Share This Article:

Pull Breech out versus Push Impacted Head up in Emergency Cesarean Section: A Comparative Study

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:278KB) PP. 260-265
DOI: 10.4236/ojog.2014.46042    5,724 Downloads   7,482 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare maternal and fetal outcome associated with two methods Reverse breech extraction versus Head pushing to deliver the impacted fetal head in advanced labor requiring emergency Cesarean section. Method: A prospective comparative study was conducted on 80 pregnant women at term with cephalic presentation in advanced labour, requiring emergency Cesarean Section. Reverse breech extraction technique (pull method) was used in 40 cases (group I) and pushing the head up through the vagina (“push” method) was tried in (group II) 40 cases. The maternal outcome was assessed by extension of the uterine Incision, bladder injury, intra and postoperative blood transfusion, Postpartum hemorrhage, wound infection and duration of hospital stay. Fetal outcome was Apgar score and admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Results: Extension of the uterine incision was significantly lower in women undergoing reverse breech extraction compared to cephalic delivery (20% versus 50%; p = 0.001). The mean operative time (pull group) was lower than that in the (push group) 59.7 ± 4.2, versus 75.2 ± 6.1 p = 0.001 and blood loss was significantly lower in the (pull group) than that in the (push group) 878 ± 67 ml, versus 1321 ± 57 ml, p = 0.001. No significant difference between groups regarding maternal and neonatal outcome. Conclusion: Reverse breech extraction (pull) is safer than pushing head up through vagina (push) for delivery of a deeply impacted fetal head in advanced labour sensitizing emergency Cesarean Section and is associated with the least maternal complications.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Saleh, H. , Kassem, G. , Mohamed, M. , Ibrahiem, M. and El Behery, M. (2014) Pull Breech out versus Push Impacted Head up in Emergency Cesarean Section: A Comparative Study. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 4, 260-265. doi: 10.4236/ojog.2014.46042.

References

[1] Betran, A.P., Merialdi, M., Lauer, J.A., et al. (2007) Rates of Cesarean Section: Analysis of Global, Regional and National Estimates. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 21, 98-113.
[2] Brady, E., Hamilton, Joyce, A., Martin, M.P.H. and Stephanie, J., Ventura, M.A. (2012) National Vital Statistics System. Division of Vital Statistics. Births: Preliminary Data for 2012.
[3] Cunningham, M. (2001) Gant. Caesarean Section. William’s Obstetrics. 28th Edition, 518-519.
[4] Hallak, M. (1999) Poor Progress in Labor. High Risk Pregnancy Management Options. 2nd Edition, 1113-1114.
[5] Kafali, H. (2003) Cesarean Breech Extraction for Impacted Fetal Head in Deep Pelvis after a Prolonged Obstructed Labor: A Cesarean Technique Variation. The Internet Journal of Gynecology & Obstetric, 2, 2.
[6] Farah, Z., Seema, H. and Tamkin, K. (2013) Delivery of the Deeply Engaged Fetal Head during Cesarean Section in Advanced Labour: A Comparative Study of Head Pushing versus Reverse Breech Extraction. Current Pediatric Research, 17, 41-43.
[7] Blickstein, I. (2004) Difficult Delivery of the Impacted Head during Cesarean Section.
[8] Levy, R., Chernomoretz, T., Appleman, Z., Levin, D., Or, Y. and Hagay, Z.J. (2005) Head Pushing versus Reverse Breech Extraction in Case of Impacted Fetal Head during Cesarean Section. The European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 121, 24-26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.09.014
[9] Robert, L.B. (2012) Difficult Fetal Extraction at Cesarean Delivery: What Should You Do? Next Time You Face This Hazardous Scenario, Try Reverse Breech Extraction, 24, 1.
[10] Copra, S., Bagga, R., Keepanasseril, A., Jain, V., Kalara, J. and Suri, V. (2009) Disengagement of Deeply Engaged Fetal Head during Cesarean Section in Advanced Labor: Conventional Method versus Reverse Breech. Acta of Scandinavian Obstetrics and Gynecology, 88, 1163-1166.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016340903214932
[11] Farah, Z., Seema, H. and Tamkin, K. (2013) Delivery of the Deeply Engaged Fetal Head during Cesarean Section in Advanced Labour: A Comparative Study of Head Pushing versus Reverse Breech Extraction. Current Pediatric Research, 17, 41-43.
[12] Dolea, C. and Abouzahr, C. (2003) Global Burden of Obstructed Labour in the Year 2000. Evidence and Information for Policy, World Health Organization, Geneva.
[13] Chopra, S., Bagga, R., Keepanasseril, A., Jain, V., Kalra, J. and Suri, V. (2009) Disengagement of the Deeply Engaged Fetal Head during Cesarean Section in Advanced Labor: Conventional Method versus Reverse Breech Extraction. Acta of Scandinavian Obstetrics and Gynecology, 88, 1163-1166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016340903214932
[14] Blickstein, I. (2004) Difficult Delivery of the Impacted Fetal Head during Section: Intraoperative Disengagement Dystocia. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 32, 465-469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/JPM. 2004.152
[15] Levy, R., Chemomoretz, T., Appleman, Z., Levin, D., Or, Y. and Hagay, Z.J. (2005) Head Pushing versus Reverse Breech Extraction in Cases of Impacted Fetal Head during Cesarean Section. The European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 121, 24-26.
[16] Baloch, S., Khaskheli, M., Khushk, I.A. and Sheeba, A. (2008) Frequency of Second Stage Intervention and Its Outcome in Relation with Instrumental Vaginal Delivery versus Caesarean Section. Journal of Ayub Medical College Abbottabad, 20, 87-90.
[17] Kaima, A.F., Abdulhakim, A.E. and Abdelrahman, H.A.-H. Reverse Breech Extraction versus Head Pushing in Cesarean Section for Obstructed Labor. Saudi Medical Journal, 32, 1261-1266.
[18] Fasubaa, O.B., Ezechi, O.C., Orji, E.O., Ogunniyi, S.O., Akindele, S.T., Loto, O.M., et al. (2002) Delivery of the Impacted Head of the Fetus at Caesarean Section after Prolonged Obstructed Labor: A Randomised Comparative Study of Two Methods. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 22, 375-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443610220141290

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.