Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T04:36:29.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 12 - Complications of Labor and Delivery

from Section 2 - Pregnancy, Labor, and Delivery Complications Causing Brain Injury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2017

By
Samantha Do  and
Yair Blumenfeld
Edited by
David K. Stevenson ,
William E. Benitz ,
Philip Sunshine ,
Susan R. Hintz  and
Maurice L. Druzin
David K. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
William E. Benitz
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Philip Sunshine
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Susan R. Hintz
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Maurice L. Druzin
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Fetal and Neonatal Brain Injury , pp. 171 - 186
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Executive summary: Neonatal encephalopathy and neurologic outcome (2nd edn.) Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Task Force on Neonatal Encephalopathy. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123(4): 896–901.Google Scholar
Births: Final data for 2013. National Vital Statistics Reports. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2014. Available at www.cdc.gov/nchs/data (accessed July 2015).Google Scholar
Martin, JA, Hamilton, BE, Osterman, MJK, et al. Births: Final data for 2012. In National Vital Statistics Reports; vol 62, no 9. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2013. Available from www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_09.pdf (accessed July 2015).Google Scholar
March of Dimes. Peri stats: births by method of delivery, 1994–2004. 2006. Available at www.marchofdimes.com/peristats/ (accessed January 2008).Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey, AB, Cahill, AG, Guise, JM, Rouse, DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210(3): 179–93.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Cesarean delivery on maternal request (Committee Opinion No. 559). Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121(4): 904–7.Google Scholar
Villar, J, Carroli, G, Zavaleta, N, et al. Maternal and neonatal individual risks and benefits associated with caesarean delivery: multicentre prospective study. BMJ 2007; 335: 1025–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deneux-Tharaux, C, Carmona, E, Bouvier-Colle, MH, Breart, G. Postpartum maternal mortality and cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 541–8.Google Scholar
Nisenblat, V, Barak, S, Griness, OB, et al. Maternal complications associated with multiple cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 21–6.Google Scholar
Gilbert, SA, Grobman, WA, Landon, MB. Cost-effectiveness of trial of labor after previous cesarean in a minimally biased cohort. Am J Perinatol 2013; 30(1): 11–20.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
Kennare, R, Tucker, G, Heard, A, et al. Risks of adverse outcomes in the next birth after a first cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 270–6.Google Scholar
Gregory, KD, Jackson, S, Korst, L, Fridman, M. Cesarean versus vaginal delivery: whose risks? Whose benefits? Am J Perinatol 2012; 29:7–18.Google Scholar
Cunningham, FG, Bangdiwala, SI, Brown, SS, et al. NIH consensus development conference draft statement on vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights. NIH Consens State Sci Statements 2010; 27(3): 1–42.Google ScholarPubMed
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery (Practice Bulletin No. 115). Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116(2 Pt 1): 450–63.Google Scholar
Grobman, WA, Lai, Y, Landon, MB, et al. Development of a nomogram for prediction of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109: 806–12.Google Scholar
Peaceman, AM, Gersnoviez, R, Landon, MB, et al. The MFMU Cesarean Registry: impact of fetal size on trial of labor success for patients with previous cesarean for dystocia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 1127–31.Google Scholar
Landon, MB, Spong, CY, Thom, E, et al. Risk of uterine rupture with a trial of labor in women with multiple and single prior cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 12–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, ES, Grobman, WA. Obstetric outcomes associated with induction of labor after two prior cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213(1): 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gyamfi, C, Juhasz, G, Gyamfi, P, et al. Single- versus double-layer uterine incision closure and uterine rupture. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2006; 19: 639–43.Google Scholar
Bujold, E, Goyet, M, Marcoux, S, Brassard, N, et al. The role of uterine closure in the risk of uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116(1): 43–50.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(1): 5–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cahill, AG, Stamilio, DM, Odibo, AO, et al. Does a maximum dose of oxytocin affect risk for uterine rupture in candidates for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197: 495.e1–5.Google Scholar
Harper, LM, Cahill, AG, Boslaugh, S, et al. Association of induction of labor and uterine rupture in women attempting vaginal birth after cesarean: a survival analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206(1): 51.e1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kok, N, Wiersma, IC, Opmeer, BC, et al. Sonographic measurement of lower uterine segment thickness to predict uterine rupture during a trial of labor in women with previous Cesarean section: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42(2): 132–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guise, JM, Denman, MA, Emeis, C, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 115(6): 1267–78.Google Scholar
Fisler, RE, Cohen, A, Ringer, SA, Lieberman, E. Neonatal outcome after trial of labor compared with elective repeat cesarean section. Birth 2003; 30: 83–8.Google Scholar
Spong, CY, Landon, MB, Gilbert, S, et al. Risk of uterine rupture and adverse perinatal outcome at term after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110: 801–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, HY, Chauhan, SP, Grobman, WA, et al. Association of labor induction or stimulation with infant mortality in women with failed versus successful trial of labor after prior cesarean. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013; 26(12): 1162–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossi, AC, D’Addario, V. Maternal morbidity following a trial of labor after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199(3): 224–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knight, HE, Gurol-Urganci, I, van der Meulen, JH, et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean section: a cohort study investigating factors associated with its uptake and success. BJOG. 2014; 121(2): 183–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uddin, SF, Simon, AE. Rates and success rates of trial of labor after cesarean delivery in the United States, 1990–2009. Matern Child Health J. 2013; 17(7): 1309–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landon, MB, Leindecker, S, Spong, CY, et al. The MFMU Cesarean Registry: factors affecting the success of trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1016–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cahill, AG, Stamilio, DM, Odibo, AO, et al. Is vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) or elective repeat cesarean safer in women with a prior vaginal delivery? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 1143–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macario, A, El-Sayed, YY, Druzin, ML. Cost-effectiveness of a trial of labor after previous cesarean delivery depends on the a priori chance of success. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004; 47: 378–85.Google Scholar
Costantine, MM, Fox, K, Byers, BD, et al. Validation of the prediction model for success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114(5): 1029–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, NE, Fu, R, Guise, J-M. Impact of multiple cesarean deliveries on maternal morbidity: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205: 262.e1–8.Google Scholar
Pare, E, Quinones, JN, Macones, GA. Vaginal birth after caesarean section versus elective repeat caesarean section: assessment of maternal downstream health outcomes. BJOG 2006; 113: 75–85.Google Scholar
Gilbert, SA, Grobman, WA, Landon, MB, et al. Lifetime cost-effectiveness of trial of labor after cesarean in the United States. Value Health 2013; 16(6): 953–64.Google Scholar
Guiliano, M, Closset, E, Therby, D, et al. Signs, symptoms and complications of complete and partial uterine ruptures during pregnancy and delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 179: 130–4.Google Scholar
Cahill, AG, Odibo, AO, Allsworth, JE, et al. Frequent epidural dosing as a marker for impending uterine rupture in patients who attempt vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202(4): 355.e1–5.Google Scholar
Catanzarite, V, Cousins, L, Dowling, D, et al. Oxytocin-associated rupture of an unscarred uterus in a primigravida. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108 (3 Pt 2): 723–5.Google Scholar
Gibbins, KJ, Weber, T, Holmgren, CM, et al. Maternal and fetal morbidity associated with uterine rupture of the unscarred uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213(3): 382.e1–6.Google Scholar
Walsh, CA, Baxi, LV. Rupture of the primigravid uterus: a review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2007; 62: 327–34.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Operative vaginal delivery: clinical management guidelines for obstetrician–gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001; 74: 69–76 (reaffirmed 2012).Google Scholar
O’Mahony, F, Hofmeyr, GJ, Menon, V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 10(11): CD005455.Google Scholar
Johnson, JH, Figueroa, R, Garry, D, et al. Immediate maternal and neonatal effects of forceps and vacuum-assisted deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 513–18.Google Scholar
Caughey, AB, Sandberg, PL, Zlatnik, MG, et al. Forceps compared with vacuum: rates of neonatal and maternal morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106: 908–12.Google Scholar
Schot, MJ, Halbertsma, FJ, Katgert, T, et al. Development of children with symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage born after vacuum extraction. J Child Neurol 2013; 28(4): 520–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolderup, LB, Laros, RK, Musci, TJ. Incidence of persistent birth injury in macrosomic infants: association with mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177: 37–41.Google Scholar
Aiken, AR, Aiken, CE, Alberry, MS. Management of fetal malposition in the second stage of labor: a propensity score analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212(3): 355.e1–7.Google Scholar
Tempest, N, Hart, A, Walkinshaw, S, et al. A re-evaluation of the role of rotational forceps: retrospective comparison of maternal and perinatal outcomes following different methods of birth for malposition in the second stage of labour. BJOG 2013; 120(10): 1277–84.Google Scholar
Bhide, A, Guven, M, Prefumo, F, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcome after failed ventouse delivery: comparison of forceps versus cesarean section. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2007; 20(7): 541–5.Google Scholar
Lurie, S, Glezerman, M, Baider, C, et al. Decision-to-delivery interval for instrumental vaginal deliveries: vacuum extraction versus forceps. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2006; 274(1): 34–6.Google Scholar
Towner, D, Castro, MA, Eby-Wilkens, E, et al. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1709–14.Google Scholar
Gardella, C, Taylor, M, Benedetti, T, et al. The effect of sequential use of vacuum and forceps for assisted vaginal delivery on neonatal and maternal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185(4):896–902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 up of a randomized, controlled study comparing forceps and ventouse. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106(6): 544–9.Google Scholar
Wesley, BD, van den Berg, BJ, Reece, EA. The effect of forceps delivery on cognitive development. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 169: 1091–5.Google Scholar
Ngan, HY, Miu, P, Ko, L, et al. Long-term neurological sequelae following vacuum extractor delivery. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 30: 111–14.Google Scholar
Sokol, RJ, Blackwell, SC. Shoulder dystocia (ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 40). Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 80: 87–92 (reaffirmed 2015).Google Scholar
Paris, AE, Greenberg, JA, Ecker, JL, McElrath, TF. Is an episiotomy necessary with a shoulder dystocia? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205(217): e1–3.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dajani, NK, Magann, EF. Complications of shoulder dystocia. Semin Perinatol 2014; 38(4): 201–4.Google Scholar
Spain, JE, Frey, HA, Tuuli, MG, et al. Neonatal morbidity associated with shoulder dystocia maneuvers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212(3): 353.e1–5.Google Scholar
Fong, A, Chau, CT, Pan, D, et al. Amniotic fluid embolism: antepartum, intrapartum and demographic factors. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015; 28(7): 793–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, SL, Hankins, GD, Dudley, DA, et al. Amniotic fluid embolism: analysis of the national registry. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 1158–67.Google Scholar
Kramer, MS, Rouleau, J, Liu, S, et al. Amniotic fluid embolism: incidence, risk factors, and impact on perinatal outcome. BJOG 2012; 119(7): 874–9.Google Scholar
Clark, SL, Montz, FJ, Phelan, JP. Hemodynamic alterations associated with amniotic fluid embolism: a reappraisal. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 617–21.Google Scholar
Kanayama, N, Tamura, N. Amniotic fluid embolism: pathophysiology and new strategies for management. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014; 40(6): 1507–17.Google Scholar
Shen, F, Wang, L, Yang, W, et al. From appearance to essence: 10 years review of atypical amniotic fluid embolism. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 292(2): 329–34.Google Scholar
Benson, MD, Kobayashi, H, Silver, RK, et al. Immunologic studies in presumed amniotic fluid embolism. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97: 510–14.Google Scholar
Conde-Agudelo, A, Romero, R. Amniotic fluid embolism: an evidence-based review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201(5): 445.e1–13.Google Scholar
O’Shea, A, Eappen, S. Amniotic fluid embolism. Int Anesthesiol Clin 2007; 45(1): 17–28.Google Scholar
Cunningham, FG, Williams, JW. Williams Obstetrics, 21st edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001.Google Scholar
Czikk, MJ, McCarthy, FP, Murphy, KE. Chorioamnionitis: from pathogenesis to treatment. Clin Microbiol Infect 2011; 17(9): 1304–11.Google Scholar
Grether, JK, Nelson, KB. Maternal infection and cerebral palsy in infants of normal birth weight. JAMA 1997; 278: 207–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, YW, Escobar, GJ, Grether, JK, et al. Chorioamnionitis and cerebral palsy in term and near-term infants. JAMA 2003; 290(20): 2677–84.Google Scholar
Nasef, N, Shabaan, AE, Schurr, P, et al. Effect of clinical and histological chorioamnionitis on the outcome of preterm infants. Am J Perinatol 2013; 30(1): 59–68.Google Scholar
Malloy, MH. Chorioamnionitis: epidemiology of newborn management and outcome United States 2008. J Perinatol 2014; 34(8): 611–5.Google Scholar
Fishman, SG, Gelber, SE. Evidence for the clinical management of chorioamnionitis. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 17(1): 46–50.Google Scholar
Chapman, E, Reveiz, L, Illanes, E, et al. Antibiotic regimens for management of intra-amniotic infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014 19(12): CD010976.Google Scholar
Lyell, DJ, Pullen, K, Fuh, K, et al. Daily compared with 8-hour gentamicin for the treatment of intrapartum chorioamnionitis: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115(2 Pt 1): 344–9.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Management of late-term and postterm pregnancies (Practice Bulletin No. 146). Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124(2 Pt 1): 390–6.Google Scholar
Romero, R, Yoon, BH, Chaemsaithong, P, et al. Bacteria and endotoxin in meconium-stained amniotic fluid at term: could intra-amniotic infection cause meconium passage? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27: 775–88.Google Scholar
Beligere, N, Rao, R. Neurodevelopmental outcome of infants with meconium aspiration syndrome: report of a study and literature review. J Perinatol 2008; 28(Suppl. 3):S93–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmeyr, GJ, Xu, H, Eke, AC. Amnioinfusion for meconium-stained liquor in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 1: CD000014.Google Scholar
Katz, VL, Seeds, JW. Malpresentations other than breech. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1986; 29(2): 329–38.Google Scholar
Chou, MR, Kreiser, D, Taslimi, MM, et al. Vaginal versus ultrasound examination of fetal occiput position during the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 521–4.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(2): 381–6.Google Scholar
Cruikshank, DP, White, CA. Obstetric malpresentations: twenty years’ experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973; 116: 1097–104.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee on Practice Bulletins: Obstetrics (Practice Bulletin No. 161: External Cephalic Version). Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127(2): e54–61.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. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet 2000; 356: 1375–83.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Mode of term single breech delivery (Committee Opinion No. 265). Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98: 1189–90.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Mode of term singleton breech delivery (Committee Opinion No. 340). Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 235–7.Google Scholar
Whyte, H, Hannah, ME, Saigal, S, et al. Outcomes of children at 2 years after planned cesarean birth versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the International Randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 864–71.Google Scholar
Berhan, Y, Haileamlak, A. The risks of planned vaginal breech delivery versus planned caesarean section for term breech birth: a meta-analysis including observational studies. BJOG 2016; 123(1): 49–57.Google Scholar
Caughey, AB, Sharshiner, R, Cheng, YW. Fetal malposition: impact and management. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2015; 58(2): 241–5.Google Scholar
Lieberman, E, Davidson, K, Lee-Parritz, A, et al. Changes in fetal position during labor and their association with epidural analgesia. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105(5 Pt 1): 974–82.Google Scholar
Cheng, YW, Shaffer, BL, Caughey, AB. The association between persistent occiput posterior position and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107(4): 837–44.Google Scholar
Reichman, O, Gdansky, E, Latinsky, B, et al. Digital rotation from occipito-posterior to occipito-anterior decreases the need for cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008; 136(1): 25–8.Google Scholar
Cluver, C, Hofmeyr, GJ, Gyte, GM, et al. Interventions for helping to turn term breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 1: CD000184.Google ScholarPubMed
Hofmeyr, GJ, Kulier, R, West, HM. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 4: CD000083.Google Scholar
Kaymak, O, Iskender, C, Ibanoglu, M, et al. Retrospective evaluation of risk factors and perinatal outcome of umbilical cord prolapse during labor. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2015; 19(13): 2336–9.Google Scholar
Hartigan, L, Hehir, M, McHugh, A, et al. Analysis of incidence and outcomes of umbilical cord prolapse over 20 years at a large tertiary referral center (abstract no. 431). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208(Suppl. 1): S188.Google Scholar
Gibbons, C, O’Herlihy, C, Murphy, JF. Umbilical cord prolapsed – changing patterns and improved outcomes: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG 2014; 121(13): 1705–8.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dystocia and augmentation of labor (Practice Bulletin No. 49). Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 1445–54.Google Scholar
Friedman, EA. Primigravid labor: a graphicostatistical analyis. Obstet Gynecol 1955; 6(6): 567–89.Google Scholar
Kilpatrick, SJ, Laros, RK. Characteristics of normal labor. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 74: 85–7.Google Scholar
Cheng, YW, Shaffer, BL, Nicholson, JM, et al. Second stage of labor and epidural use: a larger effect than previously suggested. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123(3): 527–35.Google Scholar
Myles, TD, Santolaya, J. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients with a prolonged second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 52–8.Google Scholar
Rouse, DJ, Weiner, SJ, Bloom, SL, et al. Second-stage labor duration in nulliparous women: relationship to maternal and perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 201(4): 357.e1–7.Google Scholar
Sung, JF, Daniels, KI, Brodzinsky, L, et al. Cesarean delivery outcomes after a prolonged second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197: 306.e1–5.Google Scholar
Benfield, N, Young-Lin, N, Kimona, C, et al. Fistula after attended delivery and the challenge of obstetric care capacity in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 130(2): 157–60.Google Scholar
Chen, HY, Chauhan, SP, Ananth, CV, et al. Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring and its relationship to neonatal and infant mortality in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204(6): 491.e1–10.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Management of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings (Practice Bulletin No. 116). Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116(5): 1232–40.Google Scholar
Alfirevic, Z, Devane, D, Gyte, GM. Continuous cardiotocography (CTG) as a form of electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for fetal assessment during labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 5: CD006066.Google Scholar
Nielsen, PV, Stigsby, B, Nickelsen, C, et al. Intra- and inter-observer variability in the assessment of intrapartum cardiotocograms. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1987; 66: 421–4.Google Scholar
Hruban, L, Spilka, J, Chudáček, V, et al. Agreement on intrapartum cardiotocogram recordings between expert obstetricians. J Eval Clin Pract 2015; 21(4): 694–702.Google Scholar
Chauhan, SP, Klauser, CK, Woodring, TC, et al. Intrapartum nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing and prediction of adverse outcomes: interobserver variability. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199(6): 623.e1–5.Google Scholar
Macones, GA, Hankins, GD, Spong, CY, et al. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Workshop Report on Electronic Fetal Monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2008; 37(5): 510–5.Google Scholar
Liu, L, Tuuli, MG, Roehl, KA, et al. Electronic fetal monitoring patterns associated with respiratory morbidity in term neonates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213(5): 681.e1–6.Google Scholar
Cahill, AG, Caughey, AB, Roehl, KA, et al. Terminal fetal heart decelerations and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122(5): 1070–6.Google Scholar
Nelson, KB, Dambrosia, JM, Ting, TY, et al. Uncertain value of electronic fetal monitoring in predicting cerebral palsy. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 613–18.Google Scholar
Amer-Wahlin, I, Kwee, A. Combined cardiotocographic and ST event analysis: a review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2016; 30: 48–61.Google Scholar
Clark, SL, Hankins, GD. Temporal and demographic trends in cerebral palsy: fact and fiction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 628–33.Google Scholar
Graham, EM, Adami, RR, McKenney, SL, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fetal heart rate monitoring in the identification of neonatal encephalopathy. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124(3): 507–13.Google Scholar
Graham, EM, Ruis, KA, Hartman, AL, et al. A systematic review of the role of intrapartum hypoxia-ischemia in the causation of neonatal encephalopathy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199(6): 587–95.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×