<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.4 20241031//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-4.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.4" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">arsci</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Advances in Reproductive Sciences</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">2330-0752</issn>
      <issn pub-type="ppub">2330-0744</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/arsci.2025.134030</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">arsci-147221</article-id>
      <article-categories>
        <subj-group>
          <subject>Article</subject>
        </subj-group>
        <subj-group>
          <subject>Medicine</subject>
          <subject>Healthcare</subject>
        </subj-group>
      </article-categories>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Maternal and Fetal Factors Associated with the Outcome of Trial of Labor after Cesarean in Four Reference Hospitals in Cameroon</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Sophie</surname>
            <given-names>Mboua Batoum Veronique</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Hamadama</surname>
            <given-names>Djibrilou</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Fomu</surname>
            <given-names>Christiane Nsahlaï Jivir</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4">4</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Madye</surname>
            <given-names>Ngo Dingom</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5">5</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Robert</surname>
            <given-names>Nyada Serge</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff6">6</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Juliette</surname>
            <given-names>Meka Ngo Um Esther</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff7">7</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Valere</surname>
            <given-names>Mve Koh</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label> Yaounde University Teaching Hospital, Yaounde, Cameroon </aff>
      <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label> Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Yaounde I, Yaounde, Cameroon </aff>
      <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label> Faculty of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Douala, Douala, Cameroon </aff>
      <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label> Essos Hospital Centre, Yaounde, Cameroon </aff>
      <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label> Yaounde Central Hospital, Yaounde, Cameroon </aff>
      <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label> Hospital Centre for Research and Application in Endoscopic Surgery and Human Reproduction, Yaounde, Cameroon </aff>
      <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label> Yaounde Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Paediatrics Hospital, Yaounde, Cameroon </aff>
      <author-notes>
        <fn fn-type="conflict" id="fn-conflict">
          <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p>
        </fn>
      </author-notes>
      <pub-date pub-type="epub">
        <day>28</day>
        <month>09</month>
        <year>2025</year>
      </pub-date>
      <pub-date pub-type="collection">
        <month>09</month>
        <year>2025</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>13</volume>
      <issue>04</issue>
      <fpage>353</fpage>
      <lpage>365</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received">
          <day>11</day>
          <month>09</month>
          <year>2025</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="accepted">
          <day>11</day>
          <month>11</month>
          <year>2025</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="published">
          <day>14</day>
          <month>11</month>
          <year>2025</year>
        </date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>© 2025 by the authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2025</copyright-year>
        <license license-type="open-access">
          <license-p> This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link> ). </license-p>
        </license>
      </permissions>
      <self-uri content-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4236/arsci.2025.134030">https://doi.org/10.4236/arsci.2025.134030</self-uri>
      <abstract>
        <p><bold>Introduction</bold>: Trial of Labor After Cesarean (TOLAC) is an alternative to iterative cesarean section. This study aimed to identify maternal-fetal factors associated with the outcome of TOLAC in four referral hospitals in Cameroon. <bold>Methodology</bold>: This was a retrospective case-control study conducted from January 2016 to December 2018 at the Yaoundé Central Hospital, the Yaoundé Teaching Hospital, the Douala Gyneco-Obstetric and Pediatric Hospital, and the Douala General Hospital. Cases (VBAC success) and controls (TOLAC failure) were matched according to maternal age and delivery site. Multivariate analysis identified factors independently associated with a favourable outcome. <bold>Results</bold>: Out of 468 women with unicatricial uterine who attempted vaginal delivery, 156 were successful and 312 were unsuccessful. Factors independently associated with a favorable outcome were: a favorable Bishop score (aOR = 42.24; 95% CI: 22.04 - 84.12), dilation ≥ 5 cm at admission (aOR = 7.63; 95% CI: 4.73 - 12.36), an estimated fetal weight between 2500 - 3500 g (aOR = 2.13; 95% CI: 1.44 - 3.17), clear amniotic fluid (aOR = 3.18; 95% CI: 1.73 - 6.16), and the absence of major obstetric comorbidities (aOR = 5.09; 95% CI: 2.1 - 14.73). <bold>Conclusion</bold>: Both maternal and fetal characteristics influence TOLAC outcomes. These results support the development of appropriate protocols to reduce unnecessary cesarean sections in resource-limited settings like Cameroonian hospitals.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-generated" xml:lang="en">
        <kwd>Trial of Labor After Cesarean Outcome</kwd>
        <kwd>Iterative Cesarean Section</kwd>
        <kwd>Associated Factors</kwd>
        <kwd>Hospital</kwd>
        <kwd>Cameroon</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>The use of cesarean section has increased significantly in recent decades, raising concerns about maternal and perinatal health. Globally, the prevalence of cesarean deliveries increased from 7% in 1990 to 21% in 2021, and projections suggest that it could reach 29% by 2030 if current trends continue [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">1</xref>]. Although this intervention can be lifesaving when medically indicated, its overuse is associated with increased risks in subsequent pregnancies, including uterine rupture, placental complications, and preterm delivery [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">2</xref>].</p>
      <p>In sub-Saharan Africa, caesarean section rates are generally low, often below 10%, but vary considerably across regions and levels of care. A study in 26 African countries found caesarean section rates ranged from 2% to 18%, with a higher concentration in urban areas and tertiary health facilities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">3</xref>]. In Cameroon, a systematic review by Njim <italic>et al</italic>. (2020) estimated the national average caesarean section rate at 9.9%, with a progressive increase: 3.4% before 2000, 9.8% between 2000 and 2009, and 14.7% between 2010 and 2019 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">4</xref>]. In some referral facilities, such as Yaoundé or Douala, this rate can exceed 17% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">5</xref>].</p>
      <p>Faced with this trend, Trial of labor after cesarean delivery or vaginal birth after cesarean (TOLAC/VBAC), is emerging as a relevant alternative to reduce complications associated with repeated cesarean sections. When properly conducted in carefully selected patients, VBAC has a success rate of 60 to 80% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref>]. However, this decision remains delicate because failure of TOLAC exposes the patient to major risks such as uterine rupture, postpartum hemorrhage, acute fetal distress or even perinatal death [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">7</xref>].</p>
      <p>Many factors influence the outcome of TOLAC, including the indication for the previous cesarean section, the type of uterine incision, the labor induction at the previous delivery, parity, maternal age, Bishop score, and estimated fetal weight [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref>]. In resource-limited settings, such as in several Cameroonian hospitals, VBAC management often relies on clinical judgment, in the absence of locally validated prediction tools, making decision-making even more complex [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">9</xref>]. The present multicenter study, conducted in four referral hospitals, aimed to identify maternal-fetal factors associated with the outcome of TOLAC, to contribute to better patient selection, improve delivery safety, and guide obstetric practices toward a reasoned reduction in the use of repeated cesareans.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec2">
      <title>2. Methodology</title>
      <sec id="sec2dot1">
        <title>2.1. Type of Study</title>
        <p>We conducted a retrospective case-control analytical study aiming at identifying maternal-fetal factors associated with the outcome of TOLAC.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot2">
        <title>2.2. Framework of the Study</title>
        <p>This was a multicenter study conducted in four reference hospitals in Cameroon: the Yaoundé Central Hospital (HCY), the Yaoundé Teaching Hospital (CHUY), the Douala Gyneco-Obstetric and Pediatric Hospital (HGOPED) and the Douala General Hospital (HGD). These tertiary-level institutions have well-structured gynecology-obstetrics departments and technical platforms adapted to the management of high-risk deliveries.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot3">
        <title>2.3. Study Period</title>
        <p>The data were collected over a three-year period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018, and analysed from January 1<sup>st</sup> to May 31<sup>st</sup>, 2019.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot4">
        <title>2.4. Study Population</title>
        <p>It concerned the files of pregnant women with a single-scarred uterus admitted in labor to the study sites and who had undergone an attempted vaginal delivery after a cesarean section.</p>
        <p><bold>Case</bold>: women who had a successful vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC), meaning they delivered vaginally after an attempted trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC).<bold>Control</bold>: women who had a failed TOLAC, defined as those who underwent an secondary cesarean section following an attempted vaginal delivery after a prior cesarean.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot5">
        <title>2.5. Inclusion Criteria</title>
        <p><bold>Cases:</bold>Complete records of women with a single-scarred uterus (SSU) who underwent TOLAC and successfully delivered vaginally (VBAC).<bold>Controls:</bold>Complete records of women with a single-scarred uterus who underwent TOLAC but required a cesarean section during labor (<italic>i.e</italic>., failed TOLAC).</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot6">
        <title>2.6. Exclusion Criteria</title>
        <p>Elective cesareans from the outset;Incomplete or unusable records (missing sociodemographic, obstetric, clinical, or neonatal outcome data).TOLAC cases with intrauterine fetal death at admission were excluded (because clinicians may be more likely to pursue vaginal delivery in these cases, potentially biasing TOLAC success estimates.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot7">
        <title>2.7. Sampling and Matching Method</title>
        <p>We employed non-probabilistic consecutive sampling. Cases and controls were matched based on maternal age and delivery site, using a 1:2 ratio of cases to controls.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot8">
        <title>2.8. Sample Size</title>
        <p>The minimum size required was estimated from data from the study of Momat <italic>et al</italic>. (2017), conducted in DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>]. Taking into account a case/control ratio of 1:2, and a difference in prevalence of dystocic presentation (the main factor associated with TOLAC failure) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>], a total of 127 cases and 254 controls was required, for a minimum size of 381 records.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot9">
        <title>2.9. Data Collection Procedure</title>
        <p>Data were collected from delivery room registers, obstetric records, and surgical archives. A pre-established questionnaire was used to extract the following variables:</p>
        <p>Maternal factors: age, parity, obstetric history, interbirth interval, number of Antenatal Care visits, type of associated maternal pathologies (pre-eclampsia, hypertension, diabetes, etc.);Obstetric factors: mode of onset of labor, state of membranes, fetal presentation, use of oxytocics and Bishop score on admission. A favourable Bishop score was defined as a score of ≥6, indicating that the cervix was considered favorable for induction of labor. Amniotic fluid appearance was graded as clear, yellowish, meconium-stained , meconium-stained thick, pea soup–like or greenish, based on visual inspection at the time of rupture of membranes. This grading system allowed categorization of the fluid to assess any association with labor outcomes.Fetal factors: birth weight, sex of the newborn, amniotic fluid, Apgar score, fetal outcome.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot10">
        <title>2.10. Statistical Analysis</title>
        <p>The data were analysed using Epi Info software version 3.5.4.</p>
        <p>Qualitative variables were expressed as percentages and compared using the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test.Quantitative variables were presented as means ± standard deviation and compared by the Student’s t test.Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified factors independently associated with the outcome of TOLAC. Results were expressed as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with their 95% confidence intervals, with the significance threshold set at <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.05.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot11">
        <title>2.11. Ethical Considerations</title>
        <p>Approval to conduct this study was granted by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the University of Douala and the management of the four participating hospitals. Data were handled with strict confidentiality.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec3">
      <title>3. Results</title>
      <p>We selected 468 files comprising 156 cases and 312 controls distributed across the four recruitment sites.</p>
      <sec id="sec3dot1">
        <title>3.1. Description of the Study Population</title>
        <p>By matching one case with two controls at each recruitment site, the study recruited 40 cases and 80 controls at CHUY, 30 cases and 60 controls at HCY, 29 cases and 58 controls at HGOPED, and 57 cases and 114 controls at HGD (<bold>Table 1</bold>).</p>
        <p>The mean age was 30.82 ± 5.1 in cases and 30.81 ± 5.1 in controls.</p>
        <p><bold>Table 1.</bold>Representation of cases and controls by recruitment site.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl1">
          <label>Table 1</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>Recruitment sites</td>
                <td>Case</td>
                <td>Control</td>
                <td>Total</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>University Hospital</td>
                <td>40</td>
                <td>80</td>
                <td>120</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>HCY</td>
                <td>30</td>
                <td>60</td>
                <td>90</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>HGOPED</td>
                <td>29</td>
                <td>58</td>
                <td>87</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>HGD</td>
                <td>57</td>
                <td>114</td>
                <td>174</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>TOTAL</td>
                <td>156</td>
                <td>312</td>
                <td>468</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot2">
        <title>3.2. Maternal-Fetal Parameters Associated with the Outcome of TOLAC after Bivariate Analysis</title>
        <p>3.2.1. Previous Delivery History and Type of Prior Cesarean</p>
        <p>A history of vaginal delivery was significantly associated with successful TOLAC [OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.08 - 2.37; <italic>p</italic> = 0.01]. Similarly, a previous low-segment cesarean section and cesarean performed in a first-level hospital were strong predictors of success (<italic>p</italic> = 0.001). In contrast, a history of classical cesarean section, an undetermined type of prior cesarean, and cesarean performed in a third-level hospital were strongly associated with VBAC failure after TOLAC. Interestingly, when the indication for the prior cesarean was labor dystocia, this factor was associated with higher odds of VBAC success [OR 6.2, 95% CI 1.29 - 44.9; <italic>p</italic> = 0.02].</p>
        <p>3.2.2. Estimated Fetal Weight</p>
        <p>Comparison of estimated fetal weights (EFW) revealed that newborns with a weight between 2500 and 3500 g were significantly more frequent in the case group (63.5%) than in the control group (44.9%), with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.13 [1.44 - 3.17]; <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.001<bold>,</bold>showing a positive association with favorable outcome of TOLAC. In contrast, EWF &lt; 2500 g or &gt;3500 g was not significantly associated with this outcome (<bold>Table 2</bold>).</p>
        <p>3.2.3. Cervical Dilation</p>
        <p>Regarding cervical dilation at admission, advanced dilations were strongly linked to a positive outcome. Indeed, women with a dilation of ≥5 cm accounted for 47.4% of cases, compared to 10.6% of controls (OR = 7.63 [4.73 - 12.36]; <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.001). Similarly, a dilation between 3 and 4 cm was also significantly associated with a positive outcome (OR = 2.08 [1.37 - 3.16]; p &lt; 0.001). Conversely, low dilations ([1 - 2] cm) and no dilation (0 cm) were significantly more common in controls and negatively linked to a positive outcome (OR = 0.13 [0.08 - 0.21] and OR = 0.05 [0 - 0.25] respectively; <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.001) (<bold>Table 2</bold>).</p>
        <p><bold>Table 2.</bold> Comparison of Estimated Fetal Weight (EFW), dilation between cases and controls.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl2">
          <label>Table 2</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Variables</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Case</bold>
                  n = 156 (%)
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Control</bold>
                  n = 312 (%)
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Total</bold>
                  N = 468 (%)
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>OR (95% CI)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>p</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>-</bold>
                  <bold>Value</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>EFW</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>&lt;2500</td>
                <td>2 (1.3)</td>
                <td>4 (1.3)</td>
                <td>6 (1.3)</td>
                <td>1 (0.13 - 5.7)</td>
                <td>0.650</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>[2500 - 3500]</td>
                <td>99 (63.5)</td>
                <td>140 (44.9)</td>
                <td>239 (51.1)</td>
                <td>2.13 (1.44 - 3.17)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>[3501 - 4000]</td>
                <td>40 (25.6)</td>
                <td>85 (27.2)</td>
                <td>125 (26.7)</td>
                <td>0.92 (0.59 - 1.42)</td>
                <td>0.400</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td colspan="6">
                  <bold>Dilation</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>0</td>
                <td>1 (0.6)</td>
                <td>37 (11.9)</td>
                <td>38 (8.1)</td>
                <td>0.05 (0 - 0.25)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>[1 - 2]</td>
                <td>21 (13.5)</td>
                <td>170 (54.5)</td>
                <td>191 (40.8)</td>
                <td>0.13 (0.08 - 0.21)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>[3 - 4]</td>
                <td>60 (38.5)</td>
                <td>72 (23.1)</td>
                <td>132 (28.2)</td>
                <td>2.08 (1.37 - 3.16)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>≥5</td>
                <td>74 (47.4)</td>
                <td>33 (10.6)</td>
                <td>107 (22.9)</td>
                <td>7.63 (4.73 - 12.36)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>3.2.4. Bishop Score</p>
        <p>The proportion of patients with a favorable cervix according to the Bishop score was significantly higher in cases (62.8%) compared to controls (3.8%), reflecting a strong association with favorable outcome (OR = 42.24; 95% CI: 22.04 - 84.12; <italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.001) (<bold>Table 3</bold>).</p>
        <p><bold>Table 3.</bold> Comparison of BISHOP score between cases and controls.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl3">
          <label>Table 3</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>BISHOP</bold>
                  <bold>score</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Case</bold>
                  n = 156 (%)
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Control</bold>
                  n = 312 (%)
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Total</bold>
                  N = 468 (%)
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>OR (95% CI)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>p</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>-</bold>
                  <bold>Value</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Favorable</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>98 (62.8)</td>
                <td>12 (3.8)</td>
                <td>110 (23.5)</td>
                <td>42.24 (22.04 - 84.12)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>58 (37.2)</td>
                <td>300 (96.2)</td>
                <td>358 (76.5)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>3.2.5. Analysis of Comorbidities</p>
        <p>It highlights a statistically significant association between the favorable outcome of TOLAC and the absence of certain obstetric pathologies. Cases were significantly less likely to present conditions such as severe malaria, placenta praevia, retroplacental hematoma (RPH), threatened preterm delivery (THREATENED PRETERM LABOR) or pyelonephritis compared to controls (OR = 0.2; 95% CI: 0.07 - 0.48; <italic>p</italic>= 0.000 for each of these pathologies).</p>
        <p>This difference highlights that the presence of these comorbidities represents a significant risk factor for failure of TOLAC. Indeed, their impact on maternal-fetal stability and uterine dynamics could justify a VBAC failure. Conversely, women who did not present any of these complications were more likely to have a successful VBAC, which is confirmed by the strong inverse association observed with the absence of placenta previa and threatened preterm delivery (OR = 5.09; 95% CI: 2.1 - 14.73; <italic>p</italic>= 0.000) (<bold>Table 4</bold>).</p>
        <p><bold>Table 4.</bold> Comparison of pregnancy-related comorbidities between cases and controls.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl4">
          <label>Table 4</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Variables</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Case</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Control</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Total</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>OR (95% CI)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>p</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>-</bold>
                  <bold>Value</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Comorbidity</bold>
                </td>
                <td>n = 156 (%)</td>
                <td>n = 312 (%)</td>
                <td>n = 468 (%)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Severe malaria</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>5 (3.2)</td>
                <td>45 (14.4)</td>
                <td>50 (10.7)</td>
                <td>0.2 (0.07 - 0.48)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>151 (96.8)</td>
                <td>267 (85.6)</td>
                <td>418 (89.3)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Placenta</bold>
                  <bold>praevia</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>5 (3.2)</td>
                <td>45 (14.4)</td>
                <td>50 (10.7)</td>
                <td>0.2 (0.07 - 0.48)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>151 (96.8)</td>
                <td>267 (85.6)</td>
                <td>418 (89.3)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Absence of the placenta praevia</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>151 (96.8)</td>
                <td>267 (85.6)</td>
                <td>418 (89.3)</td>
                <td>5.09 (2.1 - 14.73)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>5 (3.2)</td>
                <td>45 (14.4)</td>
                <td>50 (10.7)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Retroplacental hematoma</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>5 (3.2)</td>
                <td>45 (14.4)</td>
                <td>50 (10.7)</td>
                <td>0.2 (0.07 - 0.48)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>151 (96.8)</td>
                <td>267 (85.6)</td>
                <td>418 (89.3)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Threatened preterm labor</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>5 (3.2)</td>
                <td>45 (14.4)</td>
                <td>50 (10.7)</td>
                <td>0.2 (0.07 - 0.48)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>151 (96.8)</td>
                <td>267 (85.6)</td>
                <td>418 (89.3)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Absence of threatened preterm labor</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>151 (96.8)</td>
                <td>267 (85.6)</td>
                <td>418 (89.3)</td>
                <td>5.09 (2.1 - 14.73)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>5 (3.2)</td>
                <td>45 (14.4)</td>
                <td>50 (10.7)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Pyelonephritis</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>5 (3.2)</td>
                <td>45 (14.4)</td>
                <td>50 (10.7)</td>
                <td>0.2 (0.07 - 0.48)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>151 (96.8)</td>
                <td>267 (85.6)</td>
                <td>418 (89.3)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>3.2.6. Fetal Factors</p>
        <p>Fetal heart rate (FHR) abnormalities were significantly less frequent in cases (3.2% vs. 15.1%; OR = 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06 - 0.45; <italic>p</italic>&lt; 0.001). Umbilical cord prolapse was observed only in controls (3.5%; <italic>p</italic>= 0.010). Regarding the appearance of amniotic fluid, clear fluid was more frequent in cases (91.7% vs. 77.6%; OR = 3.18; 95% CI: 1.73 - 6.16; <italic>p</italic>&lt; 0.001), while meconium-stained fluid was more frequent in controls (19.6% vs. 5.1%; OR = 0.22; 95% CI: 0.1 - 0.46; <italic>p</italic>&lt; 0.001). Other aspects of the liquid (yellowish, meconium-stained thick, pea soup-like, greenish) were not statistically associated with the outcome of TOLAC (<bold>Table 5</bold>).</p>
        <p><bold>Table 5.</bold> Comparison of fetal factors between cases and controls.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl5">
          <label>Table 5</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Variables</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Case</bold>
                  n = 156 (%)
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Control</bold>
                  n = 312 (%)
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Total</bold>
                  N = 468(%)
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>OR (95% CI)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>p</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>-</bold>
                  <bold>Value</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>FHR Anomaly</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>5 (3.2)</td>
                <td>47 (15.1)</td>
                <td>52 (11.1)</td>
                <td>0.19 (0.06 - 0.45)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>151 (96.8)</td>
                <td>265 (84.9)</td>
                <td>416 (88.9)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td colspan="2">
                  <bold>Prolapse of the Cord</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>0 (0)</td>
                <td>11 (3.5)</td>
                <td>11 (2.4)</td>
                <td>0 (0 - 0.61)</td>
                <td>0.010</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>156 (100)</td>
                <td>301 (96.5)</td>
                <td>457 (97.6)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td colspan="6">
                  <bold>Appearance of the Amniotic fluid</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Yellowish</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>1 (0.6)</td>
                <td>1 (0.3)</td>
                <td>2 (0.4)</td>
                <td>2.01 (0.05 - 78.48)</td>
                <td>0.560</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>155 (99.4)</td>
                <td>311 (99.7)</td>
                <td>466 (99.6)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Meconium</bold>
                  <bold>-</bold>
                  <bold>stained</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>8 (5.1)</td>
                <td>61 (19.6)</td>
                <td>69 (14.7)</td>
                <td>0.22 (0.1 - 0.46)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>148 (94.9)</td>
                <td>251 (80.4)</td>
                <td>399 (85.3)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Clear</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>143 (91.7)</td>
                <td>242 (77.6)</td>
                <td>385 (82.3)</td>
                <td>3.18 (1.73 - 6.16)</td>
                <td>0.000</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>13 (8.3)</td>
                <td>70 (22.4)</td>
                <td>83 (17.7)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Meconium</bold>
                  <bold>-</bold>
                  <bold>stained thick,</bold>
                  <bold>pea soup</bold>
                  <bold>-</bold>
                  <bold>like</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>1 (0.6)</td>
                <td>3 (1)</td>
                <td>4 (0.9)</td>
                <td>0.66 (0.03 - 6.29)</td>
                <td>0.590</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>155 (99.4)</td>
                <td>309 (99)</td>
                <td>464 (99.1)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Greenish</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Yes</td>
                <td>3 (1.9)</td>
                <td>3 (1)</td>
                <td>6 (1.3)</td>
                <td>2.02 (0.34 - 11.86)</td>
                <td>0.320</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No</td>
                <td>153 (98.1)</td>
                <td>309 (99)</td>
                <td>462 (98.7)</td>
                <td>
                </td>
                <td>
                </td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot3">
        <title>3.3. Maternal-Fetal Parameters Associated with Successful TOLAC after the Multivariable Logistic Regression</title>
        <p>After adjustment, the following identified independent factors: were found: primary admission mode from home, past history of low segmental caesarean section, current pregnancy monitoring by an obstetrician-gynaecologist, an intergenetic interval of between 25 and 36 months inclusive, a birth weight of between 2500 and 3500g inclusive, ruptured membranes on admission, dilation greater than 3 cm, HU between 34 and 36 cm inclusive , drug-induced labour, and a favourable Bishop score on admission (<bold>Table 6</bold>).</p>
        <p><bold>Table</bold><bold>6.</bold> Maternal and fetal factors associated with successful TOLAC after multivariable logistic regression analysis.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl6">
          <label>Table 6</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>Associated Factors</td>
                <td>aOdds Ratio</td>
                <td>95%</td>
                <td>C.I.</td>
                <td>
                  <italic>p</italic>
                  -Value
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Favorable Bishop score</td>
                <td>
                  <underline>4.6252</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>1.4322</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>14.937</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>0.0105</underline>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Clear amniotic fluid</td>
                <td>1.981</td>
                <td>2.0994</td>
                <td>11.8175</td>
                <td>0.0653</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Cervical dilatation ≥ 3 cm</td>
                <td>
                  <underline>16.8178</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>7.3333</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>38.569</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>0</underline>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Interpregnancy interval[25 - 36 months]</td>
                <td>
                  <underline>3.7187</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>1.9339</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>7.1506</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>0.0001</underline>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Obstetrician-gynecologist as care provider</td>
                <td>
                  <underline>2.8461</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>1.0274</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>7.8838</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>0.0442</underline>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Previous cesarean performed in a level-1 hospital</td>
                <td>1.9065</td>
                <td>0.9599</td>
                <td>3.7864</td>
                <td>0.0653</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Uterine height [34 - 36 cm]</td>
                <td>
                  <underline>2.2814</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>1.2647</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>4.1153</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>0.0061</underline>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Mechanical induction of labor</td>
                <td>0.425</td>
                <td>0.1076</td>
                <td>1.678</td>
                <td>0.222</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Pharmacological induction of labor</td>
                <td>
                  <underline>8.1358</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>1.3211</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>50.1041</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>0.0238</underline>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Married status</td>
                <td>0.8451</td>
                <td>0.4519</td>
                <td>1.5807</td>
                <td>0.5984</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>History of prior vaginal delivery</td>
                <td>1.1166</td>
                <td>0.6236</td>
                <td>1.9995</td>
                <td>0.7106</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>No history of abortion</td>
                <td>1.0009</td>
                <td>0.5583</td>
                <td>1.7944</td>
                <td>0.9975</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Estimated fetal weight [2500 - 3500 g]</td>
                <td>
                  <underline>2.6267</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>1.4497</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>4.7592</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>0.0014</underline>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Ruptured membranes</td>
                <td>
                  <underline>3.1382</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>1.6444</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>5.9892</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>0.0005</underline>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Previous low transverse cesarean section</td>
                <td>
                  <underline>3.2136</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>1.6579</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>6.2289</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>0.0005</underline>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Admission from home (direct admission)</td>
                <td>
                  <underline>2.3903</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>1.3258</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>4.3095</underline>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <underline>0.0038</underline>
                </td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec4">
      <title>4. Discussion</title>
      <p>The objective of this study was to identify obstetric factors associated with a favorable outcome of the uterine scar test in four university hospitals in Cameroon. The results obtained show that a favorable cervix (high Bishop score), advanced cervical dilation, an estimated fetal weight between 2500 and 3500 g, the absence of major obstetric comorbidities and clear amniotic fluid are significantly associated with a favorable outcome of the scar test.</p>
      <sec id="sec4dot1">
        <title>4.1. Bishop Score and Cervical Dilation</title>
        <p>The Bishop score is a major predictor of successful vaginal delivery, particularly in the context of Trial of labor after cesarean. In our study, a favorable Bishop score was strongly correlated with a favorable outcome of the scar test. This result is consistent with those reported by Landon <italic>et al</italic>. (2004) in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) prospective study, which showed that the chances of successful TOLAC significantly increased with a mature cervix [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref>].</p>
        <p>In addition, a dilation ≥ 3 cm at admission was an independent factor associated with the success of TOLAC. It multiplied by 16 the chance of success of the scar test, which confirms the importance of the stage of labor at the time of assessment. This result is consistent with that of Malede and Yirgu in Ethiopia (2013) who found that a dilation greater than or equal to 3 cm was an independent factor associated with the success of TOLAC [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">11</xref>]. It multiplied by 5 the chance of success of VBAC. In addition, these results are consistent with those of Trojano <italic>et al</italic>. (2019) who reported that the progress of spontaneous labor was one of the best predictors of a successful vaginal delivery in patients with a scarred uterus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref>].</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec4dot2">
        <title>4.2. Estimated Fetal Weight</title>
        <p>Our study shows that EFWs between 2500 and 3500 g were significantly associated with a favorable outcome. These results are consistent with those of Tahseen and Griffiths (2010), and İzbudak <italic>et al</italic>. (2021); who showed that fetal weights &gt; 4000 g were associated with an increased rate of failed TOLAC and maternal-fetal complications, while moderate weights increased the chances of success [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">14</xref>]. Thus, an adequately weighted fetus appears to represent an optimal compromise between maternal and neonatal safety in the context of attempted vaginal delivery.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec4dot3">
        <title>4.3. Pregnancy-Related Comorbidities</title>
        <p>Analysis of comorbidities reveals that the presence of pathologies such as severe malaria, placenta praevia, retroplacental hematoma , threatened preterm labor or pyelonephritis is significantly more frequent in controls. These conditions, often associated with maternal-fetal instability, constitute relative or absolute contraindications to the scar test according to international recommendations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">15</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">16</xref>]. Conversely, the absence of these comorbidities was strongly associated with successful completion of TOLAC, highlighting the importance of rigorous selection of candidates for TOLAC, as also suggested by Guise <italic>et al</italic>. (2010) in their meta-analysis of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">17</xref>].</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec4dot4">
        <title>4.4. Fetal Factors</title>
        <p>Fetal heart rate (FHR) abnormalities, cord prolapse, and abnormal amniotic fluid (meconium, pea-like, greenish) were significantly more common in controls. These factors often reflect acute fetal distress or suspected intrapartum complications, justifying immediate cesarean section. Conversely, clear amniotic fluid, indicative of good fetal well-being, was more common in women with successful vaginal deliveries. This is consistent with the data of Rosen <italic>et al</italic>. (2013), who emphasise that fetal integrity is a determining factor in the decision to continue labor in patients with scarred uteri [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">18</xref>].</p>
        <p>In this study, after logistic regression, successful TOLAC was significantly associated with maternal and fetal factors including a favorable Bishop score, interdelivery interval of 25 - 36 months, birth weight 2500 - 3500 g, ruptured membranes, cervical dilation &gt;3 cm, and uterine height 34 - 36 cm. These findings align with recent studies in sub-Saharan Africa: Tegegne <italic>et al</italic>. (2024) identified prior vaginal delivery, cervical dilation, and maternal age as predictors of TOLAC success, while Gebremedhin <italic>et al</italic>. (2023) reported cervical dilation ≥4 cm and previous VBAC as independent predictors [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">19</xref>][<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">20</xref>]. Incorporating these factors into clinical assessment can optimize selection for TOLAC and improve maternal and neonatal outcomes.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec4dot5">
        <title>4.5. Limitations of the Study</title>
        <p>Limitations include the bias related to the retrospective nature of the study. Also, fetal weight estimation remains subject to ultrasound variability, and amniotic fluid classification was based on a visual assessment, which is potentially subjective. Furthermore, the analysis did not incorporate certain psychosocial or logistical factors (transfer time, staff availability), which could influence clinical decisions and the outcome of TOLAC.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec5">
      <title>5. Conclusion</title>
      <p>Trial of labor after cesarean, when properly supervised, constitutes a safe and rational obstetric strategy in resource-limited settings. It offers a realistic alternative to iterative cesarean section and allows for the optimization of obstetric care, provided that it is based on rigorous selection and adequate labor monitoring. This study reinforces the importance of formalising management protocols adapted to local realities, to promote vaginal delivery after cesarean section in optimal conditions of safety for the mother and child. Efforts must be continued to improve provider training and the monitoring of high-risk pregnancies.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <title>References</title>
      <ref id="B1">
        <label>1.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Betrán, A.P., Ye, J., Moller, A., Zhang, J., Gülmezoglu, A.M. and Torloni, M.R. (2016) The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014. <italic>PLOS ONE</italic>, 11, e0148343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pone.0148343</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26849801</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148343</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Ye, J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Moller, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Zhang, J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Torloni, M.R.</string-name>
              <string-name>Global, R</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2016</year>
            <article-title>The Increasing Trend in Caesarean Section Rates: Global, Regional and National Estimates: 1990-2014</article-title>
            <source>PLOS ONE</source>
            <volume>11</volume>
            <fpage>1990</fpage>
            <lpage>2014</lpage>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pone.0148343</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26849801</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B2">
        <label>2.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Boerma, T., Ronsmans, C., Melesse, D.Y., Barros, A.J.D., Barros, F.C., Juan, L., <italic>et al.</italic> (2018) Global Epidemiology of Use of and Disparities in Caesarean Sections. <italic>The Lancet</italic>, 392, 1341-1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31928-7 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31928-7</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30322584</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31928-7">https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31928-7</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Boerma, T.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ronsmans, C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Melesse, D.Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>Barros, A.J.D.</string-name>
              <string-name>Barros, F.C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Juan, L.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2018</year>
            <article-title>Global Epidemiology of Use of and Disparities in Caesarean Sections</article-title>
            <source>The Lancet</source>
            <volume>6736</volume>
            <issue>18</issue>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31928-7</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">30322584</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B3">
        <label>3.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Cavallaro, F.L., Cresswell, J.A., França, G.V., Victora, C.G., Barros, A.J. and Ronsmans, C. (2013) Trends in Caesarean Delivery by Country and Wealth Quintile: Cross-Sectional Surveys in Southern Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. <italic>Bulletin of the World Health Organization</italic>, 91, 914-922D. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.13.117598 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2471/blt.13.117598</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24347730</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.13.117598">https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.13.117598</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Cavallaro, F.L.</string-name>
              <string-name>Cresswell, J.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Victora, C.G.</string-name>
              <string-name>Barros, A.J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ronsmans, C.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2013</year>
            <article-title>Trends in Caesarean Delivery by Country and Wealth Quintile: Cross-Sectional Surveys in Southern Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa</article-title>
            <source>Bulletin of the World Health Organization</source>
            <volume>91</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2471/blt.13.117598</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24347730</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B4">
        <label>4.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Njim, T., Tanyitiku, B.S. and Mbanga, C. (2020) Prevalence, Indications and Neonatal Complications of Caesarean Deliveries in Cameroon: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. <italic>Archives of Public Health</italic>, 78, Article No. 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-020-00430-1 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s13690-020-00430-1</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">32514347</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-020-00430-1">https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-020-00430-1</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Njim, T.</string-name>
              <string-name>Tanyitiku, B.S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Mbanga, C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Prevalence, I</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2020</year>
            <article-title>Prevalence, Indications and Neonatal Complications of Caesarean Deliveries in Cameroon: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</article-title>
            <source>Archives of Public Health</source>
            <volume>78</volume>
            <elocation-id>No</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s13690-020-00430-1</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">32514347</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B5">
        <label>5.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Halle-Ekane, G., Nkwabong, E., Njim, T., <italic>et al.</italic> (2022) Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes after Caesarean Delivery in Cameroon: A Multicenter Prospective Study. <italic>BMC Pregnancy Childbirth</italic>, 22, Article No. 130.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Halle-Ekane, G.</string-name>
              <string-name>Nkwabong, E.</string-name>
              <string-name>Njim, T.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2022</year>
            <article-title>Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes after Caesarean Delivery in Cameroon: A Multicenter Prospective Study</article-title>
            <source>BMC Pregnancy Childbirth</source>
            <volume>22</volume>
            <elocation-id>No</elocation-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B6">
        <label>6.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Landon, M.B., Hauth, J.C., Leveno, K.J., Spong, C.Y., Leindecker, S., Varner, M.W., <italic>et al.</italic> (2004) Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with a Trial of Labor after Prior Cesarean Delivery. <italic>New England Journal of Medicine</italic>, 351, 2581-2589. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa040405 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1056/nejmoa040405</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15598960</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa040405">https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa040405</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Landon, M.B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Hauth, J.C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Leveno, K.J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Spong, C.Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>Leindecker, S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Varner, M.W.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2004</year>
            <article-title>Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes Associated with a Trial of Labor after Prior Cesarean Delivery</article-title>
            <source>New England Journal of Medicine</source>
            <volume>351</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1056/nejmoa040405</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15598960</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B7">
        <label>7.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Fitzpatrick, K.E., Kurinczuk, J.J., Alfirevic, Z., Spark, P., Brocklehurst, P. and Knight, M. (2012) Uterine Rupture by Intended Mode of Delivery in the UK: A National Case-Control Study. <italic>PLOS</italic><italic>Medicine</italic>, 9, e1001184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001184 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pmed.1001184</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22427745</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001184">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001184</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Fitzpatrick, K.E.</string-name>
              <string-name>Kurinczuk, J.J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Alfirevic, Z.</string-name>
              <string-name>Spark, P.</string-name>
              <string-name>Brocklehurst, P.</string-name>
              <string-name>Knight, M.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2012</year>
            <article-title>Uterine Rupture by Intended Mode of Delivery in the UK: A National Case-Control Study</article-title>
            <source>PLOS Medicine</source>
            <volume>9</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1371/journal.pmed.1001184</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22427745</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B8">
        <label>8.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Grobman, W.A., Lai, Y., Landon, M.B., Spong, C.Y., Leveno, K.J., Rouse, D.J., <italic>et al.</italic> (2007) Development of a Nomogram for Prediction of Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Delivery. <italic>Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology</italic>, 109, 806-812. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000259312.36053.02 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1097/01.aog.0000259312.36053.02</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17400840</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000259312.36053.02">https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000259312.36053.02</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Grobman, W.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Lai, Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>Landon, M.B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Spong, C.Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>Leveno, K.J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Rouse, D.J.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2007</year>
            <article-title>Development of a Nomogram for Prediction of Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Delivery</article-title>
            <source>Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology</source>
            <volume>109</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1097/01.aog.0000259312.36053.02</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17400840</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B9">
        <label>9.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Kemfang, J.D.N., Fouogue, J.T., Nzali, B.S., Djuikwo, F.T., Dipanda, A.N. and Kenfack, B. (2021) Childbirth Patterns after Previous Caesarean Birth in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Retrospective Analytical Study in Two Referral Hospitals in a Semi-Urban Setting in Cameroon. <italic>International Journal of Reproduction</italic>, <italic>Contraception</italic>, <italic>Obstetrics and Gynecology</italic>, 10, 4066-4075. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20214312 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20214312</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20214312">https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20214312</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Kemfang, J.D.N.</string-name>
              <string-name>Fouogue, J.T.</string-name>
              <string-name>Nzali, B.S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Djuikwo, F.T.</string-name>
              <string-name>Dipanda, A.N.</string-name>
              <string-name>Kenfack, B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Reproduction, C</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>Childbirth Patterns after Previous Caesarean Birth in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Retrospective Analytical Study in Two Referral Hospitals in a Semi-Urban Setting in Cameroon</article-title>
            <source>International Journal of Reproduction</source>
            <volume>10</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20214312</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B10">
        <label>10.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Momat, F.K., Zalagile, P.A., Mukalenge, F.C., Luboya, O.N., Kalala, C.T., Mashinda, D., <italic>et al.</italic> (2017) Scarred Uterine Deliveries in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Uterine Challenge and Determinants of Outcome. <italic>Pan African Medical Journal</italic>, 27, Article 71.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Momat, F.K.</string-name>
              <string-name>Zalagile, P.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Mukalenge, F.C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Luboya, O.N.</string-name>
              <string-name>Kalala, C.T.</string-name>
              <string-name>Mashinda, D.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2017</year>
            <article-title>Scarred Uterine Deliveries in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Uterine Challenge and Determinants of Outcome</article-title>
            <source>Pan African Medical Journal</source>
            <volume>27</volume>
            <elocation-id>71</elocation-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B11">
        <label>11.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Birara, M. and Gebrehiwot, Y. (2013) Factors Associated with Success of Vaginal Birth after One Caesarean Section (VBAC) at Three Teaching Hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A Case Control Study. <italic>BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth</italic>, 13, Article No. 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-31 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/1471-2393-13-31</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23374116</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-31">https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-31</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Birara, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Gebrehiwot, Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ababa, E</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2013</year>
            <article-title>Factors Associated with Success of Vaginal Birth after One Caesarean Section (VBAC) at Three Teaching Hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A Case Control Study</article-title>
            <source>BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth</source>
            <volume>13</volume>
            <elocation-id>No</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/1471-2393-13-31</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23374116</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B12">
        <label>12.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Trojano, G., Damiani, G.R., Olivieri, C., Villa, M., Malvasi, A., Alfonso, R., <italic>et al.</italic> (2019) Antenatal Predictors of Success. <italic>Acta Biomaterialia</italic>, 90, 300-309.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Trojano, G.</string-name>
              <string-name>Damiani, G.R.</string-name>
              <string-name>Olivieri, C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Villa, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Malvasi, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Alfonso, R.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2019</year>
            <article-title>Antenatal Predictors of Success</article-title>
            <source>Acta Biomaterialia</source>
            <volume>90</volume>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B13">
        <label>13.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Tahseen, S. and Griffiths, M. (2010) Vaginal Birth after Two Caesarean Sections (VBAC‐2)—A Systematic Review with Meta‐Analysis of Success Rate and Adverse Outcomes of VBAC‐2 versus VBAC‐1 and Repeat (Third) Caesarean Sections. <italic>BJOG</italic>: <italic>An International Journal of Obstetrics &amp; Gynaecology</italic>, 117, 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02351.x <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02351.x</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19781046</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02351.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02351.x</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Tahseen, S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Griffiths, M.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2010</year>
            <article-title>Vaginal Birth after Two Caesarean Sections (VBAC‐2)—A Systematic Review with Meta‐Analysis of Success Rate and Adverse Outcomes of VBAC‐2 versus VBAC‐1 and Repeat (Third) Caesarean Sections</article-title>
            <source>BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics &amp; Gynaecology</source>
            <volume>117</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02351.x</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19781046</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B14">
        <label>14.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">İzbudak, G., Tozkır, E., Cogendez, E., Uzun, F. and Eser, S.K. (2021) Comparison of Maternal-Neonatal Results of Vaginal Birth after Cesarean and Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery. <italic>Ginekologia Polska</italic>, 92, 306-311. https://doi.org/10.5603/gp.a2020.0132 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5603/gp.a2020.0132</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">33448006</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5603/gp.a2020.0132">https://doi.org/10.5603/gp.a2020.0132</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Cogendez, E.</string-name>
              <string-name>Uzun, F.</string-name>
              <string-name>Eser, S.K.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>Comparison of Maternal-Neonatal Results of Vaginal Birth after Cesarean and Elective Repeat Cesarean Delivery</article-title>
            <source>Ginekologia Polska</source>
            <volume>92</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5603/gp.a2020.0132</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">33448006</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B15">
        <label>15.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">FIGO Committee (2015) Guidelines for Appropriate Care in VBAC. <italic>International Journal of Gynecology &amp; Obstetrics</italic>, 128, 131-136.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <year>2015</year>
            <article-title>Guidelines for Appropriate Care in VBAC</article-title>
            <source>International Journal of Gynecology &amp; Obstetrics</source>
            <volume>128</volume>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B16">
        <label>16.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">CNGOF (2012) Recommendations for Clinical Practice-Childbirth after Cesarean Section. <italic>European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology</italic>, 41, 501-520.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <year>2012</year>
            <article-title>Recommendations for Clinical Practice-Childbirth after Cesarean Section</article-title>
            <source>European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology</source>
            <volume>41</volume>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B17">
        <label>17.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Guise, J.M., McDonagh, M.S., Osterweil, P., Nygren, P., Chan, B.K., Helfand, M., <italic>et al.</italic> (2010) Vaginal Birth after Cesarean: New Insights. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Guise, J.M.</string-name>
              <string-name>McDonagh, M.S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Osterweil, P.</string-name>
              <string-name>Nygren, P.</string-name>
              <string-name>Chan, B.K.</string-name>
              <string-name>Helfand, M.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2010</year>
            <article-title>Vaginal Birth after Cesarean: New Insights</article-title>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B18">
        <label>18.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Rosen, I.D. and Cahill, A.G. (2013) Contemporary Management of the Trial of Labor after Cesarean Delivery. <italic>Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology</italic>, 56, 403-412.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Rosen, I.D.</string-name>
              <string-name>Cahill, A.G.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2013</year>
            <article-title>Contemporary Management of the Trial of Labor after Cesarean Delivery</article-title>
            <source>Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology</source>
            <volume>56</volume>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B19">
        <label>19.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Tegegne, G.A., Rade, B.K., Yismaw, A.E., Taye, W. and Mengistie, B.A. (2024) Predictors of Successful Trial of Labor after Cesarean Section (TOLAC) in Women with One Prior Transverse Cesarean Section at Tertiary Hospitals in Northwest Ethiopia: A Multicenter Study. <italic>BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth</italic>, 24, Article No. 240. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06432-z <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s12884-024-06432-z</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">38580911</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06432-z">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06432-z</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Tegegne, G.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Rade, B.K.</string-name>
              <string-name>Yismaw, A.E.</string-name>
              <string-name>Taye, W.</string-name>
              <string-name>Mengistie, B.A.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2024</year>
            <article-title>Predictors of Successful Trial of Labor after Cesarean Section (TOLAC) in Women with One Prior Transverse Cesarean Section at Tertiary Hospitals in Northwest Ethiopia: A Multicenter Study</article-title>
            <source>BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth</source>
            <volume>24</volume>
            <elocation-id>No</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s12884-024-06432-z</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">38580911</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B20">
        <label>20.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Gebremedhin, A.T., Tsegaye, A.T., Tadesse, A.W., <italic>et al</italic>. (2023) Trend, Prevalence and Predictors of Successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Section in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. <italic>International Health</italic>, 16, 371-379. https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihad048 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/inthealth/ihad048</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">37449453</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihad048">https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihad048</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Gebremedhin, A.T.</string-name>
              <string-name>Tsegaye, A.T.</string-name>
              <string-name>Tadesse, A.W.</string-name>
              <string-name>Trend, P</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2023</year>
            <article-title>Trend, Prevalence and Predictors of Successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Section in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</article-title>
            <source>International Health</source>
            <volume>16</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/inthealth/ihad048</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">37449453</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>