<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJOG</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2160-8792</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojog.2023.137099</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJOG-126359</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Profile of Pregnant Women and Success of the Uterine Test on a Uni- or Bi-Scar Uterus at the Maternity Ward of Panzi Hospital, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Prosperine</surname><given-names>Kongwa Madoli</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Olivier</surname><given-names>Nyakio</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Raha</surname><given-names>Maroyi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Éloge</surname><given-names>Ilunga-Mbaya</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gloire</surname><given-names>Mwenze</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Julien</surname><given-names>Bwama Botalatala</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Omari</surname><given-names>Mukanga</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dieudonné</surname><given-names>Sengeyi Mushengezi Amani</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>SVS Statistics Department, Panzi General Referral Hospital, Bukavu, Democratic Republic of the Congo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Panzi General Referral Hospital, Evangelical University in Africa, Bukavu, Democratic Republic of the Congo</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital of Kinshasa, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>07</day><month>07</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>13</volume><issue>07</issue><fpage>1151</fpage><lpage>1162</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>25,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>15,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>18,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Introduction
  : Trial of labor after a previous cesarean section (TOLAC) is a method that requires strict monitoring to decrease the cesarean section (CS) rate and improve the maternal and neonatal prognosis. The objective is to determine the profile and outcome of patients with one and two previous CSs who performed TOLAC at Panzi General Referral Hospital. <b>Methodology</b>: This is a cross-sectional study with a prospective collection of data of 111 patients with one and two previous CSs at Panzi Hospital from January 2021 to August 2022. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SPSS version 23 software was used to analyze the collected data. The percentages of categorical variables were summarized in a frequency table. The mean or median with standard deviation w
  as
   used to summarize quantitative variables. <b>Results</b>: The overall success rate of the TOLAC was 64%, with 63.8% following o
  ne previous CS and 64.3% following two CSs. The mean age of the patients was 27.09 years, with an age range of 25 - 34 years. They were mostly pauciparous (52.2%), married (88.3%), with a high school education (60.4%). The inter-delivery interval &gt; 18 months was noted (64.1%) and overweight in 63.9%. More than three antenatal consultations were performed (58.6%). We found a mean gestational age of 38 (34 - 41) weeks. The perinatal mortality rate was 0.9%. However, we did not record any cases of maternal mortality during the study period. <b>Conclusion</b>: TOLAC after one and two previous CS is implemented in the maternity Unit of Panzi Hospital for well-selected patients. In addition, the success rate is similar after TOLAC with an acceptable maternal-neonatal prognosis.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>One Previous Caesarean</kwd><kwd> Panzi General Referral Hospital</kwd><kwd> Trial of Labor after Cesarean Section</kwd><kwd> Two Previous Caesarean</kwd><kwd> Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Sec-tion</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>In the last two decades, the rate of caesarean sections has increased overall. One of the consequences is the increase in the number of patients with history of previous cesarean section (CS) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref1">1</xref>] , the main cause of morbidity is uterine rupture [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref2">2</xref>] . The management of a vaginal delivery after a CS is one of the most debated topics in modern obstetrics. Up to two caesarean sections, some authors tend to favor elective cesarean section [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref1">1</xref>] . Others advocate trial of labor after cesarean section (TOLAC) if specific parameters are favorable.</p><p>Nowadays, it is known that maternal and infant morbidity increases simultaneously with the number of caesarean sections [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref3">3</xref>] . Despite the progress in obstetric practice and safer anesthesia to offer better maternal-fetal safety during CS, the rates of maternal complications remain high, sometimes putting at risk the obstetrical outcome of the patients [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref4">4</xref>] .</p><p>The recommendations made by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (ACGO) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref5">5</xref>] , the Society of Obstetricians, Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref6">6</xref>] and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref7">7</xref>] , emphasize that TOLAC is a reasonable option. It must consider the obstetric characteristics of the patient, their willingness to perform the trial, the place of delivery and the equipment and staff of the maternity ward, the qualifications of the nursing staff, and obstetric practices.</p><p>Current studies agree on the benefits of the vaginal delivery after a CS in terms of reduction of maternal and infant morbidity and overall healthcare savings. In developing countries, practitioners in the obstetric unit are confronted with this reality of women with previous CS willing to attempt a vaginal delivery [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref9">9</xref>] . According to the WHO, if the conditions allow it, they can benefit from the trial of labour to have a positive experience of childbirth [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref10">10</xref>] , so this should be done in a facility capable of handling obstetric emergencies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref9">9</xref>] . In medium- and low-resource countries, trial of labour after CS can reduce maternal and infant morbidity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref8">8</xref>] . In our department, eligibility criteria for trial of labour are established on a checklist to select and evaluate patients with previous CS. The aim of the present study in our series is to determine the profile of patients with a history of one and two previous CS eligible for trial of labour, the success rate as well as complications at Panzi General Referral Hospital.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Material and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Criteria Include</title><p>All parturients with a single segmental or bi-scared uterine scar with or without proven spontaneous induction of labor (active phase), a softened, axial, and 50% effaced cervix, a single fetus in apex presentation (fetal accommodation), a uterine height &lt; 34 cm (exclude macrosomia on ultrasound ≤ 3500 grs), a scar thickness &gt; 35 mm on a clinically or radiologically normal pelvis.</p><p>After prior screening and follow-up during prenatal consultations, these patients are usually oriented on the delivery route and or possible uterine test.</p><p>We used a non-exhaustive sample of 111 pregnant women with one or two uterine scars who delivered at Panzi Hospital during the study period.</p><p>Several variables were considered for the realization of this study, the socio-demographic aspect including the age of the pregnant woman, the level of education (none, primary, secondary, university), the marital status (widow, married, single), the profession (housewife, civil servant, shopkeeper, student).</p><p>Obstetrical history considered were gravida (paucigest, multigeste), para (primiparous, pauciparous, multiparous), number of ANC (≤1, 2, ≥3), number of previous cesarean sections (1, 2), number of previous vaginal deliveries, previous indications), parameters related to the course of delivery including (gestational age, mode of admission (referral, single arrival), factors of success of uterine test in patients with uni- and bi-cicatricial uterus (age group, gestational age, para, intergenital interval, age of pregnancy, surgical history, delivery mode, ANC, number of previous caesarean sections), water pocket (intact, ruptured), type of rupture (none, early, untimely), height of the uterus, size of the uterus, etc, early, untimely),uterine height (&lt;28 cm, 28 - 33 cm, &gt;33 cm), cervical dilatation (1 - 3, ≥4), Neonatal prognosis associated with successful uterine testing in parturients with uni- and bi-scarred uteri: neonatal sex, birth weight.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Study Design</title><p>This is a cross-sectional study of patients with a history of one and two previous CS who underwent TOLAC from JANUARY 1, 2021 TO OCTOBER 31, 2022.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Study Setting</title><p>The study was conducted at Panzi General Referral Hospital located in the city of Bukavu, South Kivu province in The Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is a referral facility in Ibanda health zone covering a population of 511,396 inhabitants and receiving patients referred from 28 hospitals and 24 health centers. In addition, it is a university hospital where general practitioners, gynecologists and midwives are trained. Approximately 3000 deliveries are carried out each year with a caesarean rate of 32%.</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Sampling</title><p>We used a non-exhaustive sample of 111 pregnant women with history one and two CS who delivered at Panzi Hospital maternity ward during the study period.</p></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. Data Collection Tool</title><p>Upon arrival in the delivery room, eligible women gave their consent to participate in the study. Immediately, the study parameters were collected as the patient progressed through labor and delivery. We used a pre-established questionnaire to collect the patient’s details, the obstetric records of the patients, the delivery register, the partogram and the follow-up records of the Mothers and newborns. Data collection was carried out by the midwives, trainee doctors and residents in the department respecting the principles of confidentiality.</p></sec><sec id="s2_6"><title>2.6. Study Variables</title><p>Several variables were considered for this study. The socio-demographic aspect including the age of the pregnant woman, the level of education (illiterate, primary, secondary, university), the marital status (widow, married, single), the profession (household, state employee, trader, pupil/student), ethnicity (Bembe, Fuliru, Havu, Lega, Lenge, Shi, Batembo). The obstetrical history considered the gravidity, the parity, the number of antenatal consultations (ANC) (≤1, 2, ≥3), the number of previous cesarean sections (1, 2), the number of previous vaginal deliveries, previous indications), the gestational age and the mode of admission (referral, alone), We have considered the newborn prognosis by assessing the AGPAR score (&gt;7, &lt;7) and the maternal complications after TOLAC.</p></sec><sec id="s2_7"><title>2.7. Data Management and Analysis</title><p>The collected data were typed using Microsoft Excel 2013 and analyzed by SPSS version 23 software. Categorical variables were summarized as a frequency table with their percentages. Quantitative variables were summarized by the mean and their deviation standards or the median and its deviation domains depending on whether the distribution was symmetric or not.</p></sec><sec id="s2_8"><title>2.8. Ethical Considerations</title><p>This research was designed and carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (1996), and approved by the National Health Ethics Committee and registered under number: CNES 001/DPSK/191PP/2022.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>A total of 111 patients were enrolled and considered for this research. Their average age was 27.09 (&#177;5.02) years, more than half of them were between 25 - 34 years. Regarding the religion, we noted that 52% of patients were Protestants, followed by 26% Catholic. 60% of women were from Ibanda zone.</p><p>Most of the patients were married (88.3%), 78.4% were household and 10.8% were employees. 60% of patients had a secondary education and 15.3% were University graduates (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Socio-demographic characteristics of patients</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Parameters</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >N = 111 (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Average (&#177;SD)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age group (years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >≤24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (33.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 - 34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62 (55.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.09 (&#177;5.02) years</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 - 44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (10.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Religion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Protestant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58 (52.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Catholic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29 (26.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brahanamist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (8.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No religion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (7.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Muslim</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (4.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Revivalist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (1.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Background of origin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ibanda</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67 (60.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Kadutu</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (14.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Out of town</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (14.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bagira</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (7.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Outside the province</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (3.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Marital status</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Married</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98 (88.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Single</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (9.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Widowed</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (1.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Profession</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Housewife</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87 (78.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >State employee</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (10.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Businesswoman</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (7.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pupil/student</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (3.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Illiterate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (14.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (9.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Secondary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67 (60.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Higher education</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (15.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Spouse’s profession</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Businessman</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Civil servant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32 (28.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Household</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (33.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Teacher</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (4.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>*SD: Standard deviation; **Min: minimum; ***Max: maximum.</p><p>The patients’ ethnicity distribution showed that most women were Shi, followed by Lega and Fuliru with 71.2%; 8.1%; 5.4% respectively (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>).</p><p>Regarding the obstetric history of women (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>), the pauciparous represented more than half (52.2%), 54.1% had a living child and 10% had already lost children (deceased). We also noted that 7.2% with an inter-delivery interval equal to 18 months, 63.9% were overweight and 10.8% were underweight. Eight percent of the parturients had performed only one ANC session during the pregnancy and 58.6% had performed more than three ANC sessions. We found that the average gestational age of pregnancy was 38 (34 - 41) weeks gestation and in the majority 74, 8% of the cases, the gestational age was between 37 weeks of gestation.</p><p>The mean uterine height of the woman was 31 (22 - 39) cm and most of them had a uterine height from 28 to 33 cm.</p><p>Overall, the success rate of TOLAC in women with both history of one and two CS (s) was 64% versus a failure rate of 36% (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). We noted that</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Obstetrical history of patients</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Parameters</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >N = 111 (%) Mean (&#177;SD)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age range (years)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >≤24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (33.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 - 34</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62 (55.8) 27.09 (&#177;5.02) Years</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >35 - 44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (10.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Religion</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Protestant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58 (52.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Catholic</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29 (26.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Brahanamist</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (8.1)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Secular</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (7.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Muslim</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (4.5)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Awakening church</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (1.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Place of origin</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ibanda</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67 (60.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Kadutu</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (14.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Out of town</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (14.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bagira</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (7.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Out of province</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (3.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Marital status</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Married</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98 (88.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Single</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (9.9)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Widow</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (1.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Parturients’ occupation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Housewife</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87 (78.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Civil servant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12 (10.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Trader</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (7.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pupil/Student</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (3.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Education level</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Illiterate</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (14.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11 (9.9)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Secondary</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67 (60.4)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >University</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (15.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Spouse’ occupation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Trader</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (33.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Civil servant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32 (28.8)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Household</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37 (33.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Teacher</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (4.5)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>TOLAC following one and two previous CS(s) was similar with 63.8% (n = 44/69) and 64.3% (n = 27/42) respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). 52.3% of newborns were female versus 47.7% male. Concerning the fetal prognosis, we noted neonatal asphyxia in 6.3% of the newborns who were resuscitated in neonatology, 3.6% had low birth weight and there was one neonatal death (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p><p>Among the 40 cases of failed TOLAC, there were 11 cases (27.5%) of Adhesions in the abdominal cavity, 9 cases (22.5%) of delivery hemorrhage. Of the 71 successful TOLAC cases, 8.5% had placental retention, 2.8% had perineal tears and 1.4% had cervical tears. During this study period, there were no cases of maternal death.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>From patients selected for TOLAC during the study period, 62% had one previous CS, compared to 38% of those with two previous CS. Overall, the success rate of the TOLAC in the maternity ward of the Panzi General Referral Hospital was 64%, of which 63.8% was in women with one previous CS and 64.3% after two CSs.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> TOLAC according to the number of previous cesarean section</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Number of previous cesarean section</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Success</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Failure</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44 (63.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 (36.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27 (64.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 (35.7)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Neonatal parameters</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Parameters</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >N = 111 (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Median (min-max)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sex of newborns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Female</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58 (52.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Male</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53 (47.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Apgar at 5th minute</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (6.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (4 - 10)*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >≥7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >104 (93.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Birth weight (grs)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;2500</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (3.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2500 - 4000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >103 (92.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3200 (1900 - 4500)*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&gt;4000</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (3.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Height (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 (35 - 52)*</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Resuscitated neonate (&lt;20 Min)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >104 (93.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (6.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Neonatal death</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >110 (99.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (0.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Regarding the socio-demographic characteristics, the findings show that the majority of patients in this study were between 25 and 34 years old (55.8%), which was similar to the result found by Parveen [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref11">11</xref>] in his study found that the maternal age under 30.5 years was a factor of success TOLAC. Similarly, Rozenberg [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref12">12</xref>] found a mean age of 27 years among women who had TOLAC.</p><p>This is explained by the fact that younger age would contribute to the success of TOLAC because it is the age of reproductive activity. The financial accessibility is a real problem. Koh [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref13">13</xref>] has recently showed that salaried state employees and traders represented 92% of pregnant with improved quality of follow-up during the pregnancy.</p><p>Our findings show a high rate of educated women than was reported by some authors. Fouelifack, [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref14">14</xref>] found 58.30% while Demb&#233;l&#233; et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref15">15</xref>] reported 49.10% of their patients with no formal education.</p><p>We found that pauciparous represented 52.2% and multiparous 44.2% of cases. This can be explained by the fact that in South Kivu, the high number of multiparous women is explained by the high number of pregnancies among women (fertility index: 5.5) as well as the low contraceptive prevalence (11% according to EDSM V) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref16">16</xref>] . This result is correlated to that of Haumont&#233; [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref17">17</xref>] who found parities of 1 - 12 respectively.</p><p>Most of the pregnant women were overweight with 63, 9% in contrast to Thachinamurthi [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref18">18</xref>] who found that failure of the labor trial was correlated with weight gain during pregnancy. The finding of a higher probability of caesarean section for a weight at the end of pregnancy between 66 and 80kg compared to a weight above 80 kg, could be explained by excessive weight gain in the first subgroup of women.</p><p>In our research population, we have also observed an inter-delivery interval &gt; 18 months (96%), which is in agreement with the result found in a similar study conducted in our setting [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref19">19</xref>] . This is a reassuring factor to prevent uterine rupture in a scarred uterus.</p><p>Our study shows a high success rate of the TOLAC after one and two previous CS. This rate is within the recommended range of 60% - 85% of TOLAC [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref20">20</xref>] . The success result was similar following one previous CS (63.8%) and two previous CS (64.3%). Other surveys have shown a reassuring rate of successful TOALC. The success rate of uterine test in China is 84.0% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref21">21</xref>] and 72% in Germany [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref22">22</xref>] . These authors believe that TOLAC is a possible strategic approach to decrease the rate of CS.</p><p>In this study, 58.6% of our patients had undergone more than three ANC sessions, which is recommended by the national protocol. Because the focused prenatal consultation allows for early detection and treatment of maternal-fetal morbidities, health promotion, during which complications associated with a scarred uterus could be discussed, and the delivery plan, which indicates the most appropriate place for delivery, the competent provider who should take charge of delivery in a scarred uterus, etc. This rate is explained by the fact that in our service, there is an ANC unit that is also in charge of pregnancy follow-up counseling. A list of high-risk pregnancies whose follow-up requires a specialized setting. Our rate of antenatal consultations is correlated to the findings of Mapatano [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref23">23</xref>] who found 85.23% of ANC and Bald&#233; [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref24">24</xref>] 83.90%. The success rate of TOLAC was 63% for women with one previous CS and 64% for those with two CS. There was no maternal death in this study comparable to the results found by Spaans [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref25">25</xref>] who found 71.4% and 84% for Nathan S [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126359-ref26">26</xref>] . This similarity in our study is explained by a good selection of these patients and their consultation during antenatal consultations. In addition to these elements the psychological follow-up and the skills of the practitioners in the delivery room.in this study, there were fewer fetal complications and the risk of perinatal death during the uterine test was low. Some authors, in fact, consider that there is more morbidity in the group of failed vaginal delivery.</p><p>Patients with a history of one and two cesarean sections can benefit from TOLAC when they are properly selected. In addition, rigorous monitoring of labor is a supportive element for the success of TOLAC. In this way, women in low-income countries would benefit from this approach, which aims to reduce the rate of cesarean sections and improve maternal-neonatal prognosis.</p><p>This study has determined the characteristics of patients with a history of one and two CS who underwent a TOLAC labor trial in a level III maternity hospital. It is part of a series of our research. Nevertheless, it has some limitations, including its sample size and single-center focus. Future controlled studies are essential to evaluate this finding.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>In the maternity unit of Panzi general referral hospital, TOLAC is performed on selected patients with a profile of one and two previous CS(s). The success rate of TOLAC in women with one and two previous CS is similar. The proper selection of patients, their willingness to perform the labor, and the skills of the obstetrician team promote the success of TOLAC. In addition, it should be performed in a facility with the capacity for dealing with maternal-neonatal emergencies. Therefore, education and sensitization of pregnant women with scarred uterus, as well as access to obstetric care, would enhance the safety of both women and the health care providers.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Madoli, P.K., Nyakio, O., Maroyi, R., Ilunga-Mbaya, &#201;., Mwenze, G., Botalatala, J.B., Mukanga, O. and Amani, D.S.M. (2023) Profile of Pregnant Women and Success of the Uterine Test on a Uni- or Bi-Scar Uterus at the Maternity Ward of Panzi Hospital, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 13, 1151-1162. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2023.137099</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.126359-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngowa, J.D.K., Ngassam, A., Fouogue, J.T., Metogo, J., Medou, A. and Kasia, J.M. (2015) Complications maternelles précoces de la césarienne: à propos de 460 cas dans deux h&amp;#244;pitaux universitaires de Yaoundé, Cameroun. The Pan African Medical Journal, 21, Article 265. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2015.21.265.6967</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2010) Practice Bulletin No. 115: Vaginal Birth after Previous Cesarean Delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 116, 450-463. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181eeb251</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lalonde, A.B. (2005) SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines. Guidelines for Vaginal Birth after Previous Caesarean Birth. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 89, 319-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.03.015</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2011) Birth after Previous Caesarean Section: Green-Top Guideline No 45. London: RCOG.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Maroyi, R., Ngeleza, N., Keyser, L., Bosunga, K. and Mukwege, D. (2020) Prenatal Care Counseling and Delivery Method among Women with Multiple Cesareans: A Cross-Sectional Study from Democratic Republic of Congo. PLOS ONE, 15, e0238985. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238985</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Harrison, M.S. and Goldenberg, R.L. (2016) Cesarean Section in Sub-Saharan Africa. Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology, 2, Article No. 6.  
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40748-016-0033-x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">World Health Organization (2018) Individualized, Supportive Care Key to Positive Childbirth Experience, Says WHO.  
https://www.who.int/news/item/15-02-2018-individualized-supportive-care-key-to-positive-childbirth-experience-says-who</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Parveen, S., Rengaraj, S. and Chaturvedula, L. (2022) Factors Associated with the Outcome of TOLAC after One Previous Caesarean Section: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 42, 430-436.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2021.1916451</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rozenberg, P., Goffinet, F., Philippe, H.J. and Nisand, I. (1999) Thickness of the Lower Uterine Segment: Its Influence in the Management of Patients with Previous Cesarean Sections. European Journal of Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 87, 39-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(99)00069-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Koh, V.M., Essome, H., Sama, J.D., Foumane, P. and Ebah, B.M. (2018) Accouchement sur utérus cicatriciel dans les pays à faibles ressources: Circuit de prise en charge et devenir materno-f&amp;#339;tal. The Pan African Medical Journal, 30, Article 255.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fouelifack, F.Y., Fouedjio, J.H., Ngowe, F., Tebeu, P.M., Fouelifa, L.D. and Fouogue, J.T. (2019) Itinéraire Thérapeutique des Parturientes qui Arrivent avec une Rupture Utérine à l’H&amp;#244;pital Central de Yaoundé. Health Sciences and Disease, 20, 39-45.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dembélé, A., Tarnagda, Z., Ouédraogo, J.L., Thiombiano, O. and Bambara, M. (2012) Issue des accouchements sur utérus cicatriciel dans un h&amp;#244;pital universitaire au Burkina. The Pan African Medical Journal, 12, 95-102.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tahseen, S. and Griffiths, M. (2010) Vaginal Birth after Two Caesarean Sections (VBA-2): A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Success Rate and Adverse Outcomes of VBAC-2 versus VBAC-1 and Repeat (Third) Caesarean Sections. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 117, 5-19.  
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02351.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Haumonté, J.B., Raylet, M., Sabiani, L., Franké, O., Bretelle, F., Boubli, L. and d’Ercole, C. (2012) Quels facteurs influencent la voie d’accouchement en cas de tentative de voie basse sur utérus cicatriciel? Journal de gynécologie obstétrique et biologie de la reproduction, 41, 735-752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2012.09.032</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Thachinamurthi, J. (2012) Dans quelles mesures les patientes porteuses d’un utérus bicicatriciel peuvent-elles accoucher par les voies naturelles? étude de la morbidité materno-foetale à propos de 93 cas à l'h&amp;#244;pital Intercommunal de Villeneuve Saint Georges.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Maroyi, R., et al. (2021) Factors Associated with Successful Vaginal Birth after a Primary Cesarean Section in Women with an Optimal Inter-Delivery Interval. International Journal of Women’s Health, 13, 903-909.  
https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S334269</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rotem, R., Hirsch, A., Sela, H.Y., Samueloff, A., Grisaru-Granovsky, S. and Rottenstreich, M. (2021) Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes following Trial of Labor after Two Previous Cesareans: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Reproductive Sciences, 28, 1092-1100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-020-00378-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Li, Y.X., et al. (2019) Predicting the Success of Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery: A Retrospective Cohort Study in China. BMJ Open, 9, e027807.  
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027807</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Schoorel, E.N.C., et al. (2014) 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: An International Journal of Obstetrics &amp; Gynaecology, 121, 840-847.  
https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12605</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mapatano, S.E., et al. (2020) Socio-Demographic Profile and Maternal-Fetal Prognosis of Emergency Caesarean Section versus Caesarean Section Programmed on Scar Uterus. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 9, 1864-1873. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20201771</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Baldé, I.S., Sy, T., Diallo, A., Baldé, O., Diallo, M.H., Diallo, M.C., et al. (2017) Accouchement dans un contexte d’utérus cicatriciel à la maternité de l’h&amp;#244;pital national Ignace-Deen (Guinée). Revue de médecine périnatale, 9, 32-36.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12611-017-0395-y</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Spaans, W.A., Sluijs, M.B., van Roosmalen, J. and Bleker, O.P. (2002) Risk Factors at Caesarean Section and Failure of Subsequent Trial of Labour. European Journal of Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 100, 163-166.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-2115(01)00464-X</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fox, N.S., et al. (2019) Vaginal Birth after a Cesarean Delivery for Arrest of Descent. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal &amp; Neonatal Medicine, 32, 2638-2642.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1443069</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Marshall, N.E., Fu, R. and Guise, J.M. (2011) Impact of Multiple Cesarean Deliveries on Maternal Morbidity: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 205, 262.E1-262.E8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.06.035</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">De Brouwere, V. and Van Lerberghe, W. (2001) Réduire les risques de maternité: Stratégies et évidence scientifique. Studies in Health Services Organisation &amp; Policy.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126359-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">wa Momat, F.K., Zalagile, P.A., Mukalenge, F.C., Luboya, O.N., Kalala, C.T., Mashinda, D., Kalungwe, J.K., et al. (2017) Accouchements sur utérus cicatriciel en République Démocratique du Congo: épreuve utérine et facteurs déterminants de l’issue. The Pan African Medical Journal, 27, Article 71.  
https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2017.27.71.12499</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>