Article

Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: Obstetric outcomes

Division of General Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 4.37). 05/2003; 101(5 Pt 1):915-20. DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(03)00068-1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the obstetric outcomes associated with persistent occiput posterior position of the fetal head in term laboring patients.
We performed a cohort study of 6434 consecutive, term, vertex, laboring nulliparous and multiparous patients, comparing those who delivered infants in the occiput posterior position with those who delivered in the occiput anterior position. We examined maternal demographics, labor and delivery characteristics, and maternal and neonatal outcomes.
The prevalence of persistent occiput posterior position at delivery was 5.5% overall, 7.2% in nulliparas, and 4.0% in multiparas (P <.001). Persistent occiput posterior position was associated with shorter maternal stature and prior cesarean delivery. During labor and delivery, the occiput posterior position was associated with prolonged first and second stages of labor, oxytocin augmentation, use of epidural analgesia, chorioamnionitis, assisted vaginal delivery, third and fourth degree perineal lacerations, cesarean delivery, excessive blood loss, and postpartum infection. Newborns had lower 1-minute Apgar scores, but showed no differences in 5-minute Apgar scores, gestational age, or birth weight.
Persistent occiput posterior position is associated with a higher rate of complications during labor and delivery. In our population, the chances that a laboring woman with persistent occiput posterior position will have a spontaneous vaginal delivery are only 26% for nulliparas and 57% for multiparas.

1 Follower
 · 
387 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The pelvis performs two major functions for terrestrial mammals. It provides somewhat rigid support for muscles engaged in locomotion and, for females, it serves as the birth canal. The result for many species, and especially for encephalized primates, is an 'obstetric dilemma' whereby the neonate often has to negotiate a tight squeeze in order to be born. On top of what was probably a baseline of challenging birth, locomotor changes in the evolution of bipedalism in the human lineage resulted in an even more complex birth process. Negotiation of the bipedal pelvis requires a series of rotations, the end of which has the infant emerging from the birth canal facing the opposite direction from the mother. This pattern, strikingly different from what is typically seen in monkeys and apes, places a premium on having assistance at delivery. Recently reported observations of births in monkeys and apes are used to compare the process in human and non-human primates, highlighting similarities and differences. These include presentation (face, occiput anterior or posterior), internal and external rotation, use of the hands by mothers and infants, reliance on assistance, and the developmental state of the neonate. © 2015 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.
    Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B Biological Sciences 03/2015; 370(1663). DOI:10.1098/rstb.2014.0065 · 6.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Manual rotation is commonly performed to increase the chances of normal vaginal delivery and is perceived to be safe. Manual rotation has the potential to prevent operative delivery and caesarean section, and reduce obstetric and neonatal complications. To assess the effect of prophylactic manual rotation for women with malposition in labour on mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014), the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (all searched 23 February 2014), previous reviews and, references of retrieved studies. Randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised clinical trials comparing prophylactic manual rotation in labour for fetal malposition versus expectant management, augmentation of labour or operative delivery. We defined prophylactic manual rotation as rotation performed without immediate assisted delivery. Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and quality, and extracted data. We included only one small pilot study (involving 30 women). The study, which we considered to be at low risk of bias, was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital in Australia, and involved women with cephalic, singleton pregnancies. The primary outcome was operative delivery (instrumental delivery or caesarean section).In the manual rotation group, 13/15 women went on to have an instrumental delivery or caesarean section, whereas in the control group, 12/15 women had an operative delivery. The estimated risk ratio was 1.08 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.49). There were no maternal or fetal mortalities in either groupThere were no clear differences for any of the secondary maternal or neonatal outcomes reported (e.g. perineal trauma, analgesia use duration of labour).In terms of adverse events, there were no reported cases of umbilical cord prolapse or cervical laceration and a single case of a non-reassuring or pathological cardiotocograph during the procedure. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of prophylactic manual rotation early in the second stage of labour for prevention of operative delivery. One additional study is ongoing. Further appropriately designed trials are required to determine the efficacy of manual rotation.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 12/2014; 12(12):CD009298. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009298.pub2 · 5.70 Impact Factor