Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T10:20:23.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 23 - Late-Onset Fetal Growth Restriction

from Section 6 - Management of Fetal Growth Restriction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2018

Christoph Lees ,
Gerard H. A. Visser  and
Kurt Hecher
By
C. M. Bilardo  and
Francesc Figueras
Christoph Lees
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Gerard H. A. Visser
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Kurt Hecher
Affiliation:
University Medical Centre, Hamburg
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Placental-Fetal Growth Restriction , pp. 209 - 218
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hepburn, M, Rosenberg, K. An audit of the detection and management of small-for-gestational age babies. BJOG 1986;93(3):212–16.Google Scholar
Sharp, AN, Alfirevic, Z. First trimester screening can predict adverse pregnancy outcomes. Prenat Diagn 2014 Jul;34(7):660–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halscott, TL, Ramsey, PS, Reddy, UM. First trimester screening cannot predict adverse outcomes yet. Prenat Diagn 2014 Jul;34(7):668–76.Google Scholar
Backe, B, Nakling, J. Effectiveness of antenatal care: A population based study. BJOG 1993;100(8):727–32.Google Scholar
Lindqvist, PG, Molin, J. Does antenatal identification of small-for-gestational age fetuses significantly improve their outcome? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25(3):258–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardosi, J, Madurasinghe, V, Williams, M, Malik, A, Francis, A. Maternal and fetal risk factors for stillbirth: Population based study. BMJ 2013;346:f108.Google Scholar
Richardus, JH, Graafmans, WC, Verloove-Vanhorick, SP, Mackenbach, JP, EuroNatal International Audit P, EuroNatal Working G. Differences in perinatal mortality and suboptimal care between 10 European regions: Results of an international audit. BJOG 2003;110(2):97–105.Google Scholar
Cnossen, JS, Morris, RK, Ter Riet, G, Mol, BW, Van der Post, JA, Coomarasamy, A, et al. Use of uterine artery Doppler ultrasonography to predict pre-eclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction: A systematic review and bivariable meta-analysis. Cmaj 2008;178(6):701–11.Google Scholar
Yu, CK, Khouri, O, Onwudiwe, N, Spiliopoulos, Y, Nicolaides, KH: Fetal Medicine Foundation Second-Trimester Screening Group. Prediction of pre-eclampsia by uterine artery Doppler imaging: Relationship to gestational age at delivery and small-for-gestational age. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:310–13.Google Scholar
Kean, L, Liu, D. Antenatal care as a screening tool for the detection of small for gestational age babies in the low risk population. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1996;16:77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monier, I, Blondel, B, Ego, A, Kaminiski, M, Goffinet, F, Zeitlin, J. Poor effectiveness of antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction and consequences for obstetric management and neonatal outcomes: A French national study. BJOG 2015 Mar;122(4):518–27.Google Scholar
Clausson, B, Gardosi, J, Francis, A, Cnattingius, S. Perinatal outcome in SGA births defined by customized versus population-based birthweight standards. BJOG 2001;108(8):830–4.Google Scholar
Moraitis, AA, Wood, AM, Fleming, M, Smith, GC. Birth weight percentile and the risk of term perinatal death. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124(2 Pt 1):274–83.Google Scholar
Baschat, AA, Cosmi, E, Bilardo, CM, Wolf, H, Berg, C, Rigano, S, et al. Predictors of neonatal outcome in early-onset placental dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol 2007;109(2 Pt 1):253–61.Google Scholar
Trudell, AS, Cahill, AG, Tuuli, MG, Macones, GA, Odibo, AO. Risk of stillbirth after 37 weeks in pregnancies complicated by small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;208(5):376 e1–7.Google Scholar
Savchev, S, Figueras, F, Cruz-Martinez, R, Illa, M, Botet, F, Gratacos, E. Estimated weight centile as a predictor of perinatal outcome in small-for-gestational-age pregnancies with normal fetal and maternal Doppler indices. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39(3):299–303.Google Scholar
Clausson, B, Cnattingius, S, Axelsson, O. Preterm and term births of small for gestational age infants: A population-based study of risk factors among nulliparous women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105(9):1011–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Souka, AP, Papastefanou, I, Pilalis, A, Michalitsi, V, Kassanos, D. Performance of third-trimester ultrasound for prediction of small-for-gestational-age neonates and evaluation of contingency screening policies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2012;39(5):535.Google Scholar
Bricker, L, Neilson, JP, Dowswell, T. Routine ultrasound in late pregnancy (after 24 weeks’ gestation). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008(4):CD001451.Google Scholar
Skrastad, RB, Eik-Nes, SH, Sviggum, O, Johansen, OJ, Salvesen, KA, Romundstad, PR, et al. A randomized controlled trial of third-trimester routine ultrasound in a non-selected population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92(12):1353–60.Google Scholar
McKenna, D, Tharmaratnam, S, Mahsud, S, Bailie, C, Harper, A, Dornan, J. A randomized trial using ultrasound to identify the high-risk fetus in a low-risk population. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101(4):626–32.Google Scholar
Duff, GB. A randomized controlled trial in a hospital population of ultrasound measurement screening for the small for dates baby. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;33(4):374–8.Google Scholar
Neilson, JP, Munjanja, SP, Whitfield, CR. Screening for small for dates fetuses: A controlled trial. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1984;289(6453):1179–82.Google Scholar
Roma, E.,Arnau, A.,Berdala, R., Bergos, C., Montesinos, J., Figueras, F. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;46(4):391–7.Google Scholar
Stirnemann, JJ, Benoist, G, Salomon, LJ, Bernard, JP, Ville, Y. Optimal risk assessment of small-for-gestational-age fetuses using 31–34-week biometry in a low-risk population. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014 Mar;43(3):311–16. doi: 10.1002/uog.13288. Epub 2014 Feb 12. PubMed PMID: 24357451Google Scholar
Alfirevic, Z, Neilson, JP. Doppler ultrasonography in high-risk pregnancies: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172(5):1379–87.Google Scholar
Clausson, B, Gardosi, J, Francis, A, Cnattingius, S. Perinatal outcome in SGA births defined by customized versus population-based birthweight standards. BJOG 2001;108(8):830–4.Google Scholar
Trudell, AS, Cahill, AG, Tuuli, MG, Macones, GA, Odibo, AO. Risk of stillbirth after 37 weeks in pregnancies complicated by small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;208(5):376e1–7.Google Scholar
Papageorghiou, AT, Ohuma, EO, Altman, DG, Todros, T, Cheikh, Ismail, L, Lambert, A, Jaffer, YA, Bertino, E, Gravett, MG, Purwar, M, Noble, JA, Pang, R, Victora, CG, Barros, FC, Carvalho, M, Salomon, LJ, Bhutta, ZA, Kennedy, SH, Villar, J; International Fetal and Newborn Growth Consortium for the 21st Century (INTERGROWTH-21st). International standards for fetal growth based on serial ultrasound measurements: The Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. Lancet 2014 Sep 6;384(9946):869–79.Google Scholar
Vasak, B, Koenen, SV, Koster, MP, Hukkelhoven, CW, Franx, A, Hanson, MA, Visser, GH. Human fetal growth is constrained below optimal for perinatal survival. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015 Feb;45(2):162–7.Google Scholar
Gardosi, J, Clausson, B, Francis, A. The value of customised centiles in assessing perinatal mortality risk associated with parity and maternal size. BJOG 2009 Sep;116(10):1356–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiserud, T, Johnsen, SL. Biometric assessment. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2009 Dec;23(6):819–31.Google Scholar
Chang, TC, Robson, SC, Spencer, JA, Gallivan, S. Prediction of perinatal morbidity at term in small fetuses: Comparison of fetal growth and Doppler ultrasound. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;101(5):422–7.Google Scholar
Oros, D, Figueras, F, Cruz-Martinez, R, Meler, E, Munmany, M, Gratacos, E. Longitudinal changes in uterine, umbilical and fetal cerebral Doppler indices in late-onset small-for-gestational age fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37(2):191–5.Google Scholar
Parra-Saavedra, M, Crovetto, F, Triunfo, S, Savchev, S, Parra, G, Sanz, M, et al. Added value of umbilical vein flow as a predictor of perinatal outcome in term small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013.Google Scholar
Parra-Saavedra, M, Crovetto, F, Triunfo, S, Savchev, S, Peguero, A, Nadal, A, Gratacós, E, Figueras, F. Association of Doppler parameters with placental signs of underperfusion in late-onset small-for-gestational-age pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Sep;44(3):330–7.Google Scholar
Morrow, RJ, Adamson, SL, Bull, SB, Ritchie, JW. Effect of placental embolization on the umbilical arterial velocity waveform in fetal sheep. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161(4):1055–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, RS, Stevens, RJ. Mathematical model for interpretation of Doppler velocity waveform indices. Med Biol Eng Comput 1989;27(3):269–76.Google Scholar
Hershkovitz, R, Kingdom, JC, Geary, M, Rodeck, CH. Fetal cerebral blood flow redistribution in late gestation: Identification of compromise in small fetuses with normal umbilical artery Doppler. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;15(3):209–12.Google Scholar
Severi, FM, Bocchi, C, Visentin, A, Falco, P, Cobellis, L, Florio, P, et al. Uterine and fetal cerebral Doppler predict the outcome of third-trimester small-for-gestational age fetuses with normal umbilical artery Doppler. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002;19(3):225–8.Google Scholar
Cruz-Martínez, R, Figueras, F, Hernandez-Andrade, E, Oros, D, Gratacos, E. Fetal brain Doppler to predict cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status in term small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 2011 Mar;117(3):618–26.Google Scholar
Morales-Roselló, J, Khalil, A, Morlando, M, Bhide, A, Papageorghiou, A, Thilaganathan, B. Poor neonatal acid-base status in term fetuses with low cerebroplacental ratio. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015 Feb;45(2):156–61.Google Scholar
Eixarch, E, Meler, E, Iraola, A, Illa, M, Crispi, F, Hernandez-Andrade, E, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome in 2-year-old infants who were small-for-gestational age term fetuses with cerebral blood flow redistribution. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;32(7):894–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figueras, F, Cruz-Martinez, R, Sanz-Cortes, M, Arranz, A, Illa, M, Botet, F, Costas-Moragas, C, Gratacos, E. Neurobehavioral outcomes in preterm, growth-restricted infants with and without prenatal advanced signs of brain-sparing. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011 Sep;38(3):288–94.Google Scholar
Arbeille, P, Maulik, D, Fignon, A, Stale, H, Berson, M, Bodard, S, et al. Assessment of the fetal PO2 changes by cerebral and umbilical Doppler on lamb fetuses during acute hypoxia. Ultrasound Med Biol 1995;21(7):861–70.Google Scholar
Gramellini, D, Folli, MC, Raboni, S, Vadora, E, Merialdi, A. Cerebral-umbilical Doppler ratio as a predictor of adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79(3):416–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bahado-Singh, RO, Kovanci, E, Jeffres, A, Oz, U, Deren, O, Copel, J, et al. The Doppler cerebroplacental ratio and perinatal outcome in intrauterine growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180(3 Pt 1):750–6.Google Scholar
Ghosh, GS, Gudmundsson, S. Uterine and umbilical artery Doppler are comparable in predicting perinatal outcome of growth-restricted fetuses. BJOG 2009;116(3):424–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vergani, P, Roncaglia, N, Andreotti, C, Arreghini, A, Teruzzi, M, Pezzullo, JC, et al. Prognostic value of uterine artery Doppler velocimetry in growth-restricted fetuses delivered near term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187(4):932–6.Google Scholar
Fratelli, N, Valcamonico, A, Prefumo, F, Pagani, G, Guarneri, T, Frusca, T. Effects of antenatal recognition and follow-up on perinatal outcomes in small-for-gestational age infants delivered after 36 weeks. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92(2):223–9.Google Scholar
Figueras, F, Savchev, S, Triunfo, S, Crovetto, F, Gratacos, E. An integrated model with classification criteria to predict small-for-gestational fetuses at risk of adverse perinatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014.Google Scholar
Aviram, R, T BS, Kidron, D. Placental aetiologies of foetal growth restriction: clinical and pathological differences. Early Hum Dev 2010;86(1):59–63.Google Scholar
Lobmaier, SM, Figueras, F, Mercade, I, Perello, M, Peguero, A, Crovetto, F, Ortiz, JU, Crispi, F, Gratacós, E. Angiogenic factors vs Doppler surveillance in the prediction of adverse outcome among late-pregnancy small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014 May;43(5):533–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakalis, S, Gallo, DM, Mendez, O, Poon, LC, Nicolaides, KH. Prediction of small-for-gestational-age neonates: Maternal biochemical markers at 30–34 weeks. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015.Google ScholarPubMed
Benton, SJ, Hu, Y, Xie, F, Kupfer, K, Lee, SW, Magee, LA, et al. Angiogenic factors as diagnostic tests for preeclampsia: A performance comparison between two commercial immunoassays. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205(5):469 e1–8.Google Scholar
Triunfo, S, Lobmaier, S, Parra-Saavedra, M, Crovetto, F, Peguero, A, Nadal, A, et al. Angiogenic factors at diagnosis of late-onset small-for-gestational age and histological placental underperfusion. Placenta 2014;35(6):398–403.Google Scholar
Hecher, K, Bilardo, CM, Stigter, RH, Ville, Y, Hackeloer, BJ, Kok, HJ, et al. Monitoring of fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction: A longitudinal study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18(6):564–70.Google Scholar
Turan, OM, Turan, S, Gungor, S, Berg, C, Moyano, D, Gembruch, U, et al. Progression of Doppler abnormalities in intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;32(2):160–7.Google Scholar
Lees, C, Marlow, N, Arabin, B, Bilardo, CM, Brezinka, C, Derks, JB, et al. Perinatal morbidity and mortality in early-onset fetal growth restriction: Cohort outcomes of the trial of randomized umbilical and fetal flow in Europe (TRUFFLE). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;42(4):400–8.Google Scholar
Crovetto, F, Crispi, F, Scazzocchio, E, Mercade, I, Meler, E, Figueras, F, et al. First-trimester screening for early and late small-for-gestational-age neonates using maternGoogle Scholar
Savchev, S, Figueras, F, Sanz-Cortes, M, Cruz-Lemini, M, Triunfo, S, Botet, F, et al. Evaluation of an optimal gestational age cut-off for the definition of early- and late-onset fetal growth restriction. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014;36(2):99–105.Google Scholar
McCowan, LM, Harding, JE, Roberts, AB, Barker, SE, Ford, C, Stewart, AW. A pilot randomized controlled trial of two regimens of fetal surveillance for small-for-gestational-age fetuses with normal results of umbilical artery Doppler velocimetry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182(1 Pt 1):81–6.Google Scholar
Boers, KE, Vijgen, SM, Bijlenga, D, Van der Post, JA, Bekedam, DJ, Kwee, A, et al. Induction versus expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction at term: Randomised equivalence trial (DIGITAT). BMJ 2010;341:c7087.Google Scholar
Nabhan, AF, Abdelmoula, YA. Amniotic fluid index versus single deepest vertical pocket as a screening test for preventing adverse pregnancy outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008(3):CD006593.Google ScholarPubMed
Chauhan, SP, Sanderson, M, Hendrix, NW, Magann, EF, Devoe, LD. Perinatal outcome and amniotic fluid index in the antepartum and intrapartum periods: A meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181(6):1473–8.Google Scholar
Cruz-Martinez, R, Figueras, F, Hernandez-Andrade, E, Oros, D, Gratacos, E. Fetal brain Doppler to predict cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal status in term small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117(3):618–26.Google Scholar
Boers, KE, Van Wyk, L, Van der Post, JA, Kwee, A, Van Pampus, MG, Spaanderdam, ME, et al. Neonatal morbidity after induction vs expectant monitoring in intrauterine growth restriction at term: A subanalysis of the DIGITAT RCT. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206(4):344 e1–7.Google Scholar
Oros, D, Figueras, F, Cruz-Martinez, R, Padilla, N, Meler, E, Hernandez-Andrade, E, et al. Middle versus anterior cerebral artery Doppler for the prediction of perinatal outcome and neonatal neurobehavior in term small-for-gestational-age fetuses with normal umbilical artery Doppler. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010;35(4):456–61.Google Scholar
Arduini, D, Rizzo, G. Prediction of fetal outcome in small for gestational age fetuses: Comparison of Doppler measurements obtained from different fetal vessels. J Perinat Med 1992;20(1):29–38.Google Scholar
Hecher, K, Spernol, R, Stettner, H, Szalay, S. Potential for diagnosing imminent risk to appropriate- and small-for-gestational-age fetuses by Doppler sonographic examination of umbilical and cerebral arterial blood flow. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1992 Jul 1;2(4):266–71.Google Scholar
Roza, SJ, Steegers, EA, Verburg, BO, Jaddoe, VW, Moll, HA, Hofman, A, et al. What is spared by fetal brain-sparing? Fetal circulatory redistribution and behavioral problems in the general population. Am J Epidemiol 2008;168(10):1145–52.Google Scholar
Akolekar, R. Syngelaki, A, Gallo, DM, Poon, LC, Nicolaides, KH. Umbilical and fetal middle cerebral artery Doppler at 35–37 weeks’ gestation in the prediction of adverse perinatal outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015 Jul;46(1):82–92.Google Scholar
Figueroa-Diesel, H, Hernandez-Andrade, E, Acosta-Rojas, R, Cabero, L, Gratacos, E. Doppler changes in the main fetal brain arteries at different stages of hemodynamic adaptation in severe intrauterine growth restriction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;30(3):297–302.Google Scholar
Llurba, E, Turan, O, Kasdaglis, T, Harman, CR, Baschat, AA. Emergence of late-onset placental dysfunction: Relationship to the change in uterine artery blood flow resistance between the first and third trimesters. Am J Perinatol 2013;30(6):505–12.Google Scholar
Cruz-Martinez, R, Savchev, S, Cruz-Lemini, M, Mendez, A, Gratacos, E, Figueras, F. Clinical utility of third trimester uterine artery Doppler in the prediction of brain hemodynamic deterioration and adverse perinatal outcome in small-for-gestational-age fetuses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2014.Google Scholar
Mifsud, W, Sebire, NJ. Placental pathology in early-onset and late-onset fetal growth restriction. Fetal Diagn Ther 2014;36(2):117–28.Google Scholar
Apel-Sarid, L, Levy, A, Holcberg, G, Sheiner, E: Term and preterm (<34 and <37 weeks’ gestation) placental pathologies associated with fetal growth restriction. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010;282:487–92.Google Scholar
Cheema, R, Dubiel, M, Gudmundsson, S. Fetal brain sparing is strongly related to the degree of increased placental vascular impedance. J Perinat Med 2006;34(4):318–22.Google Scholar
Jacobsson, B, Ahlin, K, Francis, A, Hagberg, G, Hagberg, H, Gardosi, J. Cerebral palsy and restricted growth status at birth: Population-based case-control study. BJOG 2008;115(10):1250–5.Google Scholar
Van Wyk, L, Boers, KE, Van der Post, JA, Van Pampus, MG, Van Wassenaer, AG, Van Baar, AL, et al. Effects on (neuro)developmental and behavioral outcome at 2 years of age of induced labor compared with expectant management in intrauterine growth-restricted infants: long-term outcomes of the DIGITAT trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206(5):406e1–7.Google Scholar
Vijgen, SM, Boers, KE, Opmeer, BC, Bijlenga, D, Bekedam, DJ, Bloemenkamp, KW, de Boer, K, Bremer, HA, le Cessie, S, Delemarre, FM, Duvekot, JJ, Hasaart, TH, Kwee, A, Van Lith, JM, Van Meir, CA, Van Pampus, MG, Van der Post, JA, Rijken, M, Roumen, FJ, Van der Salm, PC, Spaanderman, ME, Willekes, C, Wijnen, EJ, Mol, BW, Scherjon, SA. Economic analysis comparing induction of labour and expectant management for intrauterine growth restriction at term (DIGITAT trial). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013 Oct;170(2):358–63.Google Scholar
Scala, C, Bhide, A, Familiari, A, Pagani, G, Khalil, A, Papageorghiou, A, Thilaganathan, B. Number of episodes of reduced fetal movements at term: Association with adverse perinatal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015 Jul 20. pii: S0002-9378(15)00751-6.Google Scholar
Pilliod, RA, Cheng, YW, Snowden, JM, Doss, AE, Caughey, AB. The risk of intrauterine fetal death in the small-for-gestational-age fetus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207(4):318e1–6.Google Scholar
Jozwiak, M, Ten Eikelder, M, Oude Rengerink, K, de Groot, C, Feitsma, H, Spaanderman, M, Van Pampus, M, de Leeuw, JW, Mol, BW, Bloemenkamp, K; PROBAAT Study Group. Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol: Randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT-M study) and systematic review and meta-analysis of literature. Am J Perinatol 2014 Feb;31(2):145–56.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×