Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T15:30:45.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Mechanical birth obstruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2009

Paul Reuwer
Affiliation:
St Elisabeth Hospital/Brabant Medical School, Tilburg, Netherlands
Hein Bruinse
Affiliation:
University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands
Arie Franx
Affiliation:
St Elisabeth Hospital/Brabant Medical School, Tilburg, Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Proactive Support of Labor
The Challenge of Normal Childbirth
, pp. 190 - 201
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

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

Stewart, KS, Philpott, RH. Fetal response to cephalopelvic disproportion. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1980; 87(8): 641–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, DA, Goodwin, TM, Gherman, RB, et al. Intrapartum rupture of the unscarred uterus. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89: 671–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosen, M, Debanne, S, Thompson, K, et al. Abnormal labor and infant brain damage. Obstet Gynecol 1992; 80: 961–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Brill, Y, Windrim, R. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: review of antenatal predictors of success. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003; 25: 275–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, FG, Leveno, KJ, Bloom, SL, et al. Chapter 20: Dystocia: abnormal labor. In: Williams Obstetrics, 22nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005: 495–524.Google Scholar
,American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for diagnostic imaging during pregnancy. Committee Opinion No. 158. September 1995.
Pattinson, RC. Pelvimetry for fetal cephalic presentations at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2): CD000161.Google Scholar
Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC, Neilson, J, et al. Prolonged labor. In: A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez-Ramos, K, Bernstein, S, Kaunitz, AM. Expectant management versus labor induction for suspected fetal macrosomia: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100: 997–1002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. Mosby; 2003.Google Scholar
Cruikshank, DP, White, CA. Obstetric malpresentations: twenty years’ experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973; 116: 1097–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broekhuizen, FF, Washington, JM, Johnson, F, et al. Vacuum extraction versus forceps delivery: Indications and complications, 1979 to 1984. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 69: 338–42.Google ScholarPubMed
,American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Operative Vaginal Delivery. Practice bulletin No. 17, June 2000.
,American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for Perinatal Care, 5th edn. Washington DC: AAP and ACOG; 2002.Google Scholar
Menticoglou, SM, Perlman, M, Manning, FA. High cervical spinal cord injury in neonates delivered with forceps: Report of 15 cases. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86: 589–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Towner, D, Castro, MA, Eby-Wilkens, E, et al. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1709–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagadorn-Freathy, AS, Yeomans, ER, Hankins, GDV. Validation of the 1988 ACOG forceps classification system. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 77: 356–60.Google ScholarPubMed
Gardberg, M, Laakkonen, E, Salevaara, M. Intrapartum sonography and persistent occiput posterior position: a study of 408 deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91: 746–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, FG, Leveno, KJ, Bloom, SL, et al. Normal Labor and Delivery. In: Williams Obstetrics, 22nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005: 407–441.Google Scholar
Gardberg, M, Tupparainen, M. Anterior placental location predisposes for occiput posterior presentation near term. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1994; 73: 151–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruikshank, DP, Cruikshank, JE. Face and brow presentations: a review. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1981; 24(2): 333–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sizer, AR, Nirmal, DM. Occipitoposterior position: associated factors and obstetric outcome in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: 749–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Fitzpatrick, M, McQuillan, K, O'Herlihy, C. Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98(6): 1027–31.Google ScholarPubMed
Speer, DP, Peltier, LF. Pelvic fractures and pregnancy. J Trauma 1972; 12: 474–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Shoulder Dystocia. Practice bulletin No. 40, November 2002.
Gherman, RB, Ouzounian, JG, Goodwin, TM. Obstetric maneuvers for shoulder dystocia and associated fetal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 178: 1126–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gherman, RB. Shoulder dystocia: Prevention and management. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 2005; 32: 297–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Acker, DB, Sachs, BP, Friedman, EA. Risk factors for shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66: 762–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Geary, M, McParland, P, Johnson, H, et al. Shoulder dystocia: is it predictable?Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995; 62: 15–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rouse, DJ, Owen, J. Prophylactic cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by means of ultrasonography; a Faustian bargain?Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 332–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baskett, TF, Allen, AC. Perinatal implications of shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86: 14–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nocon, JJ, McKenzie, DK, Thomas, LJ, et al. Shoulder dystocia: An analysis of risks and obstetric maneuvers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168: 1732–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iffy, L, Varadi, V, Jakobovits, A. Common intrapartum denominators of shoulder dystocia related birth injuries. Zentralbl Gynakol 1994; 116: 33–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Hernandez, C, Wendell, GD. Shoulder dystocia. In Pitkin, RM, ed. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol XXXIII. Hagerstown, PA: Lippincott; 1990: 526.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
×