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
. 2015 Mar;212(3):355.e1-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.10.023. Epub 2014 Oct 18.

Management of fetal malposition in the second stage of labor: a propensity score analysis

Abigail R Aiken  1 , Catherine E Aiken  2 , Medhat S Alberry  3 , Jeremy C Brockelsby  3 , James G Scott  4
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Management of fetal malposition in the second stage of labor: a propensity score analysis

Abigail R Aiken et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar.

Abstract

Objective: We sought to determine the factors associated with selection of rotational instrumental vs cesarean delivery to manage persistent fetal malposition, and to assess differences in adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes following delivery by rotational instruments vs cesarean delivery.

Study design: We conducted a retrospective cohort study over a 5-year period in a tertiary United Kingdom obstetrics center. In all, 868 women with vertex-presenting, single, liveborn infants at term with persistent malposition in the second stage of labor were included. Propensity score stratification was used to control for selection bias: the possibility that obstetricians may systematically select more difficult cases for cesarean delivery. Linear and logistic regression models were used to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes for delivery by rotational forceps or ventouse vs cesarean delivery, adjusting for propensity scores.

Results: Increased likelihood of rotational instrumental delivery was associated with lower maternal age (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; P < .01), lower body mass index (OR, 0.94; P < .001), lower birthweight (OR, 0.95; P < .01), no evidence of fetal compromise at the time of delivery (OR, 0.31; P < .001), delivery during the daytime (OR, 1.45; P < .05), and delivery by a more experienced obstetrician (OR, 7.21; P < .001). Following propensity score stratification, there was no difference by delivery method in the rates of delayed neonatal respiration, reported critical incidents, or low fetal arterial pH. Maternal blood loss was higher in the cesarean group (295.8 ± 48 mL, P < .001).

Conclusion: Rotational instrumental delivery is often regarded as unsafe. However, we find that neonatal outcomes are no worse once selection bias is accounted for, and that the likelihood of severe obstetric hemorrhage is reduced. More widespread training of obstetricians in rotational instrumental delivery should be considered, particularly in light of rising cesarean delivery rates.

Keywords: cesarean delivery; delivery; fetal malposition; intrapartum care; operative vaginal delivery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure Statement: The authors report no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Senecal J, Xiong X, Fraser WD. Effect of fetal position on second-stage duration and labor outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Apr;105(4):763–72. - PubMed
    1. Gardberg M, Leonova Y, Laakkonen E. Malpresentations--impact on mode of delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011 May;90(5):540–2. - PubMed
    1. Al-Suhel R, Gill S, Robson S, Shadbolt B. Kjelland’s forceps in the new millennium. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of attempted rotational forceps delivery. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009 Oct;49(5):510–4. - PubMed
    1. Healy DL, Quinn MA, Pepperell RJ. Rotational delivery of the fetus: Kielland’s forceps and two other methods compared. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1982 Jul;89(7):501–6. - PubMed
    1. Phipps H, de Vries B, Lee PN, Hyett JA. Management of occiput posterior position in the second stage of labour: a survey of obstetric practice in Australia and New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Oct;52(5):450–4. - PubMed

Publication types