Author(s)

Hend S. Saleh, Gamal A. Kassem, Mohamed El Said Mohamed, Moustafa A. Ibrahiem, Manal M. El Behery

Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

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.

Deeply Engaged Head; Obstructed Labor; Cesarean Section; Reverse Breech Extraction; Head Push Method

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.