van Everdingen, JE, Burgers, JS, Assendelft, WJJ, et al. Evidence-based richtlijn ontwikkeling. Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum, 2004.Google Scholar

Bhose, L. Compound presentation. A review of 91 cases. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1961;68:307–14.Google Scholar

El-Mowafi, D. Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Complex and breech presentation. http://www.gfmer.chGoogle Scholar

Perkins, R. Compound presentations. eMedicine, 2015. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/262444-overview.Google Scholar

Martius, G. Pathologie der Geburt. In: Martius, G (ed). Lehrbuch der Geburtshilfe. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag, 1971, pp. 374–6.Google Scholar

Asimakopulos, N. Compound presentation: prolapse of three extremities with the head. Can Med Assoc J. 1965;92:929–31.Google Scholar

Newton, P. Foetal arm prolapse and presumed maternal death in a wild hanuman langur (Presbytis entellus). Primates. 1990;31:143–5.Google Scholar

World Health Organization, UNFPA, UNICEF, World Bank (eds). Compound presentation. In: Managing complications in pregnancy and childbirth. A guide for midwives and doctors. Geneva: WHO, 2003. http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/impact/index.htmlGoogle Scholar

Vacca, A. The ‘sacral hand wedge’; a cause of arrest of descent of the fetal head during vacuum assisted delivery. BJOG. 2002;109:1063–5.Google Scholar

Tebes, CC, Mehta, P, Calhoun, DA, et al. Congenital ischemic forearm necrosis associated with a compound presentation. J Matern Fetal Med. 1999;8:231–3.Google Scholar

Siassakos, D, Fox, R, Draycott, TJ. Umbilical cord prolapse. Green-top Guideline No 50. RCOG, April 2008.Google Scholar

Lin, MG. Umbilical cord prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2006;61:269–77.Google Scholar

Barclay, M. Umbilical cord prolapse and other cord accidents. In: Sciarra, JJ (ed). Gynecology and obstetrics. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, 1989, p. 1.Google Scholar

Koonings, PP, Paul, RH, Campbell, K. Umbilical cord prolapse. A contemporary look. J Reprod Med. 1990;35:690–2.Google ScholarPubMed

Usta, JM, Mercer, BM, Sibai, BM. Current obstetrical practice and umbilical cord prolapse. Am J Perinatol. 1999;16:479–84.Google Scholar

World Health Organization, UNFPA, UNICEF, World Bank (eds). Prolapsed cord. In: Managing complications in pregnancy and childbirth. A guide for midwives and doctors. Geneva: WHO, 2003. http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/impact/index.htmlGoogle Scholar

Carlin, A, Alfirevic, Z. Intrapartum fetal emergencies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2006;11:150–7.Google Scholar

Ezra, Y, Strasberg, SR, Farine, D. Does cord presentation on ultrasound predict cord prolapse? Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2005;56:6–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Loos, RJF, Derom, C, Eeckels, R, et al. Length of gestation and birthweight in dizygotic twins. Lancet. 2001;358:560–1.Google Scholar

Breart, G, Barros, H, Wagener, Y, et al. Characteristics of the childbearing population in Europe. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;111:S45–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cruikshank, DP. Intrapartum management of twin gestations. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1167–76.Google Scholar

Cheung, YB, Yip, P, Karlberg, L. Mortality of twins and singletons by gestational age: a varying-coefficient approach. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;152:1107–16.Google Scholar

Lee, YM, Wylie, B, Simpson, L, D’Alton, ME. Twin chorionicity and the risk of stillbirth. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:301–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hack, KE, Derks, JB, Elias, SG, et al. Increased perinatal mortality and morbidity in monochorionic versus dichorionic twin pregnancies: clinical implications of a large Dutch cohort study. BJOG. 2008;115:58–67.Google Scholar

Vergani, P, Russo, FM, Follesa, I, et al. Perinatal complications in twin pregnancies after 34 weeks: effects of gestational age at delivery and chorionicity. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30(7):545–50.Google Scholar

Vayssière, C, Benoist, G, Blondel, B, et al. Twin pregnancies: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;156(1):12–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.12.045CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hack, KE, Derks, JB, Elias, SG, et al Perinatal mortality and mode of delivery in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies >32 weeks of gestation: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. BJOG. 2011;118:1090–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Breathnach, FM, McAuliffe, FM, Geary, M, et al. Optimum timing for planned delivery of uncomplicated monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:50–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sullivan, AE, Hopkins, PN, Hsoin-Yi, W, et al. Delivery of monochorionic diamniotic twins in the absence of complications: analysis of neonatal outcome and costs. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:257e1–7.Google Scholar

Bakr, AF, Karkour, T. What is the optimal gestational age for twin delivery. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2006;6:3.Google Scholar

Dodd, JM, Crowther, CA, Haslam, RR, Robinson, JDS; Twins Timing of Birth Study group. Elective birth at 37 weeks of gestation versus standard care for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy near term: the Twins Timing of Birth Randomized Trial. BJOG. 2012; 119:964–73.Google Scholar

Carroll, MA, Yeomans, ER. Vaginal delivery of twins. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49:154–66.Google Scholar

Rossi, AC, Mullin, PM, Chmait, RH. Neonatal outcomes of twins according to birth order, presentation and mode of delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2011;118(5):523–32.Google Scholar

Hofmeyr, GJ, Barrett, JF, Crowther, CA. Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12: CD006553.Google Scholar

Vendetelli, F, Rivière, O, Crenn-Hébert, C, et al. Is a planned cesarean necessary in twin pregnancies? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:1147–58.Google Scholar

Barrett, JFR, Hannah, ME, Hutton, EK, et al. Twin Birth Study Collaborative Group: a randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1295–305.Google Scholar

Griffith, HB. Monoamniotic twin pregnancy. Br J Clin Pract. 1996;40:294–7.Google Scholar

Steins Bisschop, CN, Vogelvang, TE, May, AM, Schuitemaker, NW. Mode of delivery in non-cephalic presenting twins: a systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(1):237–47.Google Scholar

Hannah, ME, Hannah, WJ, Hewson, SA, et al. Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2000;356:1375–83.Google Scholar

Schmitz, T, de Carnavalet, C, Azria, E, et al. Neonatal outcomes of twin pregnancy according to the planned mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:695–703.Google Scholar

Armson, BA, O’Connell, C, Persa, V, et al. Determinants of perinatal mortality and serious morbidity in the second twin. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:556–64.Google Scholar

Zhang, J, Bowes, WA Jr, Grey, TW, et al. Twin delivery and neonatal and infant mortality: a population-based study. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88:593–8.Google Scholar

Ginsberg, NA, Levine, EM. Delivery of the second twin. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;91:217–20.Google Scholar

Amaru, RC, Bush, MC, Berkowitz, RL, et al. Is discordant growth in twins an independent risk factor for adverse neonatal outcome? Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:71–6.Google Scholar

Ford, AA, Bateman, BT, Simpson, L. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in twin gestations: a large, nationwide sample of deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(4):1138–42.Google Scholar

Yang, Q, Walker, MC, Chen, XK, et al. Impacts of operative delivery for the first twin on neonatal outcomes in the second twin. Am J Perinatol. 2006;23(7):381–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Edris, F, Oppenheimer, L, Yang, Q, et al. Relationship between intertwin delivery interval and metabolic acidosis in the second twin. Am J Perinatol. 2006;23(8):481–5.Google Scholar

Wen, SW, Fung Kee Fung, K, Oppenheimer, L, et al. Neonatal mortality in second twin according to cause of death, gestational age, and mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(3):778–83.Google Scholar

Barrett, J, Bocking, A. The SOGC Consensus Statement: management of twin pregnancies. Part 2. J Soc Obstet Gynecol Can. 2000;22:623.Google Scholar

Robinson, C, Chauhan, SP. Intrapartum management of twins. Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;47:248–62.Google Scholar

Rayburn, WF, Lavin, JP Jr, Miodovnik, M, et al. Multiple gestation: time interval between delivery of first and second twins. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63:502–5.Google Scholar

Brown, HL, Miller, JM Jr, Neumann, DE, et al. Umbilical cord blood gas assessment of twins. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:826–9.Google Scholar

Stein, W, Misselwitz, B, Schmidt, S. Twin-to-twin delivery time interval: influencing factors and effect on short-term outcome of the second twin. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87:346–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sentilhes, L, Bonhours, AC, Biquard, F, et al. Mode d’accouchement des grosses gemellaires. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2009;37:432–41.Google Scholar

Usta, IM, Nassar, AH, Awwad, JT, et al. Comparison of the perinatal morbidity and mortality of the presenting twin and its co-twin. J Perinatol. 2002;22:391–6.Google Scholar

Chauhan, SP, Roberts, WE, McLaren, RA, et al. Delivery of the nonvertex second twin: breech extraction versus external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173:1015–20.Google Scholar

Gocke, SE, Nageotte, MP, Garite, T, et al. Management of the nonvertex second twin: primary cesarean section, external version, or primary breech extraction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;161:111–14.Google Scholar

Wells, SR, Thorp, JM Jr, Bowes, WA Jr. Management of the nonvertex second twin. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991;172:383–5.Google Scholar

Smith, SJ, Zebrowitz, J, Latta, RA. Method of delivery of the nonvertex second twin: a community hospital experience. J Matern Fetal Med. 1997;6:146–50.Google Scholar

Barrett, JF, Ritchie, WK. Twin delivery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;16:43–56.Google Scholar

Rabinovici, J, Barkai, G, Reichmann, B, et al. Internal podalic version with unruptured membranes for the second twin in transverse lie. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;71:428–30.Google Scholar

Caukwell, S, Murphy, DJ. The effect of mode of delivery and gestational age on neonatal outcome of the non-cephalic-presenting second twin. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:1356–61.Google Scholar

Baghdadi, S, Gee, H, Whittle, MJ. Twin pregnancy outcome and chorionicity. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82:18–21.Google Scholar

Sau, A, Chalmers, S, Shennan, AH, et al. Vaginal delivery can be considered in monochorionic diamniotic twins. BJOG. 2006;113:602–4.Google Scholar

Riethmuller, D, Lantheaume, S, Teffaud, O, et al. [Obstetrical and neonatal prognosis of monoamniotic twin gestations.] J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2004;33(7):632–6.Google Scholar

Sau, AK, Langford, K, Elliott, C, et al. Monoamniotic twins, what should be the optimal antenatal management. Twin Res. 2003;6:270–4.Google Scholar

Kurzel, RB. Twin entanglement revisited. Twin Res. 1998;1(3):138–41.Google Scholar

Dufour, P, Vinatyier, D, Vanderstichele, S, et al. Intravenous nitroglycerin for internal podalic version of the second twin in transverse lie. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:416–19.Google ScholarPubMed

Hannah, ME, Hannah, WJ, Hewson, SA, et al; Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2000;356:1375–83.Google Scholar

Hanssens, M, Claerhout, F, Corremans, A, et al. Beleid en techniek bij uitwendige kering. In: Slager, E, Fauser, BCJM, Devroey, P, et al. (ed). Infertiliteit, gynaecologie en obstetrie anno 2001 (Nederland) – Congress Proceedings, 2001:300–7.Google Scholar

Grootscholten, K, Kok, M, Oei, SG, et al. External cephalic version-related risks: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(5):1143–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Feitsma, AH, Middeldorp, JM, Oepkes, D. De uitwendige versie bij de aterme stuit: een inventariserend onderzoek. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;120:4–7.Google Scholar

Kok, M, van der Steeg, JW, Mol, BW, et al. Which factors play a role in clinical decision-making in external cephalic version? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(1):31–5.Google Scholar

Rosman, AN, Guijt, A, Vlemmix, F, et al. Contraindications for external cephalic version in breech position at term: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(2):137–42.Google Scholar

Hutton, EK, Hofmeyr, GJ. External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;1:CD000084.Google Scholar

Kok, M, Cnossen, J, Gravendeel, L, et al. Clinical factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):630.e1–7.Google Scholar

Briggs, ND. Engagement of the fetal head in the negro primigravida. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1981;88(11):1086–9.Google Scholar

Haas, DM, Magann, EF. External cephalic version with an amniotic fluid index < or = 10: a systematic review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;18(4):249–52.Google Scholar

Kok, M, Cnossen, J, Gravendeel, L, et al. Ultrasound factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(1):76–84.Google Scholar

Rovinsky, JJ. Abnormalities of position, lie, presentation and rotation. In: Kaminetsky, HA, Iffy, L (eds). Principles and practice of obstetrics and perinatology. 1st edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981: Chapter 49.Google Scholar

Percival, R. Obstetric operations. In: Percival, R (ed). Holland & Brews’ manual of obstetrics. 14th edition. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1980:614–740.Google Scholar

Collaris, RJ, Oei, SG. External cephalic version: a safe procedure? A systematic review of version-related risks. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83(6):511–18.Google Scholar

WHO. The WHO Reproductive Health Library. 1997;8. http://apps.who.int/rhl/archives/cd000083_leder_com/en/Google Scholar

Hofmeyr, GJ, Gyte, GML. Interventions to help external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;1:CD000184.Google Scholar

Kok, M, Bais, JM, van Lith, JM, et al. Nifedipine as uterine relaxant for external cephalic version: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(2Pt1):271–6.Google Scholar

Hutton, EK, Hannah, ME, Ross, SJ, et al. Early ECV2 Trial Collaborative Group. The Early External Cephalic Version (ECV) 2 Trial: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial of timing of ECV for breech pregnancies. BJOG. 2011;118(5):564–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ferguson, JE, Dyson, DC. Intrapartum external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;152:297–8.Google Scholar

Sheiner, E, Abramowicz, JS, Levy, A, et al. Nuchal cord is not associated with adverse perinatal outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2006;274(2):81–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chapman, GP, Weller, RO, Normand, IC, et al. Spinal cord transsection in utero. Br Med J. 1978;2:398.Google Scholar

de Hundt, M, Velzel, J, de Groot, CJ, et al. Mode of delivery after successful external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1327–34.Google Scholar

Corremans, A, Hanssens, M, Gabriëls, K. Arbeid en bevalling na een geslaagde uitwendige kering à terme. Gunaekeia. 2004;9(2):47–50.Google Scholar

Holmer, AJM, Ten Berge, BS, Van Bouwdijk Bastiaanse, MA, et al (eds). Leerboek der Verloskunde. 3rd edition. Amsterdam: Van Holkema Warendorf, 1963.Google Scholar

Dudenhausen, JW, Pschyrembel, W. Praktische Geburtshilfe. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.Google Scholar

Cunningham, G, Gant, NF, Leveno, KJ, et al (eds). Williams Obstetrics: Techniques for breech delivery. 21st edition. Stanford, Connecticut: Appleton & Lange, 2001, pp. 495–508.Google Scholar

Stoeckel, W. Lehrbuch der Geburtshilfe. 7th edition. Jena: Fisher Verlag, 1943.Google Scholar

Gimovsky, ML, McIlhargie, CJ. Munro Kerr’s operative obstetrics. London: Williams & Wilkins, 1995.Google Scholar

Martius, H. Die geburtshilflichen Operationen. 8th edition. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag, 1958.Google Scholar

Hickock, DE, Gordon, DC, Milberg, JA, et al. The frequency of breech presentation by gestational age at birth: a large population-based study Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:605–18.Google Scholar

Hsieh, YY, Tsai, FJ, Lin, CC, et al. Breech deformation-complex in neonates. J Reprod Med. 2000;45:933–5.Google Scholar

Shipp, TD, Bromley, B, Benacerraf, B. The prognostic significance of hyperextension of the fetal head detected antenatally with ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;15:391–6.Google Scholar

Collea, JV, Rabin, SC, Weghorst, GR, et al. The randomized management of term frank breech presentation. Vaginal delivery vs cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978;131:186–95.Google Scholar

Krebs, L, Langhoff-Roos, J. Breech presentation at term: indications for secondary caesarean section. In: Künzel, W (ed). Breech delivery, European practice in gynaecology and obstetrics. Paris: Éditions Scientifiques et Médicales/Elsevier SAS, 2002, pp. 129–37.Google Scholar

Fischl, F, Janisch, H, Wagner, G. pH-Messungen nach Geburt aus Beckenendlage. Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol. 1979;58:183–7.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, P, Zimmerman, M, Dehnhard, F. Noch eine Untersuchung zur Frage des optimalen Entbindungsmodus bei Beckenendlage. Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol. 1978;57:182–8.Google Scholar

Kubli, F, Boos, W, Rüttgers, H. Caesarean section in the management of singleton breech presentation. In: Rooth, G, Bratteby, LE (eds). Perinatal medicine. 5th European Congress of Perinatal Medicine, Uppsala. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1976, pp. 69–75.Google Scholar

Kubli, F. Geburtsleitung bei Beckenendlagen. Gynäkologe. 1975;8:48–57.Google Scholar

Flanagan, TA, Mulchahey, KM, Korenbrot, CC, et al. Management of term breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;156:1492–9.Google Scholar

Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists of Canada. Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. Guideline Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists of Canada (www.sogc.org). J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009;31:557–66.Google Scholar

Verhoeven, ATM, de Leeuw, JP, Bruinse, HW. Aterme stuitligging: onterechte keus voor de electieve keizersnede als standaardbehandeling vanwege te hoge risico’s voor moeder en haar volgende kinderen. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005;149:2007–10.Google Scholar

Rietberg, C. Term breech delivery in the Netherlands. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht, 2006.Google Scholar

Goffinet, F, Carayol, M, Foidart, JM, et al. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1002–11.Google Scholar

Verhoeven, ATM. Tien jaar na de Term Breech Trial, een balans voor Nederland. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;124:143–7.Google Scholar

Dutch Society Obstetrics & Gynecology. Guideline Breech Position, 2008. www.nvog.nl.Google Scholar

Bergenhenegouwen, LA, Meertens, LJE, Schaaf, J, et al. Vaginal delivery versus caesarean section in preterm delivery: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;172:1–6.Google Scholar

Barrett, JFR, Hannah, ME, Hutton, EK, et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:295–305.Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The management of breech presentation. Guideline No 20b. London: RCOG, 2006.Google Scholar

Su, M, McLeod, L, Ross, S, et al. Factors associated with adverse perinatal outcome in the Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:740–5.Google Scholar

Mulder, ME. Het ontwikkelen der armen en de extractie volgens A. Müller. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen, 1908.Google Scholar

Verhoeven, ATM. Handgreep van Mauriceau (Levret-Smellie-Veit) – Eponiemen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;123:86–92.Google Scholar

Bracht, E. Vortrag: Zur Manualhilfe bei Beckenendlage. Z Geburtsh Gynäkol. 1936;112:271.Google Scholar

Bracht, E. Zur Behandlung der Steisslage. Handelingen Internationaal Congres voor Verloskunde en Gynaecologie. Congresbericht II. Amsterdam: Brill, 1938, pp. 93–4.Google Scholar

Bracht, E. Zur Beckenendlage-Behandlung. Geburtsh Frauenheilkd. 1965;25:635–7.Google Scholar

Verhoeven, ATM. Methode van Bracht – 70 jaar – Eponiemen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;119:8–12.Google Scholar

Verhoeven, ATM, de Leeuw, JP. De theorie van de methode van Bracht en de praktische gevolgen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;121:58–60.Google Scholar

Løvset, J. Schulterentwicklung ohne Armlösung bei natürlicher und künstlicher Beckenendlage. Arch Gynäkol. 1936;161:397–8.Google Scholar

Løvset, J. Shoulder delivery by breech presentation. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1937;44:696–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Løvset, J. Vaginal operative delivery. Oslo: Scandinavian University Books, 1968.Google Scholar

Verhoeven, ATM. Handgreep van Løvset – 70 jaar Eponiemen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;120:21–3.Google Scholar

Verhoeven, ATM. Dührssense incisies. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;123:61–3.Google Scholar

Verhoeven, ATM. De handgreep van Wigand-Martin- Von Winckel – Eponiemen, Geschiedkundige ontwikkeling en betekenis voor de huidige praktijk. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;121:345–50.Google Scholar

van Loon, AJ, Mantingh, A, Serlier, EK, et al. Randomised controlled trial of magnetic resonance pelvimetry in breech presentation at term. Lancet. 1997;350:1799–804.Google Scholar

de Leeuw, JW de, Struijk, PC, Vierhout, ME, et al. Risk factors for third degree perineal ruptures during delivery. BJOG. 2001;108:383–7.Google Scholar

Kurz, CS, Künzel, W. Fetale Herzfrequenz, Dezelerationsfläche und Säure-Basen-Status bei Entbindung aus Beckenendlage-und Schädellage. Z Geburtshilfe Perinat. 1977;181:9–16.Ref in: Künzel W (ed). Breech delivery, European practice in gynaecology and obstetrics. Paris: Elsevier, 2002, p. 126.Google Scholar

de Leeuw, JP. Breech presentation vaginal or abdominal delivery? A prospective longitudinal study. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maastricht, 1989.Google Scholar

Brady, K, Duff, P, Read, JA, et al. Reliability of fetal buttock sampling in assessing the acid-base balance of the breech fetus. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:886–8.Google Scholar

Collea, JV, Chein, C, Quilligan, EJ. The randomized management of term frank breech presentation: a study of 208 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980;137:235–44.Google Scholar

Künzel, W, Kirschbaum, M. Management of vaginal delivery in breech presentation at term. In: Künzel, W (ed). Breech delivery, European practice in gynaecology and obstetrics. Paris: Elsevier, 2002.Google Scholar

van Grinsven-Dmitrieva, N, Verhoeven, ATM. Stuitgeboorte volgens Bracht (1935) of Covjanov (1928)… wie had de primeur? Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;126:245–50.Google Scholar

Verhoeven, ATM, De ontwikkeling van de armpjes bij stuitgeboorte volgens Müller – 110 jaar – Eponiemen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;122:251–4.Google Scholar

von Mickulicz-Radecki, F. Geburtshilfe des praktischen Ärztes. 3rd edition. Leipzig: Barth, 1943.Google Scholar

Verhoeven, ATM, Methode volgens Sellheim. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;121:64–6.Google Scholar

Verhoeven, ATM. Handgreep van De Snoo – Eponiemen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;116:101–2.Google Scholar

de Snoo, K. Leerboek der verloskunde. 4th edition. Groningen: Wolters, 1943.Google Scholar

Piper, EB, Backman, C. The prevention of fetal injuries in breech delivery. JAMA. 1929;92:217–21.Google Scholar

Douglas, Gordon R, Stromme, W. Operative obstetrics. 3rd edition. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1976.Google Scholar

Grady, JP, Gimovsky, M. Instrumental delivery: a lost art? In: Studd, J (ed). Progress in obstetrics and gynecology. Vol 10. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1993.Google Scholar

Gabbe, SG, Niebyl, JR, Simpson, JL, et al. Obstetrics, normal and problem pregnancies. 4th edition. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2002.Google Scholar

Verhoeven, ATM. De Piperforceps – 80 jaar – Eponiemen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;122:180–5.Google Scholar

Verhoeven, ATM. Handgreep van DeLee. In: Eponiemen en geschiedenis van de stuitgeboorte. Haarlem: DCHG, 2010, pp. 131–7.Google Scholar

Crowther, CA. Caesarean delivery for the second twin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000047.Google Scholar

Ayres, A, Johnson, TR. Management of multiple pregnancy: labor and delivery. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2005;60:550–6.Google Scholar

Rabinovici, J, Barkai, G, Reichman, B, et al. Randomized management of the second nonvertex twin: vaginal delivery or caesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;156:52–6.Google Scholar

Hofmeyr, GJ, Kulier, R. Expedited versus conservative approaches for vaginal delivery in breech presentation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000082.Google Scholar

Usta, IM, Nassar, AH, Awwad, JT, et al. Comparison of the perinatal morbidity and mortality of the presenting twin and its co-twin. J Perinatol. 2002;22:391–6.Google Scholar

Caukwell, S, Murphy, DJ. The effect of mode of delivery and gestational age on neonatal outcome of the non-cephalic-presenting second twin. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:1356–61.Google Scholar

Essed, GGM. Complicaties bij kunstverlossingen. In: Heineman, MJ (ed.). Complicaties in obstetrie en gynaecologie. Bussum: Medicom Europe, 1994, pp. 19–30.Google Scholar

NVOG. Vaginale kunstverlossing (vacuümextractie, forcipale extractie). NVOG richtlijn, 2005.Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Guideline No 26, Operative Vaginal Delivery, 2011.Google Scholar

Lumbiganon, P, Laopaiboon, M, Gülmezoglu, M, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–8. Lancet. 2010;375:490–9.Google Scholar

Goetzonger, KR, Macones, GA. Operative vaginal delivery: current trends in obstetrics. Womens Health (Lond Engl). 2008;4:281–90.Google Scholar

Births: Final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2012;61:1–70.Google Scholar

ACOG. Operative vaginal delivery. ACOG Practice Bulletin No 17, 2000.Google Scholar

Meijer, K, Bouman, K, Sollie, KM, et al. Begeleiding van de zwangerschap en de partus bij draagsters van hemofilie. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2008;152:1249–53.Google Scholar

Roberts, IF, Stone, M. Fetal hemorrhage: complication of vacuum extractor after fetal blood sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978;132:109.Google Scholar

Thierry, M. Fetal hemorrhage following blood sampling and use of vacuum extractor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979;134:251Google Scholar

Wegner, EK, Lockwood, CJ, Baras, VA. Operative vaginal delivery. UpToDate. 2013; April.Google Scholar

Kolderup, LB, Laros, RK Jr, Musci, TJ. Incidence of persistent birth injury in macrosomic infant: association with mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:37–41.Google Scholar

Morales, R Adair, CD, Sanchez-Ramos, L, et al. Vacuum extraction of preterm infants with birthweights of 1500 to 2499 grams. J Reprod Med. 1995;40:127–30.Google Scholar

Castro, MA, Hoey, SD, Towner, D. Controversies in the use of the vacuum extractor. Semin Perinatal 2003;27:46–53.Google Scholar

Hankins, DV, Rowe, TF. Operative vaginal delivery – Year 2000. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:275–82.Google Scholar

Zahalka, N, Sadan, O, Malinger, G, et al. Comparison of transvaginal sonography with digital examination and transabdominal sonography for the determination of fetal head position in the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:381–6.Google Scholar

Ramphul, M, Kennelly, M, Murphy, DJ. Establishing the accuracy and acceptability of abdominal ultrasound to define the foetal head position in the second stage of labour: a validation study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;164:35–9.Google Scholar

Murphey, DJ, Liebling, RE, Patel, R, et al. Cohort study of operative delivery in the second stage of labour and standard of obstetric care. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;110:610–15.Google Scholar

de Leeuw, JW, de Wit, C, Kuijken, JPJA, et al. Mediolateral episiotomy reduces the risk for anal sphincter injury during operative vaginal delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115:104–8.Google Scholar

Räisänen, SH, Vehviläinen-Julkunen, K, Gissler, M, et al. Lateral episiotomy protects primiparous women from obstetric anal sphincter rupture. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:1365–72.Google Scholar

Macleod, M, Strachan, B, Bahl, R, et al. A prospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115:1688–94.Google Scholar

Murphey, DJ, Macleod, M, Bahl, R, et al. A randomized controlled trial of routine versus restrictive use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery: a multicenter pilot study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115:1695–702.Google Scholar

Anim-Somuah, M, Smyth, RM, Jones, L. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12:CD000331. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub3.Google Scholar

Roberts, CL, Torvaldsen, S, Camaron, CA, et al. Delayed versus early pushing in women with epidural anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2004;111:1333–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Torvaldsen, S, Roberts, CL, Bell, JC, et al. Discontinuation of epidural analgesia late in labour for reducing adverse delivery outcomes associated with epidural analgesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD004457.Google Scholar

Johanson, RB, Menon, V. Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 1999;2:CD000224. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000224.Google Scholar

Smit-Wu, MN, Moonen-Delarue, DM, Benders, MJ, et al. Onset of vacuum-related complaints in neonates. Eur J Pediatr. 2006;165:374–9.Google Scholar

Demissie, K, Rhoads, GC, Smulian, JC, et al. Operative vaginal delivery and neonatal and infant adverse outcomes: population based retrospective analyses. BMJ. 2004;329:1–6.Google Scholar

Towner, D, Castro, MA, Eby-Wilkins, BS, et al. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial delivery. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1709–14.Google Scholar

Carmody, F, Grant, A, Mutch, L, et al. Follow up of babies delivered in a randomized controlled comparison of vacuum extraction and forceps delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986;65:763–6.Google Scholar

Johanson, RB, Heycock, E, Carter, J, et al. Maternal and child health after assisted vaginal delivery: five year follow of a randomized controlled study comparing forceps and ventouse. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:544–9.Google Scholar

Sedan, O, Dishi, M, Somekh, E, et al. Vacuum extraction and herpes simplex virus infections. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2005;89:242–6.Google Scholar

Wang, J, Zhu, O, Zhang, X. Effect of delivery mode on maternal-infant transistor of hepatitis B virus by immunoprophylaxis. Chin Med J. 2002;115:1510–12.Google Scholar

MacArthur, C, Glazener, CM, Wilson, PD, et al. Persistent urinary incontinence and delivery mode history: a six-year longitudinal study. BJOG. 2006;113:218–24.Google Scholar

Glazener, CM, Herbison, GP, MacArthur, C, et al. New postnatal urinary incontinence: obstetric and other risk factors in primiparae. BJOG. 2006;113:208–17.Google Scholar

Gartland, D, Donath, S, MacArthur, C, Brown, SJ. The onset, recurrence and associated obstetric risk factors for urine incontinence in the first 18 months after a first birth: an Australian nulliparous cohort study. BJOG. 2012;119:1361–9.Google Scholar

Pretlove, SJ, Thompson, PJ, Toosz-Hobson, PM, et al. Does the mode of delivery predispose women to anal incontinence in the first year postpartum? A comparative systematic review. BJOG. 2008;115:421–34.Google Scholar

Handa, VL, Brubaker, L, Flak, S. Pelvic floor disorders associated with pregnancy. UpToDate. 2008;May.Google Scholar

Tegerstedt, G, Miedel, A, Maehle-Schmidt, M, et al. Obstetric risk factors for symptomatic prolapse: a population-based approach. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:75–81.Google Scholar

Essed, GGM. Geschiedenis van de vaginale kunstverlossing. In: Merkus, JMWM (ed.). Obstetrische interventies. Bussum: Medicom Europe, 1991, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar

O’Grady, JP, McIlhargie, CJ. Instrumental delivery. In: O’Grady, JP, Gomovski, ML, McIlhargie, CJ (eds). Operative obstetrics. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1995.Google Scholar

Johanson, R, Menon, V. Soft versus rigid vacuum extractor cups for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000446. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000446.Google Scholar

Greenberg, J, Lockwood, CJ, Barss, V. Procedure for vacuum assisted operative vaginal delivery. UpToDate. 2013, March.Google Scholar

Suwannachat, B, Lumbiganon, P, Laopaiboon, M. Rapid versus stepwise negative pressure application for vacuum extraction assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD006636. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006636.pub3.Google Scholar

O’Mahony, F, Hofmeyr, GJ, Menon, V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;11:CD005455. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005455.pub2.Google Scholar

Muise, KL, Duchon, MA, Brown, RH. The effect of artificial caput on performance of vacuum extractors. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81:170–3.Google Scholar

Resnik, R. Management of shoulder girdle dystocia. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1980;23:559–64.Google Scholar

Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Guideline Shoulder dystocia. September 2008.Google Scholar

Geary, M, McParland, P, Johnson, H, et al. Shoulder dystocia – is it predictable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995;62:15–18.Google Scholar

Gobbo, R, Baxley, EG. Shoulder dystocia. In: Leeman, L (ed.). ALSO: advanced life support in obstetrics provider course syllabus. Leawood: American Academy of Family Physicians, 2000; p. 5.Google Scholar

Baxley, EG, Gobbo, RW. Shoulder dystocia. Am Fam Physician. 2004;69:1707–2014.Google Scholar

Gaskin, IM. For the first time in history an obstetrical maneuver is named after a midwife. Birth Gaz. 1998;14:50.Google Scholar

Bruner, JP, Drummond, SB, Meenan, AL, et al. All-fours maneuver for reducing shoulder dystocia during labor. J Reprod Med. 1998;43:439–43.Google Scholar

Coppus, SFPJ, Langeveld, J, Oei, SG. Een onderschatte techniek voor het opheffen van schouderdystocie: baren op handen en knieën (‘all-fours manoeuvre’). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2007;151:1493–7.Google Scholar

Grady, K, Howell, C, Cox, C (eds). Shoulder dystocia. In: The MOET Course Manual, 2nd edition. London: RCOG Press, 2007; pp. 221–33.Google Scholar

Gherman, RB, Ouzounian, JG, Goodwin, TM. Obstetric maneuvers for shoulder dystocia and associated fetal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178:1126–30.Google Scholar

McFarland, MB, Langer, O, Piper, JM, et al. Perinatal outcome and the type and number of maneuvers in shoulder dystocia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1996;55:219–24.Google Scholar

Borell, U, Femstrom, I. A pelvimetric method for the assessment of pelvic mouldability. Acta Radiol. 1957;47:365–70.Google Scholar

Boulvain, M, Stan, C, Irion, O. Elective delivery in diabetic pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;2:CD001997.Google Scholar

Irion, O, Boulvain, M. Induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000938.Google Scholar

Boulvain, M, Senat, MV, Perrotin, F, et al. Induction of labour versus expectant management for large-for-date fetuses: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9987):2600–5. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61904–8.Google Scholar

Metzger, BE; HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1991–2002.Google Scholar

Landon, MB, Spong, GY, Thom, E, et al. A multicenter, randomized trial of treatment for mild gestational diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1339–48.Google Scholar

Deering, S, Poggi, S, Macedonia, C, et al. Improving resident competency in the management of shoulder dystocia with simulation. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:1224–8.Google Scholar

Deering, S, Poggi, S, Hodor, J, et al. Evaluation of residents’ delivery notes after a simulated shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:667–70.Google Scholar

Draycott, T, Sibanda, T, Owen, L, et al. Does training in obstetric emergencies improve neonatal outcome? BJOG. 2006;113:177–82.Google Scholar

Draycott, TJ, Crofts, JF, Ash, JP, et al. Improving neonatal outcome through practical shoulder dystocia training. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:14–20.Google Scholar

Fransen, AF, van de Ven, J, Merién, AE, et al. Effect of obstetric team training on team performance and medical technical skills: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2012;119(11):1387–93.Google Scholar

Grobman, WA, Miller, D, Burke, C, et al. Outcomes associated with introduction of a shoulder dystocia protocol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:513–17.Google Scholar

Grobman, W. Shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2013;40:59–67.Google Scholar

Mathai, M, Gülmezoglu, AM, Hill, S. WHO Guidelines for the Management of Postpartum Haemorrhage and Retained Placenta. 2009. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/75411/1/9789241548502_eng.pdf?ua=1Google Scholar

Begley, CM, Gyte, GM, Murphy, DJ, et al. Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;7:CD007412.Google Scholar

Deneux-Tharaux, C, Sentilhes, L, Maillard, F, et al. Effect of routine controlled cord traction as part of the active management of the third stage of labour on postpartum haemorrhage: multicentre randomised controlled trial (TRACOR). BMJ. 2013;346:f1541. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1541.Google Scholar

Gulmezoglu, AM, Lumbiganon, P, Landoulsi, S, et al. Active management of the third stage of labour with and without controlled cord traction: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9827):1721–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McDonald, SJ, Middleton, P. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;2:CD004074.Google Scholar

Combs, CA, Laros, RK Jr. Prolonged third stage of labor: morbidity and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77(6):863–7.Google Scholar

Dombrowski, MP, Bottoms, SF, Saleh, AA, Hurd, WW, Romero, R. Third stage of labor: analysis of duration and clinical practice. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172(4, Part 1):1279–84.Google Scholar

Adelusi, B, Soltan, MH, Chowdhury, N, Kangave, D. Risk of retained placenta: multivariate approach. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997;76(5):414–18.Google Scholar

Bais, JM, Eskes, M, Pel, M, Bonsel, GJ, Bleker, OP. Postpartum haemorrhage in nulliparous women: incidence and risk factors in low and high risk women. A Dutch population-based cohort study on standard (> or = 500 ml) and severe (> or = 1000 ml) postpartum haemorrhage. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;115(2):166–72.Google Scholar

Chhabra, S, Dhorey, M. Retained placenta continues to be fatal but frequency can be reduced. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;22(6):630–3.Google Scholar

Owolabi, AT, Dare, FO, Fasubaa, OB, et al. Risk factors for retained placenta in southwestern Nigeria. Singapore Med J. 2008;49(7):532–7.Google Scholar

Panpaprai, P, Boriboonhirunsarn, D. Risk factors of retained placenta in Siriraj Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai. 2007;90(7):1293–7.Google Scholar

Soltan, MH, Khashoggi, T. Retained placenta and associated risk factors. J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;17(3):245–7.Google Scholar

Tandberg, A, Albrechtsen, S, Iversen, OE. Manual removal of the placenta: incidence and clinical significance. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999;78(1):33–6.Google Scholar

Titiz, H, Wallace, A, Voaklander, DC. Manual removal of the placenta – a case control study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;41(1):41–4.Google Scholar

Weeks, AD. The retained placenta. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;22(6):1103–17.Google Scholar

Onwudiegwu, U, Makinde, ON. Retained placenta: a cause of reproductive morbidity in Nigeria. J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;19(4):355–9.Google Scholar

Cheung, WM, Hawkes, A, Ibish, S, Weeks, AD. The retained placenta: historical and geographical rate variations. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31(1):37–42.Google Scholar

Endler, M, Grunewald, C, Saltvedt, S. Epidemiology of retained placenta: oxytocin as an independent risk factor. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(4):801–9.Google Scholar

Westerhoff, G, Cotter, AM, Tolosa, JE. Prophylactic oxytocin for the third stage of labour to prevent postpartum haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;10:CD001808. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001808.pub2.Google Scholar

Liabsuetrakul, T, Choobun, T, Peeyananjarassri, K, Islam, QM. Prophylactic use of ergot alkaloids in the third stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:CD005456.Google Scholar

Gulmezoglu, AM, Forna, F, Villar, J, Hofmeyr, GJ. Prostaglandins for preventing postpartum haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;3:CD000494.Google Scholar

McDonald, S, Abbott, JM, Higgins, SP. Prophylactic ergometrine-oxytocin versus oxytocin for the third stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;1:CD000201.Google Scholar

Leung, SW, Ng, PS, Wong, WY, Cheung, TH. A randomised trial of carbetocin versus syntometrine in the management of the third stage of labour. BJOG. 2006;113(12):1459–64.Google Scholar

Giacalone, PL, Vignal, J, Daures, JP, Boulot, P, Hedon, B, Laffargue, F. A randomised evaluation of two techniques of management of the third stage of labour in women at low risk of postpartum haemorrhage. BJOG. 2000;107(3):396–400.Google Scholar

Chongsomchai, C, Lumbiganon, P, Laopaiboon, M. Prophylactic antibiotics for manual removal of retained placenta in vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2:CD004904.Google Scholar

Weeks, AD, Alia, G, Vernon, G, et al. Umbilical vein oxytocin for the treatment of retained placenta (Release Study): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9709):141–7.Google Scholar

van Beekhuizen, HJ, de Groot, AN, De Boo, T, et al. Sulprostone reduces the need for the manual removal of the placenta in patients with retained placenta: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(2):446–50.Google Scholar

van Beekhuizen, HJ, Tarimo, V, Pembe, AB, Fauteck, H, Lotgering, FK. Misoprostol is not beneficial in the treatment of retained placenta in a low-resource setting. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;122(3):234–7.Google Scholar

van Stralen, G, Veenhof, M, Holleboom, C, van Roosmalen, J. No reduction of manual removal after misoprostol for retained placenta: a double-blind, randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(4):398–403.Google Scholar

Johanson, R, Cox, C, Grady, K, Howell, C, editors. Managing Obstetric Emergencies and Trauma: The MOET Course Manual. 2nd edition. London: RCOG Press; 2007.Google Scholar

Rao, KP, Belogolovkin, V, Yankowitz, J, Spinnato, JA. Abnormal placentation: evidence-based diagnosis and management of placenta previa, placenta accreta, and vasa previa. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2012;67(8):503–19.Google Scholar

Herman, A. Complicated third stage of labor: time to switch on the scanner. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;15(2):89–95.Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Placenta accreta. ACOG. 2012;529:207–11.Google Scholar

O’Brien, JM, Barton, JR, Donaldson, ES. The management of placenta percreta: conservative and operative strategies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:1632–8.Google Scholar

Wu, S, Kocherginsky, M, Hibbard, JU. Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1458–61.Google Scholar

Miller, DA, Chollet, JA, Goodwin, TM. Clinical risk factors for placenta previa-placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:210–14.Google Scholar

Higgins, MF, Monteith, C, Foley, M, O’Herlihy, C. Real increasing incidence of hysterectomy for placenta accreta following previous caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;171:54–6.Google Scholar

Morlando, M, Sarno, L, Napolitano, R, et al. Placenta accreta: incidence and risk factors in an area with a particularly high rate of cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:457–60.Google Scholar

Al-Serehi, A, Mhoyan, Q, Brown, M, et al. Placenta accreta: an association with fibroids and Asherman syndrome. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:1623–8.Google Scholar

Hamar, BD, Wolff, EF, Kodaman, PH, et al. Premature rupture of membranes, placenta increta and hysterectomy in a pregnancy following endometrial ablation. J Perinatol. 2006;26:135–7.Google Scholar

Pron, G, Mocarski, E, Bennet, J, et al. Pregnancy after uterine artery embolization for leiomyomata: the Ontario multicenter trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:89–96.Google Scholar

Silver, RM, Landon, MB, Rouse, DJ, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1226–32.Google Scholar

Eshkoli, T, Weintraub, AY, Sergienko, R, Sheiner, E. Placenta accreta: risk factors, perinatal outcomes, and consequences for subsequent births. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:219.e1–7.Google Scholar

Kamara, M, Henderson, JJ, Doherty, DA, et al. The risk of placenta accreta following primary elective caesarean delivery: a case-control study. BJOG. 2013;120:879–86.Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 27: Placenta praevia, placenta praevia accreta and vasa praevia: diagnosis and management. London: RCOG, 2011.Google Scholar

Calì, G, Giambanco, L, Puccio, G, Forlani, F. Morbidly adherent placenta: evaluation of ultrasound diagnostic criteria and differentiation of placenta accreta from percreta. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:406–12.Google Scholar

D’Antonio, F, Iacovella, C, Bhide, A. Prenatal identification of invasive placentation using ultrasound: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42:509–17.Google ScholarPubMed

Shih, JC, Palacios Jaraquemada, JM, Su, YN, et al. Role of three-dimensional power Doppler in the antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: comparison with gray-scale and color Doppler techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:193–203.Google Scholar

Comstock, CH. Antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:89–96.Google Scholar

Warshak, CR, Eskander, R, Hull, AD, et al. Accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:573–81.Google Scholar

Dwyer, BK, Belogolovin, V, Tran, L, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: sonography or magnetic resonance imaging? J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:1275–81.Google Scholar

Masseli, G, Brunelli, R, Casciani, E, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of placental adhesive disorders: correlation with color Doppler ultrasound. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1292–9.Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 95: anemia in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:201–7.Google Scholar

Eller, AG, Porter, TF, Soisson, P, et al. Optimal management strategies for placenta accreta. BJOG. 2009;116:648–54.Google Scholar

Stutchfield, P, Whitaker, R, Russell, I; Antenatal Steroids for Term Elective Caesarean Section (ASTECS) Research Team. Antenatal betamethasone and incidence of neonatal respiratory distress after elective caesarean section: pragmatic randomised trial. BMJ. 2005;331:662.Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Green-top Guideline No. 7: Antenatal corticosteroids to reduce neonatal morbidity and mortality. London: RCOG, 2010.Google Scholar

Rao, KP, Belogolovkin, V, Yankowitz, Y, et al. Abnormal placentation: evidence-based diagnosis and management of placenta previa, placenta accreta and vasa previa. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2012;67:503–19.Google Scholar

Eller, AG, Bennett, MA, Sharshiner, M, et al. Maternal morbidity in cases of placenta accreta managed by a multidisciplinary care team compared with standard obstetric care. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:331–7.Google Scholar

Hoffman, MS, Karlnoski, RA, Mangar, D, et al. Morbidity associated with nonemergent hysterectomy for placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:628.e1–5.Google Scholar

Kato, R, Terui, K, Yokota, K, et al. Anesthetic management for cases of placenta accreta presented for cesarean section: a 7-year single-center experience [article in Japanese; English abstract]. Masui. 2008;57:1421–6.Google Scholar

Dutch Blood Transfusion Guideline, 2011. Core group: Haas, F.J.L.M., Prof. van Rhenen, D.J., Prof. de Vries, R.R.P., Mrs. Overbeeke, M.A.M., Dr Novotny, V.M.J., Dr Henny, Ch.P.. http://www.sanquin.nl/repository/documenten/en/prod-en-dienst/287294/blood-transfusion-guideline.pdfGoogle Scholar

Timmermans, S, van Hof, AC, Duvekot, JJ. Conservative management of abnormally invasive placentation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2007;62:529–39.Google Scholar

Bretelle, F, Courbiere, B, Mazouni, C, et al. Management of placenta accreta: morbidity and outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;133:34–9.Google Scholar

Sentilhes, L, Ambroselli, C, Kayem, G, et al. Maternal outcome after conservative treatment of placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:526–34.Google Scholar

Arulkumaran, S, Ng, CS, Ingemarsson, I, et al. Medical treatment of placenta accreta with methotrexate. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986;65:285–6.Google Scholar

Winick, M, Coscia, A, Noble, A. Cellular growth in human placenta: normal placental growth. Pediatrics. 1967;39:248–51.Google Scholar

Sentilhes, L, Kayem, G, Ambroselli, C, et al. Fertility and pregnancy outcomes following conservative treatment for placenta accreta. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2803–10.Google Scholar

Kayem, G, Clement, D, Goffinet, F. Recurrence following conservative management of placenta accreta. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;99:142–3.Google Scholar

Zwart, JJ, Richters, JM, Öry, F, et al. Severe maternal morbidity during pregnancy, delivery and puerperium in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based study of 371000 pregnancies. BJOG. 2008;115:842–50.Google Scholar

Cunningham, FG, Gant, NF, Leveno, KJ, et al. Williams obstetrics. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 2001.Google Scholar

Witteveen, T, van Stralen, G, Zwart, J, van Roosmalen, J. Puerperal uterine inversion in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(3):334–7.Google Scholar

Kochenour, NK. Diagnosis and management of uterine inversion. In: Hankins, GDV, Clark, SL, Cunningham, FG, et al (eds). Operative obstetrics. Connecticut: Appleton & Lange, 1995: pp. 273–81.Google Scholar

Soleymani Majd, H, Pilsniak, A, Reginald, PW. Recurrent uterine inversion: a novel treatment approach using SOS Bakri balloon. BJOG. 2009;116:999–1001.Google Scholar

Grady, K, Howell, C, Cox, C. Managing obstetric emergencies and trauma: The MOET course manual. Uterine inversion. London: RCOG Press, 2007: pp. 239–42.Google Scholar

Brar, HS, Greenspoon, JS, Platt, LD, et al. Acute puerperal uterine inversion: New approaches to management. J Reprod Med. 1989;34:173–7.Google Scholar

Leith, CR, Walker, JJ. The rise in caesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;105:621–6.Google Scholar

Wax, JR. Maternal request cesarean versus planned spontaneous vaginal delivery: maternal morbidity and short term outcomes. Semin Perinatol. 2006;30:247–52.Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 559: Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:904–7.Google Scholar

Liu, S, Liston, RM, Joseph, KS, et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. Maternal Health Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System. CMAJ. 2007;176:455–60.Google Scholar

Ecker, JL, Frigoletto, FD. Cesarean delivery and the risk–benefit calculus. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:885–8.Google Scholar

Althabe, F, Sosa, C, Belizan, JM, et al. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth. 2006;33:270–7.Google Scholar

National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. NICE Clinical Guideline. Caesarean section. Commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. London: RCOG Press, 2004. http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/CG013fullguideline.pdfGoogle Scholar

Hofmeyr, GJ, Smaill, FM. Antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;3:CD000933. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000933, 2002.Google Scholar

Costantine, MM, Rahman, M, Ghulmiyah, L, et al. Timing of perioperative antibiotics for cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:301.e1–6.Google Scholar

Tita, AT, Rouse, DJ, Blackwell, S, et al. Emerging concepts in antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean delivery: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:675–82.Google Scholar

Lamont, RF, Sobel, JD, Kusanovic, JP, et al. Current debate on the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section. BJOG. 2011;118:193–201.Google Scholar

Anderson, SB, Lin, SN, Reiss, J, Skupski, D, Grunebaum, A. Peripartum thromboprophylaxis before and after implementation of a uniform heparin protocol. J Perinat Med. 2014;42:219–23.Google Scholar

Quiñones, JN, James, DN, Stamilio, DM, et al. Thromboprophylaxis after cesarean delivery: a decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:733–40.Google Scholar

Su, LL, Chong, YS, Samuel, M. Carbetocin for preventing postpartum haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;4:CD005457.Google Scholar

Borruto, F, Treiser, A, Comparetto, C. Utilization of carbetocin for prevention of postpartum hemorrhage after caesarean section: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280(5):707–12. DOI 10.1007/S00404-009–0973-8.Google Scholar

Peters, NCJ, Duvekot, JJ. Carbetocin for the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage. A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2009;64:129–35.Google Scholar

Cluver, C, Novikova, N, Hofmeyr, GJ, et al. Maternal position during caesarean section for preventing maternal and neonatal complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD007623. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007623.Google Scholar

Senanayake, H. Elective cesarean section without urethral catheterization. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;31:32–7.Google Scholar

Usta, IM, Hobeika, EM, Musa, AA, et al. Placenta previa-accreta: risk factors and complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1045–9.Google Scholar

Clark, SL, Koonings, PP, Phelan, JP. Placenta previa/accreta and prior cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;66:89–92.Google Scholar

Mazouni, C, Gorincour, G, Juhan, V, et al. Placenta accreta: a review of current advances in prenatal diagnosis. Placenta. 2007;28:599–603.Google Scholar

Wu, S, Kocherginsky, M, Hibbard, JU. Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1458–61.Google Scholar

Rac, MW, Dashe, JS, Wells, CE, et al. Ultrasound predictors of placental invasion: the Placenta Accreta Index. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:343.e1–7.Google Scholar

Comstock, CH. Antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:89–96.Google Scholar

Su, TM, Lan, CM, Yang, LC, et al. Brain tumor presenting with fatal herniation following delivery under epidural anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:508–9.Google Scholar

Butwick, AJ, Carvalho, B. Neuraxial anesthesia in obstetric patients receiving anticoagulant and antithrombotic drugs. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2010;19:193–201.Google Scholar

Jenkins, JG, Khan, MM. Anaesthesia for caesarean section: a survey in a UK region from 1992 to 2002. Anaesthesia. 2003;58:1114–18.Google Scholar

Hager, RME, Daltveit, AK, Hofoss, D, et al. Complications of cesarean deliveries: rates and risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;109:428–32.Google Scholar

Afolabi, BB, Lesio, FEA. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD004350.Google Scholar

Ong, BY, Cohen, MM, Palahniuk, RJ. Anesthesia for cesarean section – effects on neonates. Anesth Analg. 1989;100:50–4.Google Scholar

Lagrew, DC, Bush, MC, McKeown, AM, et al. Emergent (crash) cesarean delivery indications and outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1638–43.Google Scholar

Abrams, B, Parker, J. Overweight and pregnancy complications. Int J Obes. 1988;12:293–303.Google Scholar

Soens, MA, Birnbach, DJ, Ranasinghe, JS, et al. Obstetric anesthesia for the obese and morbidly obese patient: an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of treatment. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008;52:6–19.Google Scholar

Hood, DD, Dewan, DM. Anesthetic and obstetric outcome in morbidly obese patients. Anesthesiology. 1993;79:1210–18.Google Scholar

Munnur, U, de Boisblanc, B, Suresh, MS. Airway problems in pregnancy. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(suppl 10):S259–68.Google Scholar

Jordan, H, Perlow, MD, Mark, A, et al. Massive maternal obesity and perioperative caesarean morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:560–5.Google Scholar

Rothrock, RA, Kabiru, W, Kelbick, N, et al. Maternal obesity and postcesarean infectious morbidity. Obstet Gynecol. 2006:107:675.Google Scholar

Terris, DJ, Seybt, MW, Elchoufi, M, et al. Cosmetic thyroid surgery: defining the essential principles. Laryngoscope. 2007;117:1169–72.Google Scholar

Hasselgren, PO, Hagberg, E, Malmer, H, et al. One instead of two knives for surgical incision. Does it increase the risk of postoperative wound infection? Arch Surg. 1984;119:917–20.Google Scholar

Lipscomb, GH, Givens, VM. Preventing electrosurgical energy-related injuries. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2010;37:369–77.Google Scholar

Kearns, SR, Connolly, EM, McNally, S, et al. Randomized clinical trial of diathermy versus scalpel incision in elective midline laparotomy Br J Surg. 2001;88:41–4.Google Scholar

Makoha, FW, Fathuddien, MA, Felimban, HM. Choice of abdominal incision and risk of trauma to the uterine bladder and bowel in multiple cesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;125:50–3.Google Scholar

Loos, MJ, Scheltinga, MR, Mulders, LG, Roumen, RM. The Pfannenstiel incision as a source of chronic pain. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:839–46.Google Scholar

Joel-Cohen, S. Abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies. New techniques based on time and motion studies. London: W Heinemann Books, 1972, p.170.Google Scholar

Stark, M. Clinical evidence that suturing the peritoneum after laparotomy is unnecessary. World J Surg. 1993;17:419.Google Scholar

Stark, M, Finkel, AR. Comparison between the Joel-Cohen and Pfannenstiel incisions in caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1994;53:121–2.Google Scholar

Hohlagschwandter, M, Ruecklinger, E, Husslein, P, et al. Is the formation of a bladder flap at cesarean necessary? A randomised trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:1089–92.Google Scholar

Mahajan, NN. Justifying formation of bladder flap at cesarean section? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;279:853–5.Google Scholar

Tuuli, MG, Odibo, AO, Fogertey, P, et al. Utility of the bladder flap at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:815–21.Google Scholar

Stark, M, Chavkin, Y, Kupfersztain, C, et al. Evaluation of combinations of procedures in cesarean section. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1993;48:273–6.Google Scholar

Holmgren, G, Sjoholm, L, Stark, M. The Misgav-Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999;78:615–21.Google Scholar

Kadir, RA, Khan, A, Wilcock, F, Chapman, L. Is inferior dissection of the rectus sheath necessary during pfannenstiel incision for lower segment caesarean section? A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;128:262–6.Google Scholar

Giacalone, PL, Daures, JP, Vignal, J, et al. Pfannenstiel verus Maylard incision for cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:745–50.Google Scholar

Tixier, H, Thouvenot, S, Coulange, L, et al. Cesarean section in morbidly obese women: supra or subumbilical transverse incision? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:1049–52.Google Scholar

Hema, KR, Johanson, R. Techniques for performing caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15:17–47.Google Scholar

Magann, EF, Chauhan, SP, Bufkin, L, et al. Intra-operative haemorrhage by blunt versus sharp expansion of the uterine incision at caesarean delivery a randomised clinical study. BJOG. 2002;109:448–52.Google Scholar

Dodd, JM, Anderson, ER, Gates, S. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD004732. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004732.pub2.Google Scholar

Cromi, A, Ghezzi, F, Di Naro, E, et al. Blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision at caesarean delivery a randomised comparison of 2 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:292.e1–6.Google Scholar

Picone, O, Fubini, A, Doumere, S, et al. Cesarean delivery by posterior hysterotomy due to torsion of the pregnant uterus. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:533–5.Google Scholar

Gilson, GJ, Kephart, WH, Izquierdo, LA, et al. Comparison of absorbable uterine staples and traditional hysterotomy during cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:384–8.Google Scholar

Levy, R, Chernomoretz, T, Appelman, Z, et al. Head pushing versus reverse breech extraction in cases of impacted head during Cesarean section Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;121:24–6.Google Scholar

Bastani, P, Pourabolghasem, S, Abbasalizadeh, F, Motvalli, L. Comparison of neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with head-pushing and head-pulling for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;118:1–3. Erratum in Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;119:292.Google Scholar

Owens, M, Bhullar, A, Carlan, SJ, O’Brien, WF, Hirano, K. Effect of fundal pressure on maternal to fetal microtransfusion at the time of cesarean delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2003;29:152–6.Google Scholar

David, M, Halle, H, Lichtenegger, W, et al. Nitroglycerin to facilitate fetal extraction during cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:119–24.Google Scholar

Dodd, JM, Reid, K. Tocolysis for assisting delivery at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2:CD004944. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004944.Google Scholar

Smith, GN, Brien, JF. Use of nitroglycerin for uterine relaxation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1998;53:559–65.Google Scholar

Clift, K, Clift, J. Uterine relaxation during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia: a survey of UK obstetric anaesthetists. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2008;17:374–5.Google Scholar

Anorlu, RI, Maholwana, B, Hofmeyr, GJ. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;3:CD004737. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004737.pub2.Google Scholar

Hidar, S, Jennane, TM, Bouguizane, S, et al. The effect of placental removal method at caesarean section delivery on preoperative hemorrhage: a randomized clinical trial ISRCTN 49779257. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;117:179–82.Google Scholar

Dehbashi, S, Honarvar, M, Fardi, FH. Manual removal or spontaneous placental delivery and postcesarean endometritis and bleeding. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;86:12–15.Google Scholar

Morales, M, Ceysens, G, Jastrow, N, et al. Spontaneous delivery or manual removal of the placenta during caesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. BJOG. 2004;111:908–12.Google Scholar

van Rheenen, P. Delayed cord clamping and improved infant outcomes. BMJ. 2011;343:d7127.Google Scholar

Andersson, O, Hellström-Westas, L, Andersson, D, Clausen, J, Domellöf, M. Effects of delayed compared with early umbilical cord clamping on maternal postpartum hemorrhage and cord blood gas sampling: a randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(5):567–74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600–0412.2012.01530.Google Scholar

Andersson, O, Hellström-Westas, L, Andersson, D, Domellöf, M. Effect of delayed versus early umbilical cord clamping on neonatal outcomes and iron status at 4 months: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d7157.Google Scholar

Timor-Tritsch, IE, Monteagudo, A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:14–29.Google Scholar

RCOG. Guideline no. 27: Placenta praevia, placenta praevia accreta and vasa praevia: diagnosis and management, 2011. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg27Google Scholar

Vrachnis, N, Iavazzo, C, Salakos, N, et al. Uterine tamponade balloon for the management of massive hemorrhage during cesarean section due to placenta previa/increta. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39:255–7.Google Scholar

Ishii, T, Sawada, K, Koyama, S, et al. Balloon tamponade during cesarean section is useful for severe post-partum hemorrhage due to placenta previa. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2012;38:102–7.Google Scholar

Penotti, M, Vercellini, P, Bolis, G, Fedele, L. Compressive suture of the lower uterine segment for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage due to complete placenta previa: a preliminary study. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2012;73:314–20.Google Scholar

Amorim-Costa, C, Mota, R, Rebelo, C, Silva, PT. Uterine compression sutures for postpartum hemorrhage: is routine postoperative cavity evaluation needed? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:701–6.Google Scholar

Jacobs-Jokhan, D, Hofmeyr, GJ. Extra-abdominal versus intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD000085. DOI: 10.1002Z14651858.CD000085.pub2.Google Scholar

Coutinho, IC, Ramos de Amorim, MM, Katz, L, et al. Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:639–47.Google Scholar

Orji, EO, Olaleye, AO, Loto, OM, Ogunniyi, SO. A randomised controlled trial of uterine exteriorisation and non-exteriorisation at caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;48:570–4.Google Scholar

Wahab, MA, Karantis, P, Eccersley, PS, et al. A randomised, controlled study of uterine exteriorisation and repair at caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:913–16.Google Scholar

Siddiqui, M, Goldszmidt, E, Fallah, S, et al. Complications of exteriorized compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:570–5.Google Scholar

Nafisi, S. Influence of uterine exteriorization versus in situ repair on post-cesarean maternal pain: a randomized trial. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2007;16:135–8.Google Scholar

Ozbay, K. Exteriorized versus in-situ repair of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:155–8.Google Scholar

Kearns, SR, Connolly, EM, McNally, S, et al. Infection rates after cesarean delivery with exteriorized versus intraperitoneal uterine closure. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:68–95.Google Scholar

CAESAR Study Collaborative Group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG. 2010;117:1366–76.Google Scholar

Hamar, BD, Saber, SB, Cackovic, M, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial of one- and two-layer closure. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:808–13.Google Scholar

Lal, K, Tomso, K. Comparative study of single and conventional closure of uterine incision in cesarean section. Int J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;27:349–52.Google Scholar

Chapman, SJ, Owen, J, Hauth, JC. One- versus two-layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:16–18.Google Scholar

Bujold, E, Bujold, C, Hamilton, EF, et al. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1326–30.Discussion: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;189:895–6.Google Scholar

Roberge, S, Chaillet, N, Boutin, A, et al. Single- versus double-layer closure of the hysterotomy incision during cesarean delivery and risk of uterine rupture. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;115:5–10.Google Scholar

Berghella, V, Baxter, JK, Chauhun, SP. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1607–17.Google Scholar

Oligbo, N, Revicky, V, Udeh, R. Pomeroy technique or Filshie clips for postpartum sterilisation? Retrospective study on comparison between Pomeroy procedure and Filshie clips for a tubal occlusion at the time of Caesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;28:1073–5.Google Scholar

Ozyer, S, Moraloğlu, O, Gülerman, C, et al. Tubal sterilization during cesarean section or as an elective procedure? Effect on the ovarian reserve. Contraception. 2012;86:488–93.Google Scholar

Nelson, AL, Chen, S, Eden, R. Intraoperative placement of the Copper T-380 intrauterine devices in women undergoing elective cesarean delivery: a pilot study. Contraception. 2009;80:81–3.Google Scholar

Grundsell, HS, Rizk, DEE, Kumar, MR. Randomized study of non-closure of peritoneum in lower segment cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;77:110–15.Google Scholar

Makoha, FW, Felimban, HM, Fathuddien, MA, et al. Multiple cesarean section morbidity. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2004;68:227–32.Google Scholar

Nabhan, AF. Long-term outcomes of two different surgical techniques for cesarean. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;100:69–75.Google Scholar

Kapustian, V, Anteby, EY, Gdalevich, M, et al. Effect of closure versus nonclosure of peritoneum at cesarean section on adhesions: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:56.e1–4.Google Scholar

Shi, Z, Ma, L, Yang, Y, et al. Adhesion formation after previous caesarean section–a meta-analysis and systematic review. BJOG. 2011;118:410–22.Google Scholar

Bamigboje, AA, Hofmeyr, GJ. Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;4:CD000163. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000163.Google Scholar

Rafique, Z, Shibli, KU, Russell, LF, et al. A randomised controlled trial of the closure or non-closure of peritoneum at caesarean section: effect on post-operative pain. BJOG. 2002;109:694–8.Google Scholar