Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the trial of labor after caesarean (TOLAC) outcomes and determine its reliability by comparing it with elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) and vaginal delivery.
Material and methods: For this purpose, the outcomes of patients aged 18-40 years who had 57 TOLACs, 72 vaginal deliveries, and 60 elective caesarean sections in Ankara Koru Hospital between January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2022 were compared.
Results: Gestational age was lower in the normal vaginal delivery (NVD) group than in the elective caesarean section and vaginal birth after caesarean delivery (VBAC) groups (p < 0.0005). The birth weight was statistically significantly lower in the NVD group than in the elective caesarean section and VBAC groups (p < 0.0002). No statistically significant correlation was found between the BMI values in all three groups (p < 0.586). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of pre- and post-natal haemoglobin and APGAR scores (p < 0.575)(p < 0.690)(p < 0.747). The rate of epidural and oxytocin use was higher in the NVD group than in the VBAC group (p < 0.001) (p < 0.037). There was no statistically significant correlation between the birth weights of the infants in the TOLAC group and failed VBAC (p < 0.078). No statistically significant correlation was observed between the use of oxytocin for induction and failed VBAC (p < 0.842). There was no statistically significant correlation between epidural anaesthesia and failed VBAC (p < 0.586). A statistically significant correlation was found between gestational age and caesarean section as a result of a failed VBAC (p < 0.020).
Conclusions: The main reason for not preferring TOLAC continues to be uterine rupture. It can be recommended to eligible patients in tertiary centers. Because even when the factors increasing the success of VBAC were excluded, the rate of successful VBAC remained high.
Keywords: TOLAC; VBAC; caesarean section; vaginal birth after caesarean delivery.