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-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T06:05:13.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 20 - Malpresentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 September 2017

By
Martin Olsen
Edited by
Martin Olsen
Martin Olsen
Affiliation:
East Tennessee State University
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Obstetric Care , pp. 188 - 196
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

Stitely, M. L., & Gherman, R. B. (2005). Labor with abnormal presentation and position. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am, 32(2), 165–179. doi:10.1016/j.ogc.2004.12.005Google Scholar
Gardberg, M., Leonova, Y., & Laakkonen, E. (2011). Malpresentations – impact on mode of delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 90(5), 540–542. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01105.xGoogle Scholar
Hickok, D. E., Gordon, D. C., Milberg, J. A., Williams, M. A., & Daling, J. R. (1992). The frequency of breech presentation by gestational age at birth: A large population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 166(3), 851–852.Google Scholar
Caughey, A.B., Cahill, A.G., Guise, J.M., & Rouse, D.J. (2014) Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 210;(3) 179–193.Google Scholar
Practice, A. C. o. O. (2006). ACOG Committee Opinion No. 340. Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol, 108(1), 235–237.Google Scholar
Practice, C. o. O. (2002). ACOG committee opinion. Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Number 265, December 2001. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 77(1), 65–66.Google Scholar
Hannah, M. E., Hannah, W. J., Hewson, S. A., Hodnett, E. D., Saigal, S., & Willan, A. R. (2000). Planned caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Lancet, 356(9239), 1375–1383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hannah, M. E., Hannah, W. J., Hodnett, E. D., Chalmers, B., Kung, R., Willan, A., … TermBreech Trial 3-Month Follow-up Collaborative Group. (2002). Outcomes at 3 months after planned cesarean vs planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. JAMA, 287(14), 1822–1831.Google Scholar
Hannah, M. E., Whyte, H., Hannah, W. J., Hewson, S., Amankwah, K., Cheng, M., … Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. (2004). Maternal outcomes at 2 years after planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: the international randomized Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 191(3), 917–927. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.08.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rietberg, C. C., Elferink-Stinkens, P. M., & Visser, G. H. (2005). The effect of the Term Breech Trial on medical intervention behaviour and neonatal outcome in The Netherlands: an analysis of 35,453 term breech infants. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 112(2), 205–209. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00317.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartnack Tharin, J. E., Rasmussen, S., & Krebs, L. (2011). Consequences of the Term Breech Trial in Denmark. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 90(7), 767–771. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01143.xGoogle Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. (April 2001). The management of breech presentation. Guideline No. 20. London: RCOG.Google Scholar
Hofmeyr, G. J., Hannah, M. E., & Lawrie, T. A. (2003). Planned caesarean section for term breech delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(3), CD000166. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000166Google Scholar
Mozurkewich, E. L., & Hutton, E. K. (2000). Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 183(5), 1187–1197. doi:10.1067/mob.2000.108890CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lydon-Rochelle, M., Holt, V.L., Easterling, T. R., & Martin, D. P. (2001). First-birth cesarean and placental abruption or previa at second birth(1). Obstet Gynecol, 97(5 Pt 1), 765–769.Google Scholar
Joseph, K. S., Pressey, T., Lyons, J., Bartholomew, S., Liu, S., Muraca, G., & Liston, R. M. (2015). Once more unto the breech: Planned vaginal delivery compared with planned cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol, 125(5), 1162–1167. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000824CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deering, S., Brown, J., Hodor, J., & Satin, A. J. (2006). Simulation training and resident performance of singleton vaginal breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol, 107(1), 86–89. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000192168.48738.77Google Scholar
Hofmeyr, G. J. (2004). Interventions to help external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(1), CD000184. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000184.pub2Google Scholar
Gardberg, M., & Tuppurainen, M. (1994). Persistent occiput posterior presentation – A clinical problem. Act Obstet Gynecol Scand Jan;73(1):45–7.Google Scholar
Lieberman, E., Davidson, K., Lee-Parritz, A., & Shearer, E. (2005). Changes in fetal position during labor and their association with epidural analgesia. Obstet Gynecol, 105(5 Pt 1), 974–982. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000158861.43593.49CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kotaska, A., Menticoglou, S., Gagnon, R., Farine, D., Basso, M., Bos, H., … Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. (2009). SOGC clinical practice guideline: Vaginal delivery of breech presentation: no. 226, June 2009. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 107(2), 169–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sizer, A. R., & Nirmal, D. M. (2000). Occipitoposterior position: Associated factors and obstetric outcome in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol, 96(5 Pt 1), 749–752.Google Scholar
Ponkey, S. E., Cohen, A. P., Heffner, L. J., & Lieberman, E. (2003). Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol, 101(5 Pt 1), 915–920.Google Scholar
Cheng, Y. W., Shaffer, B. L., & Caughey, A. B. (2006). Associated factors and outcomes of persistent occiput posterior position: A retrospective cohort study from 1976 to 2001. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 19(9), 563–568. doi:10.1080/14767050600682487Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, M., McQuillan, K., & O’Herlihy, C. (2001) Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 98(6), 1027–1031.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. D., & Freeman, M. (1974) The management of the persistent occiput posterior position. Obstet Gynecol, 43(2), 171–177.Google ScholarPubMed
Barth, W. H. (2015). Persistent occiput posterior. Obstet Gynecol, 125(3), 695–709. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000647Google Scholar
Hunter, S., Hofmeyr, G. J., & Kulier, R. (2007). Hands and knees posture in late pregnancy or labour for fetal malposition (lateral or posterior). Cochrane Database Syst Rev(4), CD001063. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001063.pub3Google Scholar
Stremler, R., Hodnett, E., Petryshen, P., Stevens, B., Weston, J., & Willan, A. R. (2005). Randomized controlled trial of hands-and-knees positioning for occipitoposterior position in labor. Birth, 32(4), 243–251. doi:10.1111/j.0730-7659.2005.00382.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walkowiak, R. G. (1971). Manual rotation of the transverse posterior occiput. Obstet Gynecol, 37(3), 464–467.Google ScholarPubMed
Lowenstein, A., & Zevin, R. (1971). Digital rotation of the vertex. Obstet Gynecol, 37(5), 790–791.Google Scholar
Cargill, Y. M., MacKinnon, C. J., Arsenault, M. Y., Bartellas, E., Daniels, S., Gleason, T., ... Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee. (2004). Guidelines for operative vaginal birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 26(8), 747–761.Google ScholarPubMed
Cruikshank, D. P., & Cruikshank, J. E. (1981). Face and brow presentation: A review. Clin Obstet Gynecol, 24(2), 333–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruikshank, D. P., & White, C. A. (1973). Obstetric malpresentations: Twenty years’ experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 116(8), 1097–1104.Google Scholar
Phelan, J. P., Boucher, M., Mueller, E., McCart, D., Horenstein, J., & Clark, S. L. (1986). The nonlaboring transverse lie. A management dilemma. J Reprod Med, 31(3), 184–186.Google Scholar
Pelosi, M. A., Apuzzio, J., Fricchione, D., & Gowda, V. V. (1979). The “intra-abdominal version technique” for delivery of transverse lie by low-segment cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 135(8), 1009–1011.Google Scholar
Buchanan, E. P., Richardson, R., & Tse, R. (2013) Isolated lower brachial plexus (Klumpe) palsy with compound arm presentations: Case report. J Hand Surg, 38A Aug. 1567–1570.Google Scholar
Tebes, C. C., Mehta, P., Calhoun, D. A., & Richards, D. S. (1999) Congenital ischemic forearm necrosis associated with a compound presentation. J Mat Fet Med, 8:231–233.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.

  • Malpresentation
  • Edited by Martin Olsen, East Tennessee State University
  • Book: Obstetric Care
  • Online publication: 29 September 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316662571.021
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.

  • Malpresentation
  • Edited by Martin Olsen, East Tennessee State University
  • Book: Obstetric Care
  • Online publication: 29 September 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316662571.021
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.

  • Malpresentation
  • Edited by Martin Olsen, East Tennessee State University
  • Book: Obstetric Care
  • Online publication: 29 September 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316662571.021
Available formats
×