Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2005 Jul 1;121(1):24-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.09.014.

Head pushing versus reverse breech extraction in cases of impacted fetal head during Cesarean section

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Head pushing versus reverse breech extraction in cases of impacted fetal head during Cesarean section

Roni Levy et al. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. .

Abstract

Objective: To compare maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with two methods to extract the impacted fetal head during Cesarean delivery.

Study design: We retrospectively analyzed cases with difficult extraction of the impacted fetal head during Cesarean section. We compared maternal and neonatal outcomes between cases that were delivered by head extraction following pushing through the vagina ('push' method) and those that were delivered by the reverse breech technique ('pull' method).

Results: We reviewed 3105 Cesarean section reports. Difficult extraction necessitating the 'push' or 'pull' methods was noted in 48 (1.5%) instances. Women that were delivered by the 'pull' method had significantly lower rate of postpartum fever (5% versus 46%; odds ratios, 0.06; 95% confidence intervals, 0.007-0.51) and extensions of the uterine incision (15% versus 50%; odds ratio, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.04-0.74) compared to those that were delivered by the 'push' method. Neonatal outcomes were good in all cases.

Conclusions: In cases with difficult extraction of the impacted fetal head during Cesarean section, 'pull' method may result in lower maternal morbidity compared to the traditional 'push' method.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Reverse breech extraction for cesarean section.
    Iffy L, Apuzzio JJ. Iffy L, et al. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006 May 1;126(1):126; author reply 127. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.10.040. Epub 2006 Jan 4. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006. PMID: 16387408 No abstract available.

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types