Comparison of “push” and “pull” methods for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery

Impacted fetal head at cesarean delivery

PURPOSE

Impacted fetal head (IFH) can be defined as the deep engagement of the fetal head in the maternal pelvis at the time of cesarean delivery that leads to its difficult or impossible extraction with standard surgical maneuvers. In this narrative review, we aimed to ascertain its incidence, risk factors, management and complications from the perspective of the anesthesiologist as a multidisciplinary team member.

METHODS

Databases were searched from inception to 24 January 2023 for keywords and subject headings associated with IFH and cesarean delivery.

RESULTS

IFH has an incidence of 2.9-71.8 % in emergency cesarean section. Maternal risk factors are advanced cervical dilatation, second stage of labor and oxytocin augmentation. Anesthetic and obstetric risk factors include epidural analgesia and trial of instrumental delivery and junior obstetrician, respectively. Neonatal risk factors are fetal malposition, caput and molding. Current evidence indicates a lack of confidence in the management of IFH across the multidisciplinary team. Simple interventions in IFH include lowering the height or placing the operating table in the Trendelenburg position, providing a step for the obstetrician and administering pharmacological tocolysis. Maternal complications are postpartum hemorrhage and bladder injury while neonatal complications include hypoxic brain injury, skull fracture and death. Surgical complications are reviewed to remind the anesthesiologist to anticipate and prepare for potential problems and manage complications in a timely manner.

CONCLUSION

The anesthesiologist has a fundamental role in the facilitation of delivery in IFH. We have proposed an evidence based management algorithm which may be referred to in this emergency situation.

Management of impacted fetal head at cesarean birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Despite increasing incidence of impacted fetal head at cesarean birth and associated injury, it is unclear which techniques are most effective for prevention and management. A high quality evidence review in accordance with international reporting standards is currently lacking. To address this gap, we aimed to identify, assess, and synthesize studies comparing techniques to prevent or manage impacted fetal head at cesarean birth prior to or at full cervical dilatation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Emcare, Embase and Cochrane databases up to 1 January 2023 (PROSPERO: CRD420212750016). Included were randomized controlled trials (any size) and non-randomized comparative studies (n ≥ 30 in each arm) comparing techniques or adjunctive measures to prevent or manage impacted fetal head at cesarean birth. Following screening and data extraction, we assessed risk of bias for individual studies using RoB2 and ROBINS-I, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We synthesized data using meta-analysis where appropriate, including sensitivity analyses excluding data published in potential predatory journals or at risk of retraction.

RESULTS

We identified 24 eligible studies (11 randomized and 13 non-randomized) including 3558 women, that compared vaginal disimpaction, reverse breech extraction, the Patwardhan method and/or the Fetal Pillow®. GRADE certainty of evidence was low or very low for all 96 outcomes across seven reported comparisons. Pooled analysis mostly showed no or equivocal differences in outcomes across comparisons of techniques. Although some maternal outcomes suggested differences between techniques (eg risk ratio of 3.41 [95% CI: 2.50-4.66] for uterine incision extension with vaginal disimpaction vs. reverse breech extraction), these were based on unreliable pooled estimates given very low GRADE certainty and, in some cases, additional risk of bias introduced by data published in potential predatory journals or at risk of retraction.

CONCLUSIONS

The current weaknesses in the evidence base mean that no firm recommendations can be made about the superiority of any one impacted fetal head technique over another, indicating that high quality training is needed across the range of techniques. Future studies to improve the evidence base are urgently required, using a standard definition of impacted fetal head, agreed maternal and neonatal outcome sets for impacted fetal head, and internationally recommended reporting standards.

Circumferential Vaginal Tear During the Cesarean Section: A Complication of Vaginal Hand Assistance in a Deeply Impacted Fetal Head

We present the case of a 29-year-old, G2P1+0 pregnant woman who was unbooked and presented to the emergency room at 36+5 weeks gestation with complaints of leaking liquor, labour pains, vaginal bleeding and raised blood pressure. Her history revealed previous vaginal delivery and index pregnancy complicated with obstetric cholestasis, pre-eclampsia, and fetal growth restriction. During her hospital course, the patient underwent an emergency cesarean section due to uncontrolled blood pressure and pathological cardiotocograph (CTG) revealing a deeply impacted fetal head intraoperatively and necessitating an inverted T incision on the uterus. Although the newborn was delivered successfully, a full-thickness circumferential tear in the vaginal vault was discovered, requiring immediate surgical repair with the involvement of a urologist. The patient experienced postoperative complications related to pre-eclampsia and sepsis but was eventually discharged in stable condition. This case highlights the importance of prompt diagnosis and management of obstetric emergencies especially in the case of deeply impacted fetal head, and the need for a multidisciplinary approach to address complications such as vaginal tears during cesarean sections due to vaginal assistance in delivering the baby.

Management of impacted fetal head at cesarean delivery

Globally, more than 1 in 5 women give birth by cesarean delivery, and at least 5% of these births are at full cervical dilatation. In these circumstances, and when labor has been prolonged in the first stage of labor, the fetal head can become low and wedged deep in the woman's pelvis, making it difficult to deliver the baby. This emergency is known as impacted fetal head. These are technically challenging births associated with serious risks to both the woman and the baby. The difficulty in disimpacting the fetal head increases maternal risks of hemorrhage and injury to adjacent organs and may have long-term consequences for future pregnancies. In addition, there can be associated neonatal consequences, such as skull fractures, brain hemorrhage, hypoxic brain injury, and, rarely, perinatal death. Globally, maternity staff are increasingly encountering this emergency, with studies in the United Kingdom suggesting that impacted fetal head may complicate as many as 1 in 10 emergency cesarean deliveries. Moreover, there has been a sharp increase in reports of perinatal brain injuries associated with impaction of the fetal head at cesarean delivery. When an impacted fetal head occurs, the maternity team can employ a range of approaches to help deliver the fetal head, including an assistant (another obstetrician or midwife) pushing the head up from the vagina, delivering the baby feet first (reverse breech extraction), administering tocolysis to relax the uterus, and using a balloon cephalic elevation device (Fetal Pillow) to elevate the baby's head. However, there is currently no consensus on how best to manage these births, resulting in a lack of confidence among maternity staff, variable practice, and potentially avoidable harm in some circumstances. This article examined the evidence for the prevention and management of this critical obstetrical emergency and outlined recommendations for best practices and training.

Unintended uterine extension at the time of cesarean delivery - risk factors and associated adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors, maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes related to unintended lower segment uterine extension during cesarean delivery (CD).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis in a single, university-affiliated medical center between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2019. All singleton pregnancies delivered by CD were included. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify maternal and obstetrical predictors for uterine extension during CD. For secondary outcomes, we assessed the correlation between uterine extension and any adverse maternal or neonatal outcome. Risk factors were analyzed using ROC statistics to measure their prediction performance for a uterine extension.

RESULTS

Overall, 1746 (19.3%) CDs were performed during the study period. Of them, 121 (6.9%) CDs were complicated by unintended uterine extension. There was no difference in maternal demographics and clinical data stratified by uterine extension at CD. Uterine extensions were significantly more common following induction of labor, intrapartum fever, premature rupture of membranes, a trial of labor after cesarean, advanced gestational age, emergent CD, and in particular CD during the second stage of labor (37.2% vs. 6.5%) and after failed vacuum extraction (6.6% vs. 1.1%), p < .05 for all. The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage and re-laparotomy did not differ between the groups. Most of the extensions were caudal-directed (40.4%), and were closed by a two-layer closure (92%). Mean extension size was 4.5 ± 1.7 cm. Using multivariable analysis, the only factor that remained significant was CD at the second stage of labor (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 54.2, 95% CI 4.5-648.9, p = .002), with an area under the ROC curve 0.653 (95% CI 0.595-0.712, p < .001). Emergent CD, body mass index, birth weight, failed vacuum attempt, and trial of labor after cesarean were not significant. For secondary outcomes, an unintended uterine extension was associated with longer operation time, higher estimated blood loss, greater pre- to post-CD hemoglobin difference, increased blood products transfusion, puerperal fever, and longer hospital stay. No clinically significant neonatal adverse outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, second-stage CD was the strongest predictor for an unintended uterine extension. Following uterine extension, women had increased infectious and blood-loss morbidity.

Management of Impacted Fetal Head at Caesarean Birth: Scientific Impact Paper No. 73

Over one-quarter of women in the UK have a caesarean birth (CB). More than one in 20 of these births occurs near the end of labour, when the cervix is fully dilated (second stage). In these circumstances, and when labour has been prolonged, the baby's head can become lodged deep in the maternal pelvis making it challenging to deliver the baby. During the caesarean birth, difficulty in delivery of the baby's head may result - this emergency is known as impacted fetal head (IFH). These are technically challenging births that pose significant risks to both the woman and baby. Complications for the woman include tears in the womb, serious bleeding and longer hospital stay. Babies are at increased risk of injury including damage to the head and face, lack of oxygen to the brain, nerve damage, and in rare cases, the baby may die from these complications. Maternity staff are increasingly encountering IFH at CB, and reports of associated injuries have risen dramatically in recent years. The latest UK studies suggest that IFH may complicate as many as one in 10 unplanned CBs (1.5% of all births) and that two in 100 babies affected by IFH die or are seriously injured. Moreover, there has been a sharp increase in reports of babies having brain injuries when their birth was complicated by IFH. When an IFH occurs, the maternity team can use different approaches to help deliver the baby's head at CB. These include: an assistant (another obstetrician or midwife) pushing the head up from the vagina; delivering the baby feet first; using a specially designed inflatable balloon device to elevate the baby's head and/or giving the mother a medicine to relax the womb. However, there is currently no consensus for how best to manage these births. This has resulted in a lack of confidence among maternity staff, variable practice and potentially avoidable harm in some circumstances. This paper reviews the current evidence regarding the prediction, prevention and management of IFH at CB, integrating findings from a systematic review commissioned from the National Guideline Alliance.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with delivery techniques for impacted fetal head at cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Late first-stage or second-stage cesarean section is commonly associated with fetal head impaction, leading to maternal and neonatal complications. This situation requires safe delivery techniques, but the optimal management remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with delivery techniques via cesarean section.

METHODS

An electronic search of three databases, from inception to June 2021, was conducted. Cohort and randomised comparative studies on maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with techniques to deliver an impacted fetal head during cesarean section were included. The methodological quality of the primary studies was assessed. Review Manager 5.4 was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Nineteen articles, including 2,345 women were analyzed. Three fetal extraction techniques were identified. Meta-analyses showed that the "pull" technique carries lower risks as compared to the "push" technique and the "Patwardhan" technique is safer compared to the "push" or the "push and pull" technique.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of robust evidence to support the use of a specific technique, the choice of the obstetrician should be based on best available evidence. Our study suggests that the "pull", as well as the "Patwardhan" technique represent safe options to deliver an impacted fetal head.

Fetal extraction maneuvers during cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor

Objective: To compare maternal and neonatal outcomes following cesarean delivery during second stage of labor, according to the fetal extraction method.Methods: A retrospective cohort study of all women who underwent term cesarean delivery during the second stage of labor at a university-affiliated tertiary medical center (2012-2016). The cohort was divided according to three extraction methods: standard vertex extraction, the push method in which the head extraction is accompanied by pushing through the vagina, and the reverse breech extraction method. Primary outcomes were intraoperative maternal complications, and secondary outcomes were neonatal adverse events.Results: Three hundred and fifty women were included, of whom 206 (59%) underwent standard vertex fetal extraction, 116 (33%) the push method extraction, and 28 (8%) reverse breech extraction. Operation time was significantly shorter in the standard vertex extraction method compared to push and reverse breech extraction methods (33.5 vs. 40.5 and 39.0 min, respectively, p = .013). Uterine laceration and incision extension frequencies were lower in the vertex extraction method as well (24.76 vs. 45.69-46.40% in others, p < .001). Delivery related neonatal injury was significantly more frequent in the reverse breech extraction method (39.29 vs. 12-15% in others, p < .001). In a multivariate analysis reverse breech extraction was associated with higher rates of uterine laceration and incision extension (OR = 2.739 95% confidence interval 1.44-6.56, p = .0237) and delivery related neonatal injury (OR = 2.837, 95% CI: 1.081-7.448, p = .0342).Conclusion: Standard vertex extraction method during second stage of labor cesarean delivery is safer both to the mother and neonate when compared to alternative extraction methods.Abbreviations: NRFHR: non-reassuring fetal heart rate; NICU: neonatal intensive care unit.

Preferred way of delivery of the impacted fetal head in cesarean sections during second stage of labor

AIM

To compare maternal and neonatal outcomes between the 'head first' and 'legs first' delivery methods during a second stage cesarean section.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study between January 2009 and May 2015 at a large public university tertiary referral center. Included were all women who underwent cesarean delivery with a fully dilated cervix and a fetal head at the level of the ischial spines or below. The study population was divided into two groups according to way of fetal delivery: The 'legs first' (reverse breech) method and the 'head first' method. Demographics and maternal and fetal outcomes were retrieved for both groups.

RESULTS

During the study period 447 women underwent a cesarean section while their cervix was fully dilated. Of them, 321 met the inclusion criteria: One hundred and twenty-one (38%) were delivered using the 'legs first' method and 200 (62%) were delivered using the 'head first' method. Indication for surgery and fetal head station was similar for both groups. While no difference in overall intraoperative uterine incision extension rate was observed, a higher rate of uterine incision extension was demonstrated in the 'head first' group in cases in which the second stage was longer than 180 min (33 vs 8 cases, P = 0.02). No differences in maternal postoperative complication rates and neonatal outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSION

Fetal extraction via the 'legs first' method during prolonged second stage of labor may lower maternal morbidity. Method of delivery does not seem to have an effect on neonatal outcomes.

Maternal and neonatal outcome of reverse breech extraction of an impacted fetal head during caesarean section in advanced stage of labour: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section with extraction of a deeply impacted fetal head is technically challenging and is associated with serious maternal and neonatal complications. The purpose of the study was to identify risks and evaluate selected outcome parameters associated with difficult fetal head extraction during caesarean section in advanced labour comparing two different extraction techniques (head pushing vs. reverse breech).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Division of Obstetrics in a tertiary care hospital in Zurich, Switzerland. 629 women at term with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation during advanced intrapartum caesarean section from December 2012 until December 2016 were evaluated. Primary outcome was the incidence of uterine incision extensions. Secondary outcomes were other selected maternal and neonatal outcome parameters. Data analysis was performed using SPSS with Mann-Whitney U independent sampling test and two-tailed Fisher's exact test (p < 0.01).

RESULTS

Difficult fetal head extractions are associated with significantly elevated maternal and neonatal risks. When performed by reverse breech technique, significant lower rates of extensions of the uterine incision, shorter operation times and less operative blood loss were identified compared to the head pushing method. No statistically significant differences for the neonatal outcomes were described so far. However, among the group of difficult fetal delivery with the head pushing method two neonates had perinatal skull fractures, with one of those resulting in neonatal death.

CONCLUSIONS

The head pushing method is associated with higher maternal morbidity than the reverse breech method for extraction of a deeply engaged fetus during intrapartum caesarean section in advanced stage of labour.

Comparison of 'push method' with 'Patwardhan's method' on maternal and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing caesarean section in second stage

A deeply impacted foetal head in a second stage caesarean section is associated with an increased risk of maternal and neonatal complications. For the present study, we compared the maternal and neonatal outcomes during the use of the 'Push method' and of 'Patwardhan's method' for a foetal head delivery in a second-stage caesarean section. This was a retrospective observational study involving 298 women who underwent a second stage caesarean section with a foetal head at or below the level of their ischial spines and was conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital in South India. The rates of uterine incision extension and other maternal complications were similar in both methods (24.9% vs. 26.0%, p = .850). The rates of neonatal sepsis (2.3% vs. 9.2%) and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (36.7% vs. 60.0%) were higher when Patwardhan's method was used. Although the maternal complications were similar, the use of Patwardhan's method resulted in higher rates of neonatal complications compared to the Push method during a second stage caesarean section. Future randomised, controlled studies comparing these two methods are needed to confirm their safety and benefits, prior to its routine use in second stage caesarean sections. Impact statement What is already known on this subject? Use of a second-stage caesarean section increases the risk of maternal and neonatal complications. A deeply engaged foetal head, along with the stretching and thinning of the lower uterine segment predisposes to these complications. The recent literature mainly compares the complication rates of the Push method to a Reverse breech extraction, with only small studies reporting the use of Patwardhan's technique for the delivery of a deeply engaged foetal head. What do the results of this study add? This study suggests that the use of either the Push method or of Patwardhan's method results in similar maternal complications such as extension of a uterine incision or postpartum haemorrhage. But neonatal complications such as neonatal sepsis (2.3% vs. 9.2%) and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (36.7% vs. 60.0%) were higher when Patwardhan's method was used. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The extension of uterine incision is similar in both methods; however, the neonatal complications were noted to be higher in those delivered with Patwardhan's technique. A future, randomised controlled trial comparing these two techniques is required to confirm the findings, before either of the methods are used in routine practice.

[Caesarean section at full dilatation: What are the risks to fear for the mother and child?]

OBJECTIVES

Caesarean section is associated with increased maternal morbidity compared to a vaginal delivery, especially if it occurs during labour. Little data on caesarean section performed at full dilatation is available.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study done in University Hospital of type 3 over a period of ten years, including future primiparous patients who had a caesarean section performed at full dilatation, compared to a control group of patients whose caesarean section was conducted in first part of the labour. We collected different maternal data per- and postoperative and neonatal.

RESULTS

In total, 824 patients were enrolled including 412 in each group. For caesarean section at full dilatation, foetal extraction required more manoeuvres (RR=3.05; 95% CI: 2.1; 4.39; P<0.001); we noted more extension of hysterotomy (RR=1.79; 95% CI: 1.30; 2.46; P<0.001). Postoperative and neonatal maternal morbidity was not different, except more frequent neonatal trauma for caesarean section at full dilatation.

CONCLUSION

A caesarean section at full dilatation has an excess intraoperative risk and requires great caution. Nevertheless, no significant increase of postoperative and neonatal complications can be proved.

Techniques for assisting difficult delivery at caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Caesarean section involves making an incision in the woman's abdomen and cutting through the uterine muscle. The baby is then delivered through that incision. Difficult caesarean birth may result in injury for the infant or complications for the mother. Methods to assist with delivery include vacuum or forceps extraction or manual delivery utilising fundal pressure. Medication that relaxes the uterus (tocolytic medication) may facilitate the birth of the baby at caesarean section. Delivery of the impacted head after prolonged obstructed labour can be associated with significant maternal and neonatal complication; to facilitate delivery of the head the surgeon may utilise either reverse breech extraction or head pushing.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the use of tocolysis (routine or selective use) with no use of tocolysis or placebo and to compare different extraction methods at the time of caesarean section for outcomes of infant birth trauma, maternal complications (particularly postpartum haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion), and long-term measures of infant and childhood morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials comparing the use of tocolytic agents (routine or selective) at caesarean section versus no use of tocolytic or placebo at caesarean section to facilitate the birth of the baby. Use of instrument versus manual delivery to facilitate birth of the baby. Reverse breech extraction versus head pushing to facilitate delivery of the deeply impacted fetal head.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven randomised controlled trials, involving 582 women undergoing caesarean section were included in this review. The risk of bias of included trials was variable, with some trials not adequately describing allocation or randomisation.Three comparisons were included. 1. Tocolysis versus no tocolysisA single randomised trial involving 97 women was identified and included in the review. Birth trauma was not reported. There were no cases of any maternal side-effect reported in either the nitroglycerin or the placebo group. No other maternal and infant health outcomes were reported. 2. Reverse breech extraction versus head push for the deeply impacted head at full dilation at caesarean section Four randomised trials involving 357 women were identified and included in the review. The primary outcome of birth trauma was reported by three trials and there was no difference between reverse breech extraction and head push for this rare outcome (three studies, 239 women, risk ratio (RR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 5.73). Secondary outcomes including endometritis rate (three studies, 285 women, average RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.05, Tau I² = 0.22, I² = 56%), extension of uterine incision (four studies, 357 women, average RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.40), mean blood loss (three studies, 298 women, mean difference (MD) -294.92, 95% CI -493.25 to -96.59; I² = 98%) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)/special care nursery (SCN) admission (two studies, 226 babies, average RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.22, Tau I² = 0.27, I² = 74%) were decreased with reverse breech extraction. No differences were observed between groups for many of the other secondary outcomes reported (blood loss > 500 mL; blood transfusion; wound infection; mean hospital stay; average Apgar score).There was significant heterogeneity between the trials for the outcomes mean blood loss, operative time and mean hospital stay, making comparison difficult. However the operation duration was significantly shorter for reverse breech extraction, which may correspond with ease of delivery and therefore, the amount of tissue trauma and therefore, significantly less blood loss. Given the heterogeneity, we cannot define the amount of difference in blood loss, operative time or hospital stay however. 3. Instrument (vacuum or forceps) versus manual extraction at elective caesarean section Two randomised trials involving 128 women were identified and included in the review. Only one trial reported maternal and infant health outcomes as prespecified in this review. This trial reported birth trauma as an outcome but there were no instances of birth trauma in either comparison group. There were no differences found in mean fall in haemoglobin (Hb) between groups (one study, 44 women, MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.59), or in uterine incision extension (one study, 44 women, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.73).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient information available from randomised trials to support or refute the routine or selective use of tocolytic agents or instrument to facilitate infant birth at the time of difficult caesarean section. There is limited evidence that reverse breech extraction may improve maternal and fetal outcomes, though there was no difference in primary outcome of infant birth trauma. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to answer these questions.

Obstetric complications on deployed operations: a guide for the military surgeon

Modern military general surgeons tend to train and then practice in 'conventional' surgical specialties in their home nation; however, the reality of deployed surgical practice, either in a combat zone or on a humanitarian mission, is that they are likely to have to manage patients with a broad range of ages, conditions and pathologies. Obstetric complications of war injury include injury to the uterus and fetus as well as the mother and both placental abruption and uterine rupture are complications that military surgeons may have little experience of recognising and managing. On humanitarian deployments, fetomaternal complications are a common reason for surgical intervention. We report a recent patient's story to highlight the obstetric training needs of military surgeons.

Emergency cesarean delivery: special precautions

An emergent cesarean delivery is performed to immediately intervene to improve maternal or fetal outcome for such indications as fetal distress, prolapsed cord, maternal hemorrhage from previa or trauma, uterine rupture, and complete placental abruption. It is paramount to reduce morbidity and mortality by preparing health care providers for special precautions.