Here we go, just posted this last week. If you like, you can register for free to have access to the entire research article, including all of the tables that were truly fascinating, from this study.
The first number is risk during VBAC, the second is for ERCS.
So, VBAC vs. ERCS stats were found to be as follows:
UR: 0.7 vs. 0
Dehiscence ('windows', but are NOT life threatening): 0.7 vs. 0.5
Hysterectomy: 0.2 vs. 0.3
Thromboembolic disease: 0.04 vs. 0.1
Transfusion: 1.7 vs. 1.0
Endometritis: 2.9 vs. 1.8
Maternal death: 0.02 vs. 0.04
Other maternal adverse events: 0.4 vs. 0.3
One or more of the above: 5.5 vs. 3.6
These are number for MOM, not talking about baby at all. Overall, mom experienced more complications during VBAC (5.5%) than they did with ERCS (3.6%).
Numbers for BABY looked like this, again VBAC vs. ERCS:
Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (severe brain damage): 0.08 vs 0
Neonatal death: 0.08 vs. 0.05
In real numbers, they had 3 dead moms after VBAC, 7 dead moms after ERCS. So, yes, ERCS was found to be riskier for mom in terms of death.
In real numbers, they had 13 dead babies from VBAC, 7 dead babies from ERCS. So, VBAC was riskier in terms of death for baby.
So...again, maybe some women look at all of that and think 'They are all such small numbers, it's worth the risk to attempt VBAC even though more babies died as a result in this study.'
And that's a perfectly logical thought to have.
I don't happen to share that thought, as I'll take on the added risk of maternal death every day of the week and twice on Sunday to avoid putting that risk on my unborn child, no matter how small the numbers are.
BUT, the numbers ARE small, so really, either choice seems perfectly valid and certainly not something to be up in arms about or shocked over how someone else could arrive at a different conclusion looking at the same information.