REFERENCES
1. Milton L., Pictures P., et al. Stemming the global caesarean section epidemic. Lancet. 2018; 392: 1279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32394-8
2. International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Three-year report, 2012–2015.
3. Radzinsky V.E., Knyazeva S.A., Kostin I.N. Predictive obstetrics. Moscow: StatusPraesens. 2021: 19–21. (in Russian)
4. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 133: 110–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003078
5. LLC «Russian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists» (ROAG). Clinical guidelines «Postoperative scar on the uterus, requiring the provision of medical care to the mother during pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period». Moscow, 2021: 6–11. (in Russian)
6. Locatelli A., Regalia A.L., Ghidini A., et al. Risk of induction of labour in women with a uterine scar from previous low transcervical caesarean section. BJOG. 2004; 111: 1394–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00287.x
7. Nozhnitseva O.N., Semenov I.A., Bezhenar’ V.F., et al. Uterine scar after caesarean section and the optimal algorithm for diagnosing its condition. Luchevaya diagnostika i terapiya [Diagnostic Radiology and Radiotherapy]. 2019; (2): 85–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2019-10-2-85-90 (in Russian)
8. Vuchenovich Yu.D., Novikova V.A., Radzinsky V.E., et al. Histological determinants of attempted vaginal delivery after caesarean section. Akusherstvo i gynekologya [Obstetrics and Gynecology] 2022; (5): 128–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2022.5.128-139 (in Russian)
9. Zietek M., Szczuko M., Celewicz Z. Morphological estimation of incomplete uterine scar rupture (dehiscence) in post-cesarean deliveries. Immunohistochemical studies. Ginekol Pol. 2020; 91: 685–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.2020.0115
10. Vervoort A.J., Uittenbogaard L.B., Hehenkamp W.J., Brölmann H.A., Mol B.W., Huirne J.A. Why do niches develop in Caesarean uterine scars? Hypotheses on the aetiology of niche development. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30: 2695–702. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev240
11. Ziętek M., Świątkowska-Freund M., Celewicz Z., Szczuko M. Uterine cesarean scar tissue – an immunohistochemical study. J Reprod Med Gynecol Obstet. 2021; 6: 81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24966/RMGO-2574/100081
12. Vuchenovich Yu.D., Novikova V.A., Kostin I.N., et al. Experience of labor induction in women with a uterine scar after caesarean section. Akusherstvo i gynecologia: novosti, mnenia, obuchenie [Obstetrics and Gynecology: News, Opinions, Training]. 2019; (7): 101–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24411/2303-9698-2019-13914 (in Russian)
13. Koenigbauer J., Schalinski E., Jarchau U., et al. Cervical ripening after cesarean section: a prospective dual center study comparing a mechanical osmotic dilator vs prostaglandin E2. J Perinat Med. 2021; 49: 797–805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2021-0157
14. Gupta J., Baev O., Gomez J.D. et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021; 269: 138–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.10.023
15. Radzinsky V.E., Papysheva O.V., Esipova L.N., et al. The effectiveness of programmed delivery in gestational diabetes mellitus in reducing the frequency of caesarean section. Akusherstvo i gynecologia: novosti, mnenia, obuchenie [Obstetrics and Gynecology: News, Opinions, Training]. 2019; (7): 25–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24411/2303-9698-2019-13004 (in Russian)
16. Levine L., Downes K., Elovitz M., et al. Mechanical and pharmacologic methods of labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128: 1357–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001778
17. Kerr R., Kumar N., Williams M., et al. Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021; 6: CD014484. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014484
18. De Bonrostro-Torralba C., Cabrejas E.L., Gamboa S.M., et al. Double-balloon catheter for induction of labour in women with a previous cesarean section, could it be the best choice? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 295: 1135–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4343-7
19. Boujenah J., Fleury C., Tigaizin A., et al. Induction of labour in women with previous caesarean delivery with balloon catheter: is it work it? Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2019; 47: 279–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2019.01.008
20. Vital M., Grange J., Thuaut A., et al. Predictive factors for successful cervical ripening using a double-balloon catheter after previous cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 142: 288–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12566
21. LLC «Russian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists» (ROAG). Clinical guidelines «Postoperative scar on the uterus, requiring the provision of medical care to the mother during pregnancy, childbirth and the postpartum period». Moscow, 2021: 9–19. (in Russian)
22. Zhang H., Liu H., Luo S., et al. Oxytocin use in trial of labor after cesarean and its relationship with risk of uterine rupture in women with one previous cesarean section: a meta-analysis of observational studies. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21: 11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03440-7
23. Okedo-Alex I.N., Akamike I.C., Eze I.I., et al. Does disrespect and abuse during childbirth differ between public and private hospitals in Southeast Nigeria. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21: 852. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04298-z
24. Wallstrom T., Bjorklund J., Frykman J., et al. Induction of labor after one previous cesarean section in women with an unfavourable cervix: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0200024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200024
25. Maier J.T., Metz M., Watermann W., et al. Induction of labour in patients with unfavourable cervix after cesarean using an osmotic dilatator versus vaginal prostaglandin. J Perinat Med. 2018; 46: 299–307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2017-0029
26. Königbauer J.T., Schalinski E., Jerschau U., et al. Cervical ripening after cesarean section: a prospective dual centre study comparing a mechanical osmotic dilatator vs prostaglandin E2. J Perinat Med. 2021; 49: 797–805. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2021-0157