References
1. Radzinsky V.E., Fuks A.M. Obstetrics. Textbook. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2016: 1040 p. (in Russian)
2. Visser G.H.A., Ayres-de-Campos D., Barnea E.R., et al. FIGO position paper: how to stop the caesarean section epidemic. Lancet. 2018; 392 (10 155): 1286-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32113-5.
3. Betran A.P., Ye J., Moller A.-B., Zhang J., et al. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016; 11 (2): e0148343. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148343.
4. Oksenoyt G.K., Nikitina S.Yu., Andreev E.M., et al. Demographic Yearbook of Russia. 2017: Statistical Compendium. Moscow: Rosstat, 2017: 263 p. (in Russian)
5. Occhi G.M., de Lamare F.N.T., Neri M.A., et al. Strategic measures to reduce the caesarean section rate in Brazil. Lancet. 2018; 392 (10 155): 1290-1. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32407-3.
6. Hoxha I., Syrogiannouli L., Braha M., et al. Caesarean sections and private insurance: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2017; 7: e016600.
7. Kostin I.N. Reserves to reduce reproductive losses in the Russian Federation: Autoabstract of Diss. Moscow, 2012. (in Russian)
8. Malgina G.B., Bashmakova N.V., Koval'ev V.V. The efficiency coefficient of caesarean section in the leading perinatal centers of the Ural Federal District. Ural'skiy meditsinskiy zhurnal [Ural Medical Journal]. 2012; 11 (103): 2. (in Russian)
9. Mikhailova L.E., Gorkoltseva E.I., Demkina Yu.O. Structure and analysis of indications for operative abdominal delivery in the Nizhnevartovsk District Clinical Perinatal Center in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Ugra for the period 2013 - 9 months 2016. Robson M. Classification Cesarean Section Efficiency. Zdravookhranenie Yugry: Opyt i innovatsii [Healthcare of Ugra: Experience and Innovation]. 2016; (4): 6-8. (in Russian)
10. WHO. Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. Geneva : World Health Organization, 2015. URL: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/ publications/maternal_perinatal_health/cs-statement/en/ (date of access March, 2019)
11. Radzinsky V.Ye., Logutova L.S., Krasnopolsky V.I. Caesarean section. Problems of abdominal obstetrics. In: V.I. Krasnopolsky (ed.). Spetsial'noe Izdatel'stvo Meditsinskikh Knig (SIMK), 2018: 224 p. (in Russian)
12. Robson M.S. Classification of caesarean sections. Fetal Matern Med Rev. 2001; 12 (1): 23-9.
13. Robson Classification: Implementation Manual. WHO. 2017: 52 р.
14. Guriev D.L., Trokhanova O.V., Gurieva M.S., Abdullaeva Kh.G., et al. Application of Robson's classification for analyzing the work of obstetric inpatient level 3 and search for ways to reduce the frequency of cesarean section. Mat' i ditya v Kuzbasse [Mother and Child in Kuzbass]. 2018; 4: 70-4. (in Russian)
15. Boerma T., Ronsmans C., Melesse D.Y., et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Review. Lancet. 2018; 392 (10 155): 1341-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7.
16. Rosenberg K.R., Trevathan W.R. Evolutionary perspectives on cesarean section. Evol Med Public Health. 2018; 1: 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1093/emph/eoy006 .
17. Buyanova S.N., Yudina N.V., Barto R.A. Rare complications of cesarean section - vesico-uterine fistula. Rossiyskiy vestnik akushera-gine-cologa [Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist]. 2018; (3): 83-7. (in Russian)
18. Zharkin N.A., Prokvapilov S.A., Burova N.A., Gavrilchuk T.K., et al. Surgical reconstruction of uterine scar during pregnancy. Indications, conditions and risks. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya [Obstetrics and Gynecology]. 2018; (10): 142-7. (in Russian)
19. Hutchinson A.M., Nagle C., Kent B., et al. Organisational interventions designed to reduce caesarean section rates: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2018; 8: e021120. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021120.
20. Sandall J., Tribe R.M., Avery L., et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Review. Lancet. 2018; 392 (10 155): 1349-57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31930-5.
21. Zipori Y., Grunwald O., Ginsberg Y., et al. The impact of extending the second stage of labor to prevent primary cesarean delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 220 (2): 191.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.10.028.
22. Lappen J.R., Hackney D.N., Bailit J.L. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of attempted vaginal compared with planned cesarean delivery in triplet gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215 (4): 493.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.054.
23. Peress D., Dude A., Peaceman A., et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in triplet gestations by trial of labor versus planned cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019; 32 (11): 1874-9. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1421931.
24. Alamo L., Vial Y., Denys A., et al. MRI findings of complications related to previous uterine scars. Eur J Radiol Open. 2018; 5: 6-15. doi: 10.1016/j.ejro.2018.01.001.
25. Bartolo S., Goffinet F., Blondel B., et al. Why women with previous caesarean and eligible for a trial of labour have an elective repeat caesarean delivery? A national study in France. BJOG. 2016; 123: 1664-73.
26. Nakamura-Pereira M., Esteves-Pereira A.P., Gama S.G.N., et al. Elective repeat cesarean delivery in women eligible for trial of labor in Brazil. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 143 (3): 351-9. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12660.
27. Young C.B., Liu S., Muraca G.M., et al.; Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. Mode of delivery after a previous cesarean birth, and associated maternal and neonatal morbidity. CMAJ. 2018; 190 (18): E556-64. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.170371.
28. Krasnopol'sky V.I., Logutova L.S., Gasparyan N.D., Magilevskaya E.V. Alternative delivery of pregnant women with an operated uterus. Zhurnal akusherstva i zhenskikh bolezney [Journal of Obstetrics and Women's Diseases]. 2003; (1): 20-5. (in Russian)
29. Pastarnak A.Y. Current trends in the delivery of women with an operated uterus. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya [Modern Problems of Science and Education]. 2014; (2). (Electronic Journal). URL: www.science-education.ru/116-12294 .
30. Savelyeva G.M., Breslav I.Yu. The rupture of the operated uterus during pregnancy and childbirth. Voprosy ginekologii, akusherstva i perina-tologii [Problems of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Perinatology]. 2015; 14 (3): 22-7. (in Russian)
31. Shchukina N.A., Buyanova S.N., Chechneva M.A., Zemskova N.Yu., et al. The main reasons for the formation of insolvent uterus scar after cesarean section. Rossiyskiy vestnik akushera-ginecologa [Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist]. 2018; (4): 57-61. (in Russian)
32. Sawada M., Matsuzaki S., Nakae R., et al. Treatment and repair of uterine scar dehiscence during cesarean section. Clin Case Rep. 2017; 5 (2): 145-9. doi: 10.1002/ccr3.766.
33. Tulandi T., Cohen A. Emerging manifestations of cesarean scar defect in reproductive-aged women. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23: 893-902.
34. Ma Y., Kohn J., Zhang Y., et al. Single-incision laparoscopic repair of a cesarean scar defect. Fertil Steril. 2019; 111: 607-8.
35. Jordans I.P.M., De Leeuw R.A., Stegwee S.I., et al. Sonographic examination of uterine niche in non-pregnant women: a modified Delphi procedure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 53: 107-15.
36. Clinical recommendations (treatment protocol) "Caesarean section. Indications, methods of anesthesia, surgical technique, antibiotic prophylaxis, management of the postoperative period". Moscow, 2014: 44 p. (in Russian)
37. Spontaneous delivery of patients with a scar on the uterus after a cesarean section. Clinical protocol. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya [Obstetrics and Gynecology]. 2016; (12): 12-9. (in Russian)
38. Onafowokan O., Akaba G.O., Adebayo F. Vaginal delivery after three previous caesarean sections: a report of two cases. Afr J Med Health Sci. 2016; 15: 97-9.
39. Habak P.J., Kole M. Pregnancy, Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery (VBAC). SourceStatPearls [Electronic Resource]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing. 2018. PMID: 29939621.
40. Lower Uterine Segment Trial (LUSTrial). Ultrasound Measure of the Thickness of the Lower Segment in Women Having a History of Caesarian. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01916044. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01916044 .
41. Chaillet N., Bujold E., Masse B., et al.; PRISMA Trial Research Group. A cluster-randomized trial to reduce major perinatal morbidity among women with one prior cesarean delivery in Quebec (PRISMA trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2017; 18: 434. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2150-x.
42. Jastrow N., Chaillet N., Roberge S., et al. Sonographiclower uterine segment thickness and risk of uterine scar defect: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010; 32: 321-7.
43. Dodd J.M., Crowther C.A., Huertas E., et al. Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (12): CD004224. doi: 10.1002/14651858.
44. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 761 Summary: Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 33 (1): 226-7. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003007.
45. Liu X., Landon M.B., Cheng W., et al. Cesarean delivery on maternal request in China: what are the risks and benefits? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212 (6): 817.e1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.043.
46. Practice Bulletin No. 184: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 130 (5): e217-33. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002398.
47. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 133 (2): e110-27. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003078.
48. Sinitsyna S.S., Kravchenko E.N., Rubleva G.F., et al. Natural childbirth in women with a scar on the uterus. Mat' i ditya v Kuzbasse [Mother and Child in Kuzbass]. 2018; 1 (72): 64-7. (in Russian)
49. Kabiri D., Masarwy R., Schachter-Safrai N., et al. Trial of labor after cesarean delivery in twin gestations: systematic review and metaanalysis. Review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 220 (4). pii: S0002-9378(18)31147-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.125.
50. Fishel Bartal M., Sibai B.M., Ilan H., et al. Trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) in women with premature rupture of membranes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019 Jan 17: 1-7. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1566312.
51. Fobelets M., Beeckman K., Faron G., et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery after one previous caesarean section: a cost-effectiveness analysis in four European countries. BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2018; 18 (1): 92. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-1720-6.