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

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.

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.

The use of bubble charts in analyzing the global second-stage cesarean delivery rates: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review the worldwide second-stage cesarean delivery rate concerning pre-second-stage cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal birth rates.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Medline Ovid, EBSCOhost, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were queried from inception to February 2023, with the following terms: "full dilatation," "second stage," and "cesarean," with their word variations. Furthermore, an additional cohort of 353,434 cases from our recently published study was included.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Only original studies that provided sufficient information on the number of pre-second-stage cesarean deliveries, second-stage cesarean deliveries, and vaginal births were included for the calculation of different modes of delivery. Systemic reviews, meta-analyses, or case reports were excluded.

METHODS

Study identification and data extraction were independently performed by 2 authors. Selected studies were categorized on the basis of parity, study period, and geographic regions for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies were included. The overall pre-second-stage cesarean delivery rate, the second-stage cesarean delivery rate, and the second-stage cesarean delivery-to-assisted vaginal birth ratio were 17.94%, 2.65%, and 0.19, respectively. Only 5 studies described singleton, term, cephalic presenting pregnancies of nulliparous women, and their second-stage cesarean delivery rates were significantly higher than those studies with cohorts of all parity groups (4.50% vs 0.83%; P<.05). In addition, the second-stage cesarean delivery rate showed a secular increase across 2009 (0.70% vs 1.05%; P<.05). Moreover, it was the highest among African studies (5.14%) but the lowest among studies from East Asia and South Asia (0.94%). The distributions of second-stage cesarean delivery rates of individual studies and subgroups were shown with that of pre-second-stage cesarean delivery and assisted vaginal birth using the bubble chart.

CONCLUSION

The overall worldwide pre-second-stage cesarean delivery rate was 17.94%, the second-stage cesarean delivery rate was 2.65%, and the second-stage cesarean delivery-to-assisted vaginal birth ratio was 0.19. The African studies had the highest second-stage cesarean delivery rate (5.14%) and second-stage cesarean delivery-to-assisted vaginal birth ratio (1.88), whereas the studies from East Asia and South Asia were opposite (0.94% and 0.11, respectively).

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.

Techniques for managing an impacted fetal head at caesarean section: A systematic review

A complication arising at caesarean birth when the baby's head is deeply engaged in the pelvis and may be difficult to deliver, is known as an 'impacted fetal head'. This obstetric emergency occurs in 16% of second stage caesarean sections. Multiple techniques are described in the literature to manage the complication but there is no consensus regarding which technique results in the best maternal and neonatal outcomes. The objective of this review is to determine which technique for managing impacted fetal head at caesarean section has the best maternal and neonatal outcomes. A literature search of three electronic databases was conducted in November 2021. Studies directly comparing two methods for the management of impacted fetal head at caesarean section in the second stage were included. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case-control studies, and studies not fitting the search criteria were excluded. Data was extracted in Covidence and meta-analysis of the six most commonly reported outcomes was conducted using RevMan 5.4. In total, 16 studies (3344women) were included. 13 studies (2506women) compared the push method with reverse breech extraction. meta-analysis showed that risk of extension of the uterine incision, blood transfusion, bladder injury, postpartum haemorrhage, NICU admission and Apgar score <7 at 5 min were significantly higher with the push method compared with reverse breech extraction. Three studies (838women) compared the push method with Patwardhan's technique. meta-analysis of studies comparing the push method with Patwardhan's technique found no significant differences between the two groups in any of the six maternal or neonatal outcomes. Evidence derived from small, inadequately powered studies suggests reverse breech extraction is associated with better outcomes than the push method. The method which produces the best outcomes is still unknown as not all methods have been tested. Further high quality, adequately powered RCTs are warranted for definitive conclusions to be drawn and to ameliorate the paucity of evidence on how best to manage this complication.

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.

Outcomes of second stage cesarean section following the use of a fetal head elevation device: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To explore maternal and perinatal outcomes of women undergoing full dilatation cesarean section (CS) who had compared to those who did not have application of fetal head elevation device (FHED).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pubmed, Embase, Cinahl, Clinical Trial.Gov and Google Scholar databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were studies exploring maternal and perinatal outcomes in women having compared to those not having FHED at full dilatation CS. The outcomes explored were: hysterotomy to delivery time (sec), mean estimated blood loss (ml), blood loss > 1000 mL, need for blood transfusion, uterine incision extension, operative complications, need for re-operation, urinary retention, hospital re-admission, length of in hospital stay, Apgar score < 3 at 1 min, Apgar score < 7 at 5 min, neonatal arterial Ph, arterial pH < 7.1, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), neonatal sepsis, need for neonatal endotracheal intubation, neonatal death. Random effect head-to-head meta-analyses combining summary mean difference (MD), and odd ratio (OR) were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Ten studies (1326 women) were included. The mean time from hysterotomy to delivery was lower in women having compared to those not having FHED (MD: -52.26 s, 95 % CI -55.2 to -34.94, p < 0.001). Women who had FHED had also a lower mean estimated blood loss (MD: -130.82 mL, 95 % CI -130.1 to -381.0; p < 0.001) and a shorter stay in the hospital (MD: -0.884 h, 95 % CI -1.07 to -0.70; p < 0.001) compared to controls. Pregnant women having FHED at full dilatation CS had a lower risk of uterine incision extension (OR: 0.50, 95 % CI 0.3 to 0.9; p = 0.02), need for blood transfusion (OR: 0.39, 95 % CI 0.2 to 0.7; p = 0.04) and operative complications (OR: 0.44, 95 % CI 0.2 to 0.9; p = 0.03) compared to controls, while there was no difference in the other maternal outcomes between the two groups. When exploring perinatal outcome, women who received FHED had higher mean arterial pH values (MD: 0.617, 95 % CI 0.43 to 0.88; p < 0.001) and a lower risk of neonatal sepsis (OR: 0.10, 95 % CI 0.01 to 0.99; p = 0.05) and admission to NICU (OR: 0.63, 95 % CI 0.5 to 0.9; p = 0.008) compared to controls.

CONCLUSION

Application of FHED at full dilatation CS seems to be associated with improvement in some maternal and neonatal outcomes.