\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Mode of birth among women with one previous caesarean section in the
Netherlands: a 20-year population-based study}



\author[1]{Ian Koorn}%
\author[2]{Linda Vis}%
\author[3]{Kim Verschueren}%
\author[2]{Ageeth Rosman}%
\author[4]{Thomas van den Akker}%
\affil[1]{Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC}%
\affil[2]{Perined}%
\affil[3]{UMC Utrecht}%
\affil[4]{Leiden University Medical Center}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 14, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Objective Describe changes over time regarding mode of birth and
perinatal outcomes in women with one previous caesarean section in the
Netherlands over the past 20 years. Design Population-based study.
Setting Nationwide. Population All women with one previous caesarean
section and no previous vaginal birth, who gave birth to a term
singleton in cephalic presentation between 2000 and 2019 (n=143,308).
Methods Analysis of Dutch perinatal registry data. Main outcome measures
Primary: mode of birth per year, intended vaginal birth versus planned
caesarean section. Secondary: failed versus successful vaginal birth in
case of intended vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC), and adverse
perinatal outcome (perinatal mortality up to 28 days, low Apgar score at
5 minutes, asphyxia, and NICU admission \textgreater{}24 hours). Results
A decrease of 21.5\% was seen in women with one previous caesarean
section intending VBAC in a subsequent pregnancy, from 77.2\% in 2000 to
55.7\% in 2019, with a marked acceleration from 2009 onwards. The VBAC
success rate dropped gradually, from 71.0\% to 65.3\%. Overall caesarean
section rate (planned and unplanned) increased from 45.1\% to 63.6\%.
Adverse perinatal outcomes were higher in women intending VBAC compared
to planned caesarean section. However, after an initial decrease,
perinatal mortality remained stable from 2009 onwards with only a
minimal difference between both modes of birth. Conclusions In the
Netherlands, the proportion of women intending VBAC after a previous
caesarean section has decreased markedly, particularly from 2009
onwards. This decrease was not accompanied by a synchronous decrease in
perinatal mortality after that year.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{TITLEPAGE}

\textbf{Title:}

Mode of birth among women with one previous caesarean section in the
Netherlands: a 20-year population-based study

\textbf{Running title:}

VBAC trend in the Netherlands over 20-year period

\textbf{Authors:}

Ian Koorn\textsuperscript{1} \textbar{} Linda C. Vis\textsuperscript{2}

Kim J.C. Verschueren\textsuperscript{3}

Ageeth N. Rosman\textsuperscript{2,4}

Thomas van den Akker\textsuperscript{3,5}

\textbf{Affiliations:}

\textsuperscript{1} Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam
University Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, P.O. box 22660, 1100 DD
Amsterdam, The Netherlands

\textsuperscript{2} Perined, Mercatorlaan 1200, 3528 BL Utrecht, The
Netherlands

\textsuperscript{3} Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Leiden
University Medical Centre, building 1, room K-6-P-35, P.O. Box 9600,
2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands

\textsuperscript{4} Department of Healthcare Studies, Rotterdam
University of Applied Sciences, 3015 EK Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

\textsuperscript{5} Athena Institute, Faculty of Science, VU University
Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

\textbf{Corresponding author's contact details:}

I. Koorn, Department of Obstetrics, Amsterdam University Medical Center,
Meibergdreef 9, P.O. box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
E-mail: i.koorn@amsterdamumc.nl

\textbf{ABSTACT}

\textbf{Objective}

Describe changes over time regarding mode of birth and perinatal
outcomes in women with one previous caesarean section in the Netherlands
over the past 20 years.

\textbf{Design}

Population-based study.

\textbf{Setting}

Nationwide.

\textbf{Population}

All women with one previous caesarean section and no previous vaginal
birth, who gave birth to a term singleton in cephalic presentation
between 2000 and 2019 (n=143,308).

\textbf{Methods}

Analysis of data in the Dutch perinatal registry.

\textbf{Main outcome measures}

Primary outcome was mode of birth per year: intended vaginal birth
versus planned caesarean section. Secondary outcomes were failed versus
successful vaginal birth in case of intended vaginal birth after
caesarean (VBAC), and adverse perinatal outcome (perinatal mortality up
to 28 days, low Apgar score at 5 minutes, asphyxia, and neonatal
intensive care unit admission \textgreater{}24 hours).

\textbf{Results}

A decrease of 21.5\% was seen in women with one previous caesarean
section intending VBAC in a subsequent pregnancy, from 77.2\% in 2000 to
55.7\% in 2019, with a marked acceleration from 2009 onwards. The VBAC
success rate also dropped gradually, from 71.0\% to 65.3\%. Overall
caesarean section rate (planned and unplanned) increased from 45.1\% to
63.6\%. Adverse perinatal outcomes were higher in women intending VBAC
compared to planned caesarean section. However, after an initial
decrease, perinatal mortality remained stable from 2009 onwards with
only a minimal difference between both modes of birth.

\textbf{Conclusions}

In the Netherlands, the proportion of women intending VBAC after a
previous caesarean section has decreased markedly, particularly from
2009 onwards. This decrease was not accompanied by a synchronous
decrease in perinatal mortality after that year.

\textbf{Funding}

None.

\textbf{Keywords}

Caesarean section, vaginal birth after caesarean section, trial of
labour after caesarean section, obstetrics, high-risk pregnancy, Robson
group 5.

\textbf{Tweetable abstract}

Intended vaginal births after caesarean section decreased in the
Netherlands, without synchronously reduced perinatal deaths

\textbf{INTRODUCTION}

Globally, caesarean section rates have increased to 21.1\% of all births
in 2018 \textsuperscript{(1, 2)}. Although caesarean sections can be
lifesaving, many are not performed on medical indication despite the
procedure being associated with increased maternal and perinatal
risks\textsuperscript{(1-7)}. The World Health Organization (WHO) aims
to reduce such non-indicated caesarean sections \textsuperscript{(4,
8)}. Although the greatest benefit is expected from performing the first
caesarean section only on strict medical indication, reducing the second
by offering women a chance to attempt vaginal birth after caesarean
(VBAC) is another strategy proposed by the WHO and in most
guidelines\textsuperscript{(4, 9-11)}.

While a successful VBAC has the lowest rate of maternal complications at
no increased perinatal risk, an unsuccessful intended VBAC results in an
unplanned caesarean section, associated with increased risk of adverse
maternal and perinatal outcomes \textsuperscript{(12, 13)}. Moreover,
trial of labour may result in uterine rupture (0.16-0.80\% after one
previous caesarean section\textsuperscript{(14)}), a severe complication
with considerable associated maternal and perinatal
risk\textsuperscript{(12, 15, 16)}. At the same time, repeated caesarean
sections substantially increase the risk of placenta praevia, abnormally
invasive placenta and postpartum haemorrhage in subsequent
pregnancies\textsuperscript{(13, 17-20)} and are associated with
increased risks of maternal mortality in the Netherlands compared to
vaginal birth\textsuperscript{(6)}.

There is considerable variation in VBAC rates between European
countries, with relatively high rates occurring only in countries with
relatively low overall caesarean section rates (e.g., Sweden, Finland,
the Netherlands). Inversely, relatively low VBAC rates occur in
countries with high overall caesarean section rates (e.g., Italy,
Greece, Ireland) \textsuperscript{(1, 2, 21, 22)}. In the Netherlands,
VBAC is generally still considered a safe option for women with one
previous caesarean section in presence of continuous foetal monitoring,
immediate access to an operating room and staff competent to perform
neonatal resuscitation \textsuperscript{(11)}. Mode of birth is decided
based on individual counselling with considerations of risks and
benefits, and a prediction model is often used to estimate the
individual likelihood of a successful VBAC \textsuperscript{(11, 23)}.

In the Netherlands, neither changes over time in women intending VBAC
versus those who opt for planned caesarean section, nor changes in
perinatal outcomes in both groups have recently been comprehensively
analysed. Our primary aim was to describe changes over time in mode of
birth among women with a previous caesarean section between 2000 and
2019. Our secondary aims were to describe VBAC success rates and adverse
perinatal outcomes among women with one previous caesarean section in
the same time frame.

\textbf{METHODS}

\textbf{Study design}

We conducted a nationwide population-based study using the Dutch
Perinatal Registry (Perined) from 2000 to 2019.

\textbf{Setting}

Between 2000 and 2019, 3,436,258 women in the Netherlands gave birth
after 24 weeks' gestation, with an average of 171,812 births per year
(in 2000 n=184,246, in 2019 n=160,898). In 2000, 64.5\% of births took
place in obstetrician-led care in the hospital, 9.5\% in primary
midwifery-led care at a low-risk birth unit in the hospital and 25.2\%
were homebirths attended by primary care midwives. In 2019, these
percentages were 72.7\%, 14.5\% and 12.7\%
respectively\textsuperscript{(24)}.

During the time period 2000-2019, the caesarean section rate after 24
weeks' gestation was 15.4\% (n=528,096), with a change from 13.2\% in
2000 to 16.8\% in 2015 (maximum) and then to 15.8\% in 2019. The
caesarean section rate increased especially among women with a previous
caesarean section, who can be classified as Robson group
5\textsuperscript{(25, 26)}. The proportion of caesarean section in
Robson group 5 among all women who gave birth by caesarean section
increased from 16.1\% in 2000 to 25.7\% in 2019 (see Appendix S2). In
the same period, births of women in Robson group 5 represented 6.2\% of
all births\textsuperscript{(24)}.

Women with a previous caesarean section -- without other risk factors --
generally receive antenatal care by a midwife in primary care, until
34-36 weeks' gestation, when mode of birth is decided in an individual
counselling process with the obstetrician. Women opting for VBAC are
advised to give birth in obstetrician-led care in a hospital with
intravenous access and continuous CTG monitoring.

\textbf{Participants}

Our study population consisted of women with one previous caesarean
section and a parity of one (so no vaginal birth in addition to the
caesarean section), pregnant of a singleton in cephalic presentation
with a gestation of at least 37 weeks (i.e., Robson group 5 with a
parity of one), who gave birth between January 1\textsuperscript{st},
2000, and December 31\textsuperscript{st}, 2019.

\textbf{Data source}

We obtained data from the Dutch Perinatal Registry (Perined, formerly
known as \emph{Perinatale Registratie Nederland {[}PRN{]}} ). The
Registry contains information on pregnancy, birth, and maternal and
perinatal characteristics and outcomes (Appendix S1) for 97\% of all
births in the Netherlands \textsuperscript{(27-29)}. All characteristics
except birth asphyxia, registration of which started only in 2008, were
recorded routinely during the entire study period. Perined combines
births in primary and hospital care by using a validated linkage
method\textsuperscript{(30, 31)}.

The Perined dataset did not contain information on the number of
previous caesarean sections in women with a parity of two or more. This
hampered assessment of vaginal births after one previous caesarean
section in addition to one or more vaginal births. Therefore, in order
to ensure a homogeneous group of participants we included only para 1
women with one previous caesarean section (n= 144,166; 67.8\% of all
women in Robson group 5, meaning all women with one or more previous
caesarean sections in addition to any number of vaginal births). We
excluded women from analysis in whom mode of birth in the current
pregnancy was unknown (n=858; 0.6\% of Robson group 5 with a parity of
one).

\textbf{Outcome measures}

The primary outcome was mode of birth (planned caesarean section vs.
intended VBAC) among women with one previous caesarean section.
Secondary outcomes were VBAC success rates of women with one previous
caesarean section and the rate of adverse perinatal outcomes (Apgar
score \textless{}7 after five minutes, asphyxia, NICU admission of at
least 24 hours and perinatal death up to 28 days postpartum) among women
with one previous caesarean section intending a VBAC compared to women
who underwent a planned caesarean section.

Elaborate definitions of intended VBAC (i.e., trial of labour after
caesarean, TOLAC), VBAC success rate, NICU admission of at least 24
hours, asphyxia, and perinatal mortality can be found in Appendix S1.
Maternal and perinatal characteristics of women are described using
international definitions and cut-off values and can also be found in
Appendix S1.

\textbf{Statistical analysis}

We used Microsoft Excel and R for Windows version
4.1.1.\textsuperscript{(32)}. Descriptive statistics (i.e., frequencies
and percentages for categorical data) were used and no data were imputed
as missing data was negligible (\textless{}5\%). Trends over time in
mode of birth and perinatal outcomes were depicted in graphs. For all
perinatal outcomes we excluded the cases with stillbirth or unknown
moment of death.

Since our data are population-based rather than a sample that requires
extrapolation we present our data as absolutes and percentages without
statistical analysis.

\textbf{Ethics approval}

The Perined registry approved the use of the data for this study
(Approval no. 20.23). No individual patient consent or approval was
required as data were used in correspondence with Perined regulations.

\textbf{Funding}

None.

\textbf{RESULTS}

Our study population consisted of 143,308 women with one previous
caesarean section who gave birth to a singleton in cephalic presentation
at term over the 20-year study period. Baseline characteristics are
shown in Table 1 and compare women with a planned caesarean section to
those with an intended VBAC.

The caesarean section rate (both planned and unplanned) among women with
one previous caesarean section was 52.6\% (n= 75,357, 2000-2019) and
increased by 18.5\% in 20 years, from 45.1\% in 2000 to 63.6\% in 2019.
Women intended VBAC in 68.8\% (n= 98,651, 2000-2019). Up to 2008 the
proportion of women intending VBAC was relatively stable, but it
decreased markedly from 2009 onwards (Figure 1). An increasing
proportion of women gave birth by planned caesarean section in the same
time frame. The average VBAC success rate was 68.9\% (n= 67,951,
2000-2019). This rate dropped from 71.0\% in 2000 to 65.3\% in 2019.

Adverse perinatal outcomes were higher in women intending VBAC compared
to those with a planned caesarean section (Table 1 and Figure 3).
However, perinatal mortality decreased between 2000 and 2008, but
stabilized from 2009 onwards (Figure 2).

\textbf{DISCUSSION}

\textbf{Main findings}

The proportion of women intending VBAC in the Netherlands was stable
between 2000 and 2008, but from 2009 onwards there was a steady and
considerable decrease in VBAC attempts. This decrease is likely related
to the publication of the EURO-PERISTAT report, which showed relatively
high numbers of perinatal mortality in the Netherlands as compared to
other European countries \textsuperscript{(33)}. Publication of the
report was followed by the designation of a steering committee on
perinatal care in 2009, which developed and implemented a perinatal
mortality reduction strategy over the years. The emphasis on reducing
perinatal mortality is likely to have caused more defensive obstetric
practice, with clinicians attempting to minimize adverse perinatal
outcomes in the short term rather than considering women's outcomes or
perinatal outcomes in subsequent pregnancies. Interestingly, this change
in practice, with fewer women undergoing VBAC and more women giving
birth by planned caesarean section after 2009 was not accompanied by a
marked decrease in perinatal mortality in the second decade of the study
period.

\textbf{Strengths and limitations}

The main strength of our study is the nationwide population-based design
and robust data extraction of almost all births in the Netherlands of
the past twenty years.

Limitations are indwelled in the retrospective nature of a registry-set
and some under- and misreporting might have occurred. The registry did
not include the option to analyse women with one previous caesarean
section who also had a previous vaginal birth. Our study design does not
allow for conclusions of causality particularly since indications for
caesarean sections are not reported.

\textbf{Interpretation of results}

The decline in intended VBAC indicates that it is less often the chosen
mode of birth. While previous studies have demonstrated an area under
the curve of 68-71\% for various VBAC success predictions
models\textsuperscript{(23)}, the described changes over time will have
certainly undermined the validity of these models. It is possible that
currently used tools aimed to aid the decision-making process may deter
women and clinicians from intending VBAC. We therefore question whether
these prediction models should be applied in mode of birth counselling
in case of a previous caesarean section.

Supporting VBAC has been suggested as a strategy to curb increasing
caesarean section rates and their negative health
consequences\textsuperscript{(3)}. A recent study in Sweden demonstrated
it is possible to turn the tide of decreasing VBAC in a similar
obstetric culture and environment as compared to the
Netherlands\textsuperscript{(34)}: reporting a rise in intended and
successful VBAC without an increase in adverse maternal and neonatal
outcomes\textsuperscript{(35)}. The authors mention an maternity care
team with experience in managing labour in women with a previous
caesarean section as the greatest contributor to the rising successful
VBAC rate by increasing the number of women intending VBAC
\textsuperscript{(35)}.

We aim to raise awareness for the decrease in VBAC attempts in the
Netherlands that appears not to be associated with improved clinical
outcome. We recommend clinicians and policy makers to contemplate on the
driving determinants behind the unjustified increase in caesarean
section rates and look for means to counter this trend. As, in addition
to all previously mentioned points, women indicate a higher quality of
life after a VBAC compared to an elective caesarean section, VBAC is
more cost-effective, and leads to considerably lower CO2-emissions than
elective caesarean section \textsuperscript{(36, 37)}.

\textbf{CONCLUSION}

In the Netherlands, the proportion of women intending a VBAC after a
previous caesarean section has decreased markedly in the past twenty
years, particularly from 2009 onwards, after the publication of the
EURO-PERISTAT report on perinatal mortality in Europe. This decrease was
not accompanied by a synchronous decrease in perinatal mortality after
that year. Clinicians and policymakers should try to curb this
unjustified increase in planned caesarean sections.

\textbf{Disclosure of interest}

None.

\textbf{Contribution to authorship}

IK, LV, AR, and TA conceived the study. IK and LV drafted the first
draft and were responsible for the analysis. IK, LV, and KV contributed
to analysis and interpretation of data. KV, AR, and TA critically
reviewed and revised the manuscript. AR and TA approved the final
manuscript.

\textbf{Details of ethics approval}

The Perined registry approved the use of the data for this study
(Approval no. 20.23). No individual patient consent or approval was
required as data were used in correspondence with Perined regulations.

\textbf{Acknowledgements}

We would like to thank Lisa Broeders from Perined for her support on the
project.

\textbf{REFERENCES}

1. Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, Barros AJD, Barros FC, Juan L, et
al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections.
The Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341-8.

2. Betr\selectlanguage{ngerman}án AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections
of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob
Health. 2021;6(6).

3. Betrán AP, Temmerman M, Kingdon C, Mohiddin A, Opiyo N, Torloni MR,
et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy
women and babies. The Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1358-68.

4. Betrán AP, Torloni MR, Zhang JJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Section WHOWGoC. WHO
Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. BJOG. 2016;123(5):667-70.

5. Visser GHA, Ayres-de-Campos D, Barnea ER, de Bernis L, Di Renzo GC,
Vidarte MFE, et al. FIGO position paper: how to stop the caesarean
section epidemic. The Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1286-7.

6. Kallianidis AF, Schutte JM, van Roosmalen J, van den Akker T.
Maternal mortality after cesarean section in the Netherlands. Eur J
Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;229:148-52.

7. Bjellmo S, Andersen GL, Hjelle S, Klungsoyr K, Krebs L, Lydersen S,
et al. Does caesarean delivery in the first pregnancy increase the risk
for adverse outcome in the second? A registry-based cohort study on
first and second singleton births in Norway. BMJ Open.
2020;10(8):e037717.

8. Miller S, Abalos E, Chamillard M, Ciapponi A, Colaci D, Comandé D, et
al. Beyond too little, too late and too much, too soon: a pathway
towards evidence-based, respectful maternity care worldwide. The Lancet.
2016;388(10056):2176-92.

9. RCOG Green-top Guideline: Birth after previous caesarean birth.
2015;45.

10. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean
Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(2):e110-e27.

11. NVOG. Zwangerschap en bevalling na een voorgaande sectio caesarea.
2010.

12. Guise JM, Denman MA, Emeis C, Marshall N, Walker M, Fu R, et al.
Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal
outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(6):1267-78.

13. Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, et al.
Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of
women and children. The Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1349-57.

14. Vandenberghe G, Bloemenkamp K, Berlage S, Colmorn L, Deneux-Tharaux
C, Gissler M, et al. The International Network of Obstetric Survey
Systems study of uterine rupture: a descriptive multi-country
population-based study. BJOG. 2019;126(3):370-81.

15. Tahseen S, Griffiths M. 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. BJOG. 2010;117(1):5-19.

16. Kwee A, Bots ML, Visser GH, Bruinse HW. Uterine rupture and its
complications in the Netherlands: a prospective study. Eur J Obstet
Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;128(1-2):257-61.

17. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Thom EA, et al.
Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries.
Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(6):1226-32.

18. van Dillen J, Zwart JJ, Schutte J, Bloemenkamp KW, van Roosmalen J.
Severe acute maternal morbidity and mode of delivery in the Netherlands.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(11):1460-5.

19. Zwart JJ, Richters JM, Ory F, de Vries JI, Bloemenkamp KW, van
Roosmalen J. Severe maternal morbidity during pregnancy, delivery and
puerperium in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based study of
371,000 pregnancies. BJOG. 2008;115(7):842-50.

20. Thurn L, Lindqvist PG, Jakobsson M, Colmorn LB, Klungsoyr K,
Bjarnadottir RI, et al. Abnormally invasive placenta-prevalence, risk
factors and antenatal suspicion: results from a large population-based
pregnancy cohort study in the Nordic countries. BJOG.
2016;123(8):1348-55.

21. Euro-Peristat N. European Perinatal Health Report. Core indicators
of the health and care of pregnany women and babies in Europe in 2015.
www.europeristat.com; 2018.

22. Zeitlin J, Durox M, Macfarlane A, Alexander S, Heller G, Loghi M, et
al. Using Robson's Ten-Group Classification System for comparing
caesarean section rates in Europe: an analysis of routine data from the
Euro-Peristat study. BJOG. 2021;128(9):1444-53.

23. Schoorel EN, Melman S, van Kuijk SM, Grobman WA, Kwee A, Mol BW, et
al. Predicting successful intended vaginal delivery after previous
caesarean section: external validation of two predictive models in a
Dutch nationwide registration-based cohort with a high intended vaginal
delivery rate. BJOG. 2014;121(7):840-7; discussion 7.

24. Perined. Unpublished data.

25. Robson M, Murphy M, Byrne F. Quality assurance: The 10-Group
Classification System (Robson classification), induction of labor, and
cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;131 Suppl 1:S23-7.

26. Robson MS. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal and Maternal
Medicine Review. 2001;12(1):23-39.

27. Perined. Jaarboeken perinatale zorg in Nederland.

28. Perined. Perinatale zorg in Nederland anno 2019. 2020.

29. Perined. Stichting Perinatale Registratie Nederland Grote Lijnen
1999-2012. Utrecht: Stichting Perinatale Registratie Nederland; 2013.

30. Tromp M, Ravelli AC, Meray N, Reitsma JB, Bonsel GJ. An efficient
validation method of probabilistic record linkage including readmissions
and twins. Methods Inf Med. 2008;47(4):356-63.

31. Meray N, Reitsma JB, Ravelli AC, Bonsel GJ. Probabilistic record
linkage is a valid and transparent tool to combine databases without a
patient identification number. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(9):883-91.

32. Team RC. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. .
Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.

33. Euro-Peristat N. European perinatal health report
www.europeristat.com; 2008.

34. OECD. Health care utilisation - Surgical Procedures - Caesarean
sections per 1000 live births https://stats.oecd.org/2022

35. Vikhareva O, Nedopekina E, Kristensen K, Dahlback C, Pihlsgard M,
Rickle GS, et al. Strategies to increase the rate of vaginal deliveries
after cesarean without negative impact on outcomes. Midwifery.
2022;106:103247.

36. Fobelets M, Beeckman K, Faron G, Daly D, Begley C, Putman K. Vaginal
birth after caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery after
one previous caesarean section: a cost-effectiveness analysis in four
European countries. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):92.

37. Fawsitt CG, Bourke J, Greene RA, Everard CM, Murphy A, Lutomski JE.
At what price? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing trial of labour
after previous caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery. PLoS
One. 2013;8(3):e58577.

38. Hoftiezer L, Hukkelhoven CW, Hogeveen M, Straatman HM, van Lingen
RA. Defining small-for-gestational-age: prescriptive versus descriptive
birthweight standards. Eur J Pediatr. 2016;175(8):1047-57.

39. Hoftiezer L, Hof MHP, Dijs-Elsinga J, Hogeveen M, Hukkelhoven C, van
Lingen RA. From population reference to national standard: new and
improved birthweight charts. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(4):383 e1-
e17.

40. Executive summary: Neonatal encephalopathy and neurologic outcome,
second edition. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists' Task Force on Neonatal Encephalopathy. Obstet Gynecol.
2014;123(4):896-901.

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`031722 VBAC Table 1.docx`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/466492/articles/560766-mode-of-birth-among-women-with-one-previous-caesarean-section-in-the-netherlands-a-20-year-population-based-study}

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`031722 VBAC Figure 1.docx`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/466492/articles/560766-mode-of-birth-among-women-with-one-previous-caesarean-section-in-the-netherlands-a-20-year-population-based-study}

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`031722 VBAC Figure 2.docx`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/466492/articles/560766-mode-of-birth-among-women-with-one-previous-caesarean-section-in-the-netherlands-a-20-year-population-based-study}

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`031722 VBAC Figure 3.docx`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/466492/articles/560766-mode-of-birth-among-women-with-one-previous-caesarean-section-in-the-netherlands-a-20-year-population-based-study}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

