Cargando…

Babies in occiput posterior position are significantly more likely to require an emergency cesarean birth compared with babies in occiput transverse position in the second stage of labor: A prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION: Malposition complicates 2‐13% of births at delivery, leading to increased obstetric interventions (cesarean section and instrumental delivery) and higher rates of adverse fetal and maternal outcomes. Limited data are available regarding the likely rates of obstetric intervention and su...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tempest, Nicola, Lane, Steven, Hapangama, Dharani
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7154761/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31667835
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13765
_version_ 1783521889323319296
author Tempest, Nicola
Lane, Steven
Hapangama, Dharani
author_facet Tempest, Nicola
Lane, Steven
Hapangama, Dharani
author_sort Tempest, Nicola
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Malposition complicates 2‐13% of births at delivery, leading to increased obstetric interventions (cesarean section and instrumental delivery) and higher rates of adverse fetal and maternal outcomes. Limited data are available regarding the likely rates of obstetric intervention and subsequent neonatal and maternal outcomes of births with babies in persistent occiput posterior position vs those in persistent occiput transverse position. The UK Audit and Research trainee Collaborative in Obstetrics and Gynecology (UK‐ARCOG) network set out to collect data prospectively at delivery on final mode of delivery and immediate outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The UK‐ARCOG network collected data on all births with malposition of the fetal head complicating the second stage of labor (n = 838) (occiput posterior/occiput transverse) requiring rotational vaginal operative birth or emergency cesarean to expedite delivery across 66 participating UK National Health Service maternity units over a 1‐month period. The outcomes considered were the need for emergency cesarean section without a trial of instrumental delivery, success of the first method of delivery employed in achieving a vaginal delivery and neonatal/maternal outcomes. RESULTS: Obstetricians regarded assistance with an operative vaginal delivery method to be unsafe in 15% of babies in occiput posterior position and 6.1% of babies in occiput transverse position, and they were delivered by primary emergency cesarean section. When vaginal delivery was deemed safe (defined as attempted assisted vaginal rotational delivery), the first instrument attempted was successful in 74.4% of occiput posterior babies and 79.3% of occiput transverse babies. CONCLUSIONS: Our data facilitates decision making by obstetricians to increase safety of assisted rotational operative delivery of a malpositioned baby at initial assessment and in counseling women. Until data from a well‐designed randomized controlled trial of instrumental delivery vs emergency cesarean section are available, this manuscript provides contemporaneous national data from a high resource setting within a structured training program, to assist the selection of an appropriate instrument/method for the delivery of a malpositioned baby.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7154761
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71547612020-04-15 Babies in occiput posterior position are significantly more likely to require an emergency cesarean birth compared with babies in occiput transverse position in the second stage of labor: A prospective observational study Tempest, Nicola Lane, Steven Hapangama, Dharani Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Birth INTRODUCTION: Malposition complicates 2‐13% of births at delivery, leading to increased obstetric interventions (cesarean section and instrumental delivery) and higher rates of adverse fetal and maternal outcomes. Limited data are available regarding the likely rates of obstetric intervention and subsequent neonatal and maternal outcomes of births with babies in persistent occiput posterior position vs those in persistent occiput transverse position. The UK Audit and Research trainee Collaborative in Obstetrics and Gynecology (UK‐ARCOG) network set out to collect data prospectively at delivery on final mode of delivery and immediate outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The UK‐ARCOG network collected data on all births with malposition of the fetal head complicating the second stage of labor (n = 838) (occiput posterior/occiput transverse) requiring rotational vaginal operative birth or emergency cesarean to expedite delivery across 66 participating UK National Health Service maternity units over a 1‐month period. The outcomes considered were the need for emergency cesarean section without a trial of instrumental delivery, success of the first method of delivery employed in achieving a vaginal delivery and neonatal/maternal outcomes. RESULTS: Obstetricians regarded assistance with an operative vaginal delivery method to be unsafe in 15% of babies in occiput posterior position and 6.1% of babies in occiput transverse position, and they were delivered by primary emergency cesarean section. When vaginal delivery was deemed safe (defined as attempted assisted vaginal rotational delivery), the first instrument attempted was successful in 74.4% of occiput posterior babies and 79.3% of occiput transverse babies. CONCLUSIONS: Our data facilitates decision making by obstetricians to increase safety of assisted rotational operative delivery of a malpositioned baby at initial assessment and in counseling women. Until data from a well‐designed randomized controlled trial of instrumental delivery vs emergency cesarean section are available, this manuscript provides contemporaneous national data from a high resource setting within a structured training program, to assist the selection of an appropriate instrument/method for the delivery of a malpositioned baby. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-12-12 2020-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7154761/ /pubmed/31667835 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13765 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG). This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Birth
Tempest, Nicola
Lane, Steven
Hapangama, Dharani
Babies in occiput posterior position are significantly more likely to require an emergency cesarean birth compared with babies in occiput transverse position in the second stage of labor: A prospective observational study
title Babies in occiput posterior position are significantly more likely to require an emergency cesarean birth compared with babies in occiput transverse position in the second stage of labor: A prospective observational study
title_full Babies in occiput posterior position are significantly more likely to require an emergency cesarean birth compared with babies in occiput transverse position in the second stage of labor: A prospective observational study
title_fullStr Babies in occiput posterior position are significantly more likely to require an emergency cesarean birth compared with babies in occiput transverse position in the second stage of labor: A prospective observational study
title_full_unstemmed Babies in occiput posterior position are significantly more likely to require an emergency cesarean birth compared with babies in occiput transverse position in the second stage of labor: A prospective observational study
title_short Babies in occiput posterior position are significantly more likely to require an emergency cesarean birth compared with babies in occiput transverse position in the second stage of labor: A prospective observational study
title_sort babies in occiput posterior position are significantly more likely to require an emergency cesarean birth compared with babies in occiput transverse position in the second stage of labor: a prospective observational study
topic Birth
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7154761/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31667835
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13765
work_keys_str_mv AT tempestnicola babiesinocciputposteriorpositionaresignificantlymorelikelytorequireanemergencycesareanbirthcomparedwithbabiesinocciputtransversepositioninthesecondstageoflaboraprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT lanesteven babiesinocciputposteriorpositionaresignificantlymorelikelytorequireanemergencycesareanbirthcomparedwithbabiesinocciputtransversepositioninthesecondstageoflaboraprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT hapangamadharani babiesinocciputposteriorpositionaresignificantlymorelikelytorequireanemergencycesareanbirthcomparedwithbabiesinocciputtransversepositioninthesecondstageoflaboraprospectiveobservationalstudy
AT babiesinocciputposteriorpositionaresignificantlymorelikelytorequireanemergencycesareanbirthcomparedwithbabiesinocciputtransversepositioninthesecondstageoflaboraprospectiveobservationalstudy