Abstract
Cesarean section is commonly perceived as a simple and safe alternative to difficult vaginal birth. However, several trends in obstetrical practice may act in concert to cause impaction of the fetal head during the second stage of labor or, more commonly, following failed instrumental delivery. Subsequently, difficult and potentially traumatic disengagement of the deeply wedged head during cesarean section occurs. The maneuvers to disengage the wedged head include pushing (bimanual or by an assistant) the head through the vagina or, alternatively, pulling the infant’s feet through the uterine incision. Although both methods may cause serious maternal and neonatal complications, available data seem to favor the pulling method and better outcome seems to depend on adequate uterine relaxation, the patient’s position during operation, and special attention to the uterine incision. More data are needed to establish the frequency and extent of intraoperative disengagement dystocia and to determine the management protocol that carries the lowest risk in such circumstances.
References
1 Benedetti TJ: Birth injury and method of delivery. N Engl J Med341 (1999) 175810.1056/NEJM199912023412308Search in Google Scholar
2 Burchel RC, JJ Apuzzio: Cesarean section. In: Iffy L, JJ Apuzzio, AM Vintzileos (eds) Operative Obstetrics, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992, pp 398Search in Google Scholar
3 Ekele B: Disengaging impacted head at caesarean section for obstructed labour – push or pull? Trop Doct31 (2001) 3810.1177/004947550103100116Search in Google Scholar
4 Eltzschig HK, ES Lieberman, WR Camann: Regional anesthesia and analgesia for labor and delivery. N Engl J Med348 (2003) 319Search in Google Scholar
5 Ezra Y, C Wade, SH Rolbin, D Farine: Uterine tocolysis at cesarean breech delivery with epidural anesthesia. J Reprod Med47 (2002) 555Search in Google Scholar
6 Fasubaa OB, OC Ezechi, EO Orji, SO Ogunniyi, ST Akindele, OM Loto, FO Okogbo: Delivery of the impacted head of the fetus at caesarean section after prolonged obstructed labour: a randomised comparative study of two methods. J Obstet Gynecol22 (2002) 375Search in Google Scholar
7 Fitzpatrick M, R Harkin, K McQuillan, C O’Brien, PR O’Connell, C O’Herlihy: A randomised clinical trial comparing the effects of delayed versus immediate pushing with epidural analgesia on mode of delivery and faecal continence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol109 (2002) 1359Search in Google Scholar
8 Fong YF, S Arulkumaran: Breech extraction – an alternative method of delivering a deeply engaged head at cesarean section. Int J Gynecol Obstet56 (1997) 183Search in Google Scholar
9 Gortzak-Uzan L, A Walfisch, Y Gortzak, M Katz, M Mazor, M Hallak: Accidental vaginal incision during cesarean section. A report of four cases. J Reprod Med46 (2001) 1017Search in Google Scholar
10 Kafali H: Cesarean breech extraction for impacted fetal head in deep pelvis after a prolonged obstructed labor: a cesarean technique variation. Internet J Gynecol Obstet2 (2003) 210.5580/1f1Search in Google Scholar
11 Khosla AH, K Dahiya, K Sangwan: Cesarean section in a wedged head. Indian J Med Sci57 (2003) 187Search in Google Scholar
12 Landesman R, EA Graber: Abdominovaginal delivery: modification of the cesarean section operation to facilitate delivery of the impacted head. Am J Obstet Gynecol148 (1984) 707Search in Google Scholar
13 Lieberman E, C O’Donoghue: Unintended effects of epidural analgesia during labor: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol186 (2002) S3110.1067/mob.2002.122522Search in Google Scholar
14 Lippert TH: Bimanual delivery of the fetal head at cesarean section with the fetal head in midcavity. Arch Gynecol234 (1983) 5910.1007/BF02114726Search in Google Scholar
15 Lippert TH: Abdominovaginal delivery in case of impacted head in cesarean section operation. Am J Obstet Gynecol151 (1985) 70310.1016/0002-9378(85)90172-3Search in Google Scholar
16 Martin JA, BE Hamilton, PD Sutton, SJ Ventura, F Menacker, ML Munson: Births: final data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep52 (2003) 1Search in Google Scholar
17 Morgan PJ, R Kung, J Tarshis: Nitroglycerin as a uterine relaxant: a systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can24 (2002) 403Search in Google Scholar
18 Odlind V, B Haglund, M Pakkanen, P Otterblad, P Olausson: Deliveries, mothers and newborn infants in Sweden, 1973–2000. Trends in obstetrics as reported to the Swedish Medical Birth Register. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand82 (2003) 516Search in Google Scholar
19 Oladapo OT, JO Sotunsa, AO Sule-Odu: The rise in caesarean birth rate in Sagamu, Nigeria: reflection of changes in obstetric practice. J Obstet Gynecol24 (2004) 377Search in Google Scholar
20 Pelosi MA, JJ Apuzzio: Use of the soft, silicone obstetric vacuum cup for delivery of the fetal head at cesarean section. J Reprod Med29 (1984) 289Search in Google Scholar
21 Plunkett BA, A Lin, CA Wong, WA Grobman, AM Peaceman: Management of the second stage of labor in nulliparas with continuous epidural analgesia. Obstet Gynecol102 (2003) 109Search in Google Scholar
22 Pollak L, A Raziel, S Ariely, J Schiffer: Revival of non-surgical management of neonatal depressed skull fractures. J Pediatr Child Health35 (1999) 96Search in Google Scholar
23 Towner D, MA Castro, E Eby-Wilkens, WM Gilbert. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med341 (1999) 1709Search in Google Scholar
© Walter de Gruyter
