Janine E Spain1, Heather A Frey2, Methodius G Tuuli2, Ryan Colvin2, George A Macones2, Alison G Cahill2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: spainj@wudosis.wustl.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine neonatal morbidity associated with different maneuvers used among term patients who experience a shoulder dystocia. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all women who experienced a clinically diagnosed shoulder dystocia at term requiring obstetric maneuvers at a single tertiary care hospital from 2005 through 2008. We excluded women with major fetal anomaly, intrauterine death, multiple gestation, and preterm. Women exposed to Rubin maneuver, Wood's screw maneuver, or delivery of the posterior arm were compared to women delivered by McRoberts/suprapubic pressure only, which served as the reference group. The primary outcome was a composite morbidity of neonatal injury (defined as clavicular or humeral fracture or brachial plexus injury) and neonatal depression (defined as Apgar <7 at 5 minutes, arterial cord pH <7.1, continuous positive airway pressure use, intubation, or respiratory distress). Logistic regression was used to adjust for nulliparity and duration of shoulder dystocia, defined as time from delivery of fetal head to delivery of shoulders. RESULTS: Among the 231 women who met inclusion criteria, 135 were delivered by McRoberts/suprapubic pressure alone (57.9%), 83 women were exposed to Rubin maneuver, 53 women were exposed to Wood's screw, and 36 women were exposed to delivery of posterior arm. Individual maneuvers were not associated with composite morbidity, neonatal injury, or neonatal depression after adjusting for nulliparity and duration of shoulder dystocia. CONCLUSION: We found no association between shoulder dystocia maneuvers and neonatal morbidity after adjusting for duration, a surrogate for severity. Our results demonstrate that clinicians should utilize the maneuver most likely to result in successful delivery.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine neonatal morbidity associated with different maneuvers used among term patients who experience a shoulder dystocia. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all women who experienced a clinically diagnosed shoulder dystocia at term requiring obstetric maneuvers at a single tertiary care hospital from 2005 through 2008. We excluded women with major fetal anomaly, intrauterine death, multiple gestation, and preterm. Women exposed to Rubin maneuver, Wood's screw maneuver, or delivery of the posterior arm were compared to women delivered by McRoberts/suprapubic pressure only, which served as the reference group. The primary outcome was a composite morbidity of neonatal injury (defined as clavicular or humeral fracture or brachial plexus injury) and neonatal depression (defined as Apgar <7 at 5 minutes, arterial cord pH <7.1, continuous positive airway pressure use, intubation, or respiratory distress). Logistic regression was used to adjust for nulliparity and duration of shoulder dystocia, defined as time from delivery of fetal head to delivery of shoulders. RESULTS: Among the 231 women who met inclusion criteria, 135 were delivered by McRoberts/suprapubic pressure alone (57.9%), 83 women were exposed to Rubin maneuver, 53 women were exposed to Wood's screw, and 36 women were exposed to delivery of posterior arm. Individual maneuvers were not associated with composite morbidity, neonatal injury, or neonatal depression after adjusting for nulliparity and duration of shoulder dystocia. CONCLUSION: We found no association between shoulder dystocia maneuvers and neonatal morbidity after adjusting for duration, a surrogate for severity. Our results demonstrate that clinicians should utilize the maneuver most likely to result in successful delivery.
Authors: Robert B Gherman; Suneet Chauhan; Joseph G Ouzounian; Henry Lerner; Bernard Gonik; T Murphy Goodwin Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-04-21 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Suneet P Chauhan; M Ryan Laye; Monica Lutgendorf; John W McBurney; Sharon D Keiser; Everett F Magann; John C Morrison Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Mark P Hehir; Zachary Rubeo; Karen Flood; Anne H Mardy; Colm O'Herlihy; Peter C Boylan; Mary E D'Alton Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Antonio Hernández Martínez; Julián Javier Rodríguez Almagro; María Moreno-Cid García-Suelto; María Ureña Barrajon; Milagros Molina Alarcón; Juan Gómez-Salgado Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 3.390