which reflects the latent phase, may elevate the risk of failed trial of labor after cesarean and a repeated intrapartum cesarean delivery.

UNASSIGNED: The aim of our study is to describe maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing trial of labor after cesarean from the Consortium on Safe Labor.
UNASSIGNED: This was a secondary analysis of the Consortium on Safe Labor database, a retrospective cohort study over a 7 year study period. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were evaluated based on desired delivery mode: planned elective repeat cesarean delivery or trial of labor after cesarean.
UNASSIGNED: Of 9858 patients in our analysis, our study population had 4400 patients (45%) who desired trial of labor after cesarean and 5458 patients (55%) who desired elective repeat cesarean delivery. Women who attempted trial of labor after cesarean compared to those who had an elective repeat cesarean delivery were more likely to have an obstetric hemorrhage (adjusted odds ratio 1.6; 95% CI 1.3 -2.0) and blood transfusion (adjusted odds ratio 2.3; 95% CI 1.6 -3.2).
UNASSIGNED: Maternal morbidity in women undergoing trial of labor after cesarean was predominantly hemorrhage-related.

BACKGROUND: Trial of Labor After Cesarean is an important strategy for reducing the overall rate of cesarean delivery. Offering the option of vaginal delivery to a woman with a history of cesarean section requires the ability to manage a potential uterine rupture quickly and effectively. This requires infrastructure and organization of the maternity unit so that the decision-to-delivery interval is as short as possible when uterine rupture is suspected. We hypothesize that the organizational characteristics of maternity units in Belgium have an impact on their proposal and success rates of trial of labour after cesarean section.
METHODS: We collected data on the organizational characteristics of Belgian maternity units using an online questionnaire. Data on the frequency of cesarean section, trial of labor and vaginal birth after cesarean section were obtained from regional perinatal registries. We analyzed the determinants of the proposal and success of trial of labor after cesarean section and report the associations as mean proportions.
RESULTS: Of the 101 maternity units contacted, 97 responded to the questionnaire and data from 95 was included in the analysis. Continuous on-site presence of a gynecologist and an anesthetist was associated with a higher proportion of trial of labor after cesarean section, compared to units where staff was on-call from home (51% versus 46%, p = 0.04). There is a non-significant trend towards more trial of labor after cesarean section in units with an operating room in or near the delivery unit and a shorter transfer time, in larger units (> 1500 deliveries/year) and in units with a neonatal intensive care unit. The proposal of trial of labor after cesarean section and its success was negatively correlated to the number of cesarean section in the maternity unit (Spearman\' rho = 0.50 and 0.42, p value < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Organizational differences in maternity units appear to affect the proposal of trial of labor after cesarean section. Addressing these organizational factors may not be sufficient to change practice, given that general tendency to perform a cesarean section in the maternity unit is the main contributor to the percentage of trial of labor after cesarean.

BACKGROUND: Cesarean delivery is a major source of maternal morbidity, and repeat cesarean delivery accounts for 40% of cesarean delivery, but recent data on the trial of labor after cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean are limited.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report the national rates of trial of labor after cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean by number of previous cesarean deliveries and examine the effect of demographic and clinical characteristics on these rates.
METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study using the US natality data files. The study sample was restricted to 4,135,247 nonanomalous singleton, cephalic deliveries between 37 and 42 weeks of gestation, with a history of previous cesarean delivery and delivered in a hospital between 2010 and 2019. Deliveries were grouped by number of previous cesarean deliveries (1, 2, or ≥3). The trial of labor after cesarean (deliveries with labor among deliveries with previous cesarean delivery) and vaginal birth after cesarean (vaginal deliveries among trial of labor after cesarean) rates were computed for each year. The rates were further subgrouped by history of previous vaginal delivery. Year of delivery, number of previous cesarean deliveries, history of previous cesarean delivery, age, race and ethnicity, maternal education, obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, inadequate prenatal care, Medicaid payer, and gestational age were examined concerning the trial of labor after cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean using multiple logistic regression. SAS software (version 9.4) was used for all analyses.
RESULTS: The trial of labor after cesarean rates increased from 14.4% in 2010 to 19.6% in 2019 (P<.001). This trend was seen in all categories of number of previous cesarean deliveries. Moreover, vaginal birth after cesarean rates increased from 68.5% in 2010 to 74.3% in 2019. The trial of labor after cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean rates were the highest for deliveries with a history of both 1 previous cesarean delivery and a vaginal delivery (28.9% and 79.7%, respectively) and the lowest for those with a history of ≥3 previous cesarean deliveries and no history of vaginal delivery (4.5% and 46.9%, respectively). Factors associated with the trial of labor after cesarean and vaginal birth after cesarean rates are similar, but several factors have different directions of effect, such as non-White race and ethnicity, which is associated with a higher likelihood of trial of labor after cesarean but a lower likelihood of successful vaginal birth after cesarean.
CONCLUSIONS: More than 80% of patients with a history of previous cesarean delivery deliver by repeat scheduled cesarean delivery. With vaginal birth after cesarean rates increasing among those who attempt a trial of labor after cesarean, emphasis should be put on safely increasing the trial of labor after cesarean rates.