1. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Philippe HJ et al. Thickness of the lower uterine segment: its influence in the management of patients with previous cesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1999; 87(1): 39–45.
2. Roberge S, Boutin A, Chaillet N et al. Systematic Review of Cesarean Scar Assessment in the Nonpregnant State: Imaging Techniques and Uterine Scar Defect. Am J Perinatol 2012; 29(6): 465–472.
3. Kok N, Wiersma IC, Opmeer BC et al. Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42(2): 132–139.
4. Tharaux CD, Carmona E, Bouvier-Colle MH et al. Postpartum Maternal Mortality and Cesarean Delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108(3 Pt 1): 541–548.
5. Rozenberg P, Goffinet F, Philippe HJ et al. Ultrasonographic measurement of lower uterine segment to assess risk of defects of scarred uterus. Lancet 1996; 347(8997): 281–284.
6. Basic E, Basic-Cetkovic V, Kozaric H et al. Ultrasound evaluation of uterine scar after Cesarean section. Acta Inform Med 2912; 20(3): 149–153.
7. Asakura H, Nakai A, Ishikawa G et al. Prediction of uterine dehiscence by measuring lower uterine segment thickness prior to the onset of labour: evaluation by transvaginal ultrasonography. J Nippon Med Sch 2000; 67(5): 352–356.
8. Flamm BL, Geiger AM. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery: an admission scoring system. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90(6); 907–910.
9. Bujold E, Mehta SH, Bujold C et al. Interdelivery interval and uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187(5): 1199–1202.
10. Bij de Vaate AJ, Brölmann HA, vad der Voet LF et al. Ultrasound evluation of the cesarean scar: relation between a niche and postmenstrual spotting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37(1): 93–99.
11. Naji O, Daemen A, Smith A et al. Changes in Cesarean section scar dimensions during pregnancy: a prospective longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41(5): 556–562
12. Sentilhes L, Vayssiere C, Beucher G et al. Delivery for women with a previous cesarean: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 170(1): 25–32.
13. Naji O, Daemen A, SMith A et al. Visibility and measurement of Cesarean section scars in pregnancy: a reproducibility study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012; 40(5): 549–556.
14. Jastrow N, Antonelli E, Robyr R et al. Inter- and itraobserver variability in sonographic measurement of the lower uterine segment after a previous Cesarean section. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27(4): 420–424.
15. Martins WP, Barra DA, Gallarreta FM et al. Lower uterine segment thickness measurement in pregnant women with previous Cesarean section: reliability analysis using two- and three-dimensional transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33(3): 301–306.
16. Roztočil A, Velebil P. Vedení porodu u těhotné s císařským řezem v anamnéze – doporučený postup. Čes Gynek 2013; 78(Suppl): S48-S49.
17. Naji O, Wynants L, Smith A et al. Predicting successful vaginal birth after Cesarean section using a model based on Cesarean scar features examined by transvaginal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 41(6):672–678.