<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>0300-9041</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[Ginecología y obstetricia de México]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[Ginecol. obstet. Méx.]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>0300-9041</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Federación Mexicana de Colegios de Obstetricia y Ginecología A.C.]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S0300-90412025001000397</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.24245/gom.v93i10.322</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="es"><![CDATA[Desenlaces en el parto después de dos cesáreas en una serie de casos]]></article-title>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Birth outcomes after two cesarean sections in a case series.]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Guzmán Guevara]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Fátima María]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Moreno Jiménez]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[José Roberto]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[López Pulgarín]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[José Arnulfo]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="Aff"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="Af1">
<institution><![CDATA[,Nacer humano  ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Guadalajara Jalisco]]></addr-line>
<country>Mexico</country>
</aff>
<aff id="Af2">
<institution><![CDATA[,Centro Nacer humano  ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Guadalajara Jalisco]]></addr-line>
<country>Mexico</country>
</aff>
<aff id="Af3">
<institution><![CDATA[,Universidad de Guadalajara  ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Jalisco ]]></addr-line>
<country>Mexico</country>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>00</month>
<year>2025</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>00</month>
<year>2025</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>93</volume>
<numero>10</numero>
<fpage>397</fpage>
<lpage>405</lpage>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S0300-90412025001000397&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S0300-90412025001000397&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S0300-90412025001000397&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="es"><p><![CDATA[Resumen  OBJETIVO: Describir los hallazgos en las madres y sus neonatos en una serie de 21 casos de parto después de dos cesáreas.  MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional, transversal y retrospectivo efectuado en pacientes embarazadas, a término, con antecedente de dos cesáreas, atendidas por el grupo médico privado Nacer Humano de Guadalajara, Jalisco, entre los años 2014 y 2022. Todas las participantes recibieron atención prenatal adecuada y, durante el seguimiento, se verificó que cumplieran con las condiciones clínicas necesarias para intentar el parto de forma segura. Para las variables cualitativas se calcularon frecuencias absolutas y relativas; para las variables cuantitativas se estimaron medidas de tendencia central y dispersión (media y desviación estándar).  RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 21 casos de parto después de dos cesáreas. Los límites de edad de las madres fueron 24 y 40 años, con una media de 33.2 años. El intervalo transcurrido entre la última cesárea y el parto fue de 57.8 meses. Hubo porcentajes muy bajos de inductoconducción, bloqueo epidural o fórceps. No hubo casos de ruptura o dehiscencia uterina. En 8 de 21 pacientes había el antecedente de al menos un parto previo.  CONCLUSIONES: En la muestra estudiada el parto fue viable en pacientes con dos cesáreas previas. No se observaron rupturas uterinas. El asesoramiento adecuado a las pacientes es decisivo para lograr el parto con antecedente de cesárea. Sin duda hacen falta más estudios prospectivos en virtud de que se trata de una opción que podría disminuir la tasa global de cesáreas y la morbilidad quirúrgica asociada.]]></p></abstract>
<abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[Abstract  OBJECTIVE: To describe the findings in mothers and their newborns in a series of 21 cases of delivery after two cesarean sections.  MATERIALS AND METHODS: This observational, cross-sectional, retrospective study was conducted on pregnant patients at term with a history of two C-sections who were treated by the private medical group Nacer Humano in Guadalajara, Jalisco, between 2014 and 2022. All participants received adequate prenatal care, and during follow-up, it was verified that they met the necessary clinical conditions to safely attempt delivery. Absolute and relative frequencies were calculated for qualitative variables, and measures of central tendency and dispersion (mean and standard deviation) were estimated for quantitative variables.  RESULTS:  Twenty-one cases of vaginal delivery after two cesarean sections were included. The mothers&amp;apos; ages ranged from 24 to 40 years, with an average age of 33.2 years. The interval between the last C-section and delivery was 57.8 months. There were very low percentages of induction, conduction, epidural block, or forceps delivery. There were no cases of uterine rupture or dehiscence. Eight of the patients had a history of at least one previous delivery.  CONCLUSIONS:  Delivery was viable in patients with two previous C-sections. No uterine ruptures were observed. Adequately counseling patients is crucial to achieving successful deliveries in patients with a history of cesarean sections. Further prospective studies are undoubtedly needed, as this option could reduce the overall C-section rate and associated surgical morbidity.]]></p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[Atención prenatal]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[embarazo]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[cesáreas]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[morbilidad]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[asesoramiento]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[prueba de trabajo de parto]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[rotura uterina]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="es"><![CDATA[recién nacidos]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Prenatal care]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Pregnancy]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Cesarean sections]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Morbidity]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Counseling]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Trial of labor]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Uterine rupture]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Newborns]]></kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front><back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<label>1</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[De Leo]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[La Gamba]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[DA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Manzoni]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Vaginal birth after two previous cesarean sections versus elective repeated cesarean: a retrospective study]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Perinatol]]></source>
<year>2020</year>
<volume>37</volume>
<numero>S 02</numero>
<issue>S 02</issue>
<page-range>S84-8</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<label>2</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<collab>Instituto Mexicano de Seguro social</collab>
<source><![CDATA[Guía de Práctica Clínica para la Reducción de la Frecuencia de Operación Cesárea México]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<label>3</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<collab>Secretaria de Salud</collab>
<source><![CDATA[Parto después de una cesárea]]></source>
<year>2013</year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<label>4</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Denjean]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Reis]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bräuer]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Trial of labour after two caesarean sections (TOLA2C) and risk of uterine rupture, a retrospective single centre study]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[BMC Pregnancy Childbirth]]></source>
<year>2024</year>
<volume>24</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>576</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<label>5</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<collab>American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists</collab>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[ACOG Practice Bulletin]]></source>
<year>2019</year>
<volume>133</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>e110-27</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<label>6</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Martínez-Villafaña]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Zetuna-Bagatella]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JZ]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Quesnel García-Benítez]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[CA.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Factores asociados con el éxito de una prueba de trabajo de parto después de cesárea sin antecedente de parto]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Ginecol Obstet México]]></source>
<year>2023</year>
<volume>91</volume>
<numero>7</numero>
<issue>7</issue>
<page-range>493-8</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<label>7</label><nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<collab>Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists</collab>
<source><![CDATA[Birth after previous caesarean birth]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<numero>45</numero>
<issue>45</issue>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Green-top Guideline]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<label>8</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Horgan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hossain]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Fulginiti]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Trial of labor after two cesarean sections: A retrospective case-control study]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[J Obstet Gynaecol Res]]></source>
<year>2022</year>
<volume>48</volume>
<numero>10</numero>
<issue>10</issue>
<page-range>2528-33</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<label>9</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sargent]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Savitsky]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Dissanayake]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Gestational weight gain during pregnancy as an important factor influencing a successful trial of labor following two previous cesareans]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Perinatol]]></source>
<year>2019</year>
<volume>36</volume>
<numero>06</numero>
<issue>06</issue>
<page-range>588-93</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<label>10</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Tahseen]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Griffiths]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Vaginal birth after two caesarean sections (VBAC&#8208;2) -a systematic review with meta&#8208;analysis of success rate and adverse outcomes of VBAC&#8208;2 versus VBAC&#8208;1 and repeat (third) caesarean sections]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[BJOG]]></source>
<year>2010</year>
<volume>117</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>5-19</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<label>11</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rotem]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hirsch]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sela]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[HY]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Grisaru-Granovsky]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Maternal and neonatal outcomes following trial of labor after two previous cesareans: a retrospective cohort study]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Reprod Sci]]></source>
<year>2021</year>
<volume>28</volume>
<numero>4</numero>
<issue>4</issue>
<page-range>1092-100</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<label>12</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McMullan]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JC]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Creswell]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Frazer]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Trial of labour following two previous caesarean sections -A UK cohort study]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol]]></source>
<year>2024</year>
<volume>298</volume>
<page-range>182-6</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<label>13</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Maroyi]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Nyakio]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[O]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Buhendwa]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Experience on trial of labor and vaginal delivery after two previous cesarean sections: A cohort study from a limited&#8208;resource setting]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Int J Gynecol Obstet]]></source>
<year>2023</year>
<volume>162</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>266-72</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<label>14</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Landon]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MB]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Spong]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[CY]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Thom]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2006</year>
<volume>108</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>12-20</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<label>15</label><nlm-citation citation-type="">
<collab>Secretaría de Salud</collab>
<source><![CDATA[Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-007-SSA2-2016, Para la atención de la mujer durante el embarazo, parto y puerperio, y de la persona recién nacida]]></source>
<year></year>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<label>16</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Macones]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[GA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Cahill]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Pare]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Obstetric outcomes in women with two prior cesarean deliveries: Is vaginal birth after cesarean delivery a viable option?]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2005</year>
<volume>192</volume>
<numero>4</numero>
<issue>4</issue>
<page-range>1223-8</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B17">
<label>17</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Miller]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[ES]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Grobman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[WA.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Obstetric outcomes associated with induction of labor after 2 prior cesarean deliveries]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>213</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>89.e1-5</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B18">
<label>18</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jenkinson]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Kruske]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Stapleton]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[H]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Beckmann]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Maternity care plans: A retrospective review of a process aiming to support women who decline standard care]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Women Birth]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>28</volume>
<numero>4</numero>
<issue>4</issue>
<page-range>303-9</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B19">
<label>19</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Metz]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[TD]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Allshouse]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[AA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Faucett]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[AM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Grobman]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[WA.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Validation of a vaginal birth after cesarean delivery prediction model in women with two prior cesarean deliveries]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2015</year>
<volume>125</volume>
<numero>4</numero>
<issue>4</issue>
<page-range>948-52</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B20">
<label>20</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Wingert]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Hartling]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sebastianski]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rates: Systematic review &amp; meta-analysis]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[BMC Pregnancy Childbirth]]></source>
<year>2019</year>
<volume>19</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>529</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B21">
<label>21</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[DeFranco]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[EA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Stamilio]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[DM]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Boslaugh]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[SE]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[A short interpregnancy interval is a risk factor for preterm birth and its recurrence]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2007</year>
<volume>197</volume>
<numero>3</numero>
<issue>3</issue>
<page-range>264.e1-6</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B22">
<label>22</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Bujold]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Gauthier]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[RJ.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Risk of uterine rupture associated with an interdelivery interval between 18 and 24 months]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2010</year>
<volume>115</volume>
<numero>5</numero>
<issue>5</issue>
<page-range>1003-6</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B23">
<label>23</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Tanos]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[V]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Toney]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[ZA.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Uterine scar rupture - Prediction, prevention, diagnosis, and management]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol]]></source>
<year>2019</year>
<volume>59</volume>
<page-range>115-31</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B24">
<label>24</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Ragusa]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Svelato]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Search for a predictive relationship between ultrasound thickness of the lower uterine segment and rupture of the uterus in women with a prior cesarean delivery does not make biological sense]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2022</year>
<volume>226</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>283-4</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B25">
<label>25</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Rozenberg]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Sénat]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[MV]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Deruelle]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Evaluation of the usefulness of ultrasound measurement of the lower uterine segment before delivery of women with a prior cesarean delivery: a randomized trial]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2022</year>
<volume>226</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>253.e1-9</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B26">
<label>26</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[McKinney]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[JA]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Vilchez]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Jowers]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang=""><![CDATA[Water birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal and neonatal outcomes]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Am J Obstet Gynecol]]></source>
<year>2024</year>
<volume>230</volume>
<numero>3</numero>
<issue>3</issue>
<page-range>S961-S979.e33</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
