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
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Jan 31;2016(1):CD004944.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004944.pub3.

Techniques for assisting difficult delivery at caesarean section

Heather Waterfall  1 , Rosalie M Grivell, Jodie M Dodd
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Techniques for assisting difficult delivery at caesarean section

Heather Waterfall et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Caesarean section involves making an incision in the woman's abdomen and cutting through the uterine muscle. The baby is then delivered through that incision. Difficult caesarean birth may result in injury for the infant or complications for the mother. Methods to assist with delivery include vacuum or forceps extraction or manual delivery utilising fundal pressure. Medication that relaxes the uterus (tocolytic medication) may facilitate the birth of the baby at caesarean section. Delivery of the impacted head after prolonged obstructed labour can be associated with significant maternal and neonatal complication; to facilitate delivery of the head the surgeon may utilise either reverse breech extraction or head pushing.

Objectives: To compare the use of tocolysis (routine or selective use) with no use of tocolysis or placebo and to compare different extraction methods at the time of caesarean section for outcomes of infant birth trauma, maternal complications (particularly postpartum haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion), and long-term measures of infant and childhood morbidity.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria: All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials comparing the use of tocolytic agents (routine or selective) at caesarean section versus no use of tocolytic or placebo at caesarean section to facilitate the birth of the baby. Use of instrument versus manual delivery to facilitate birth of the baby. Reverse breech extraction versus head pushing to facilitate delivery of the deeply impacted fetal head.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

Main results: Seven randomised controlled trials, involving 582 women undergoing caesarean section were included in this review. The risk of bias of included trials was variable, with some trials not adequately describing allocation or randomisation.Three comparisons were included. 1. Tocolysis versus no tocolysisA single randomised trial involving 97 women was identified and included in the review. Birth trauma was not reported. There were no cases of any maternal side-effect reported in either the nitroglycerin or the placebo group. No other maternal and infant health outcomes were reported. 2. Reverse breech extraction versus head push for the deeply impacted head at full dilation at caesarean section Four randomised trials involving 357 women were identified and included in the review. The primary outcome of birth trauma was reported by three trials and there was no difference between reverse breech extraction and head push for this rare outcome (three studies, 239 women, risk ratio (RR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 5.73). Secondary outcomes including endometritis rate (three studies, 285 women, average RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.05, Tau I² = 0.22, I² = 56%), extension of uterine incision (four studies, 357 women, average RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.40), mean blood loss (three studies, 298 women, mean difference (MD) -294.92, 95% CI -493.25 to -96.59; I² = 98%) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)/special care nursery (SCN) admission (two studies, 226 babies, average RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.22, Tau I² = 0.27, I² = 74%) were decreased with reverse breech extraction. No differences were observed between groups for many of the other secondary outcomes reported (blood loss > 500 mL; blood transfusion; wound infection; mean hospital stay; average Apgar score).There was significant heterogeneity between the trials for the outcomes mean blood loss, operative time and mean hospital stay, making comparison difficult. However the operation duration was significantly shorter for reverse breech extraction, which may correspond with ease of delivery and therefore, the amount of tissue trauma and therefore, significantly less blood loss. Given the heterogeneity, we cannot define the amount of difference in blood loss, operative time or hospital stay however. 3. Instrument (vacuum or forceps) versus manual extraction at elective caesarean section Two randomised trials involving 128 women were identified and included in the review. Only one trial reported maternal and infant health outcomes as prespecified in this review. This trial reported birth trauma as an outcome but there were no instances of birth trauma in either comparison group. There were no differences found in mean fall in haemoglobin (Hb) between groups (one study, 44 women, MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.59), or in uterine incision extension (one study, 44 women, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.73).

Authors' conclusions: There is currently insufficient information available from randomised trials to support or refute the routine or selective use of tocolytic agents or instrument to facilitate infant birth at the time of difficult caesarean section. There is limited evidence that reverse breech extraction may improve maternal and fetal outcomes, though there was no difference in primary outcome of infant birth trauma. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to answer these questions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Figures

1
1
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
2
2
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Tocolysis versus placebo, Outcome 1 Maternal side‐effects (not prespecified).
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Reverse breech versus head push, Outcome 1 Infant birth trauma.
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Reverse breech versus head push, Outcome 2 Extension of uterine incision.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Reverse breech versus head push, Outcome 3 Blood loss > 500 mL.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Reverse breech versus head push, Outcome 4 Mean blood loss.
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Reverse breech versus head push, Outcome 5 Blood transfusion.
2.6
2.6. Analysis
Comparison 2 Reverse breech versus head push, Outcome 6 Endometritis.
2.7
2.7. Analysis
Comparison 2 Reverse breech versus head push, Outcome 7 Wound infection.
2.8
2.8. Analysis
Comparison 2 Reverse breech versus head push, Outcome 8 Admission to neonatal special care or intensive care unit.
2.9
2.9. Analysis
Comparison 2 Reverse breech versus head push, Outcome 9 Early neonatal death rate.
2.10
2.10. Analysis
Comparison 2 Reverse breech versus head push, Outcome 10 Mean fall in Hb (not prespecified).
2.11
2.11. Analysis
Comparison 2 Reverse breech versus head push, Outcome 11 Operative time (min).
2.12
2.12. Analysis
Comparison 2 Reverse breech versus head push, Outcome 12 Mean hospital stay (not prespecified).
2.13
2.13. Analysis
Comparison 2 Reverse breech versus head push, Outcome 13 Average Apgar at 5 minutes (not prespecified).
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Elective instrument versus fundal pressure, Outcome 1 Infant birth trauma.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Elective instrument versus fundal pressure, Outcome 2 Extension of uterine incision.
3.3
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Elective instrument versus fundal pressure, Outcome 3 Mean fall in Hb.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Bastani 2012 {published data only}
    1. Veisi F, Zangeneh M, Malekkhosravi S, Rezavand N. Comparison of “push” and “pull” methods for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2012;118:4‐6. - PubMed
Bofill 2000 {published data only}
    1. Bofill JA, Lencki SG, Barhan S, Ezenagu LC. Instrumental delivery of the fetal head at the time of elective repeat cesarean: a randomized pilot study. American Journal of Perinatology 2000;17(5):265‐9. - PubMed
David 1998 {published data only}
    1. David M, Halle H, Lichtenegger W, Sinha P, Zimmermann T. Nitroglycerin to facilitate fetal extraction during cesarean delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1998;91:119‐24. - PubMed
    1. David M, Sehoulo J, Plischek S, Halle H, Lichtenegger W. Nitroglycerin for an intraoperative uterine relaxation during caesarean section ‐ results of a randomised clinical study. Zeitschrift fur Geburtshilfe und Neonatologie 1998;202:168‐71. - PubMed
    1. David M, Walka MM, Schmid B, Sinha P, Veit S, Lichtenegger W. Nitroglycerin application during cesarean delivery: plasma levels, fetal/maternal ratio of nitroglycerin, and effects in newborns. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;182(4):955‐61. - PubMed
Fasubaa 2002 {published data only}
    1. Fasubaa OB, Ezechi OC, Orji EO, Ogunniyi SO, Akindele ST, Loto OM, et al. Delivery of the impacted head of the fetus at caesarean section after prolonged obstructed labour: a randomised comparative study of two methods. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2002;22(4):375‐8. - PubMed
Frass 2011 {published data only}
    1. Frass KA, Al Eryani A, Al‐Harazi AH. Reverse breech extraction versus head pushing in caesarean section for obstructed labour. Saudi Medical Journal 2011;32(12):1261‐6. - PubMed
Owens 2003 {published data only}
    1. 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. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 2003;29(3):152‐6. - PubMed
Veisi 2012 {published data only}
    1. Bastani P, Pourabolghase S, Abbasalizadeh F, Motvalli L. Comparison of neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with head‐pushing and head‐pulling methods for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2012;118:1‐3. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Bellad 2013 {unpublished data only}
    1. Bellad MB. Safety and effectiveness of ventouse extraction versus manual extraction of fetal head at cesarean section ‐ a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Trials Registry ‐ India (http://www.ctri.nic.in/) [accessed 3 September 2015] 2013.
Buhimschi 2002 {published data only}
    1. Buhimischi CS, Buhimischi IA, Malinow AM, Weiner CP. Effects of sublingual nitroglycerin on human uterine contractility during the active phase of labor (abstract). American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001;185:S209. - PubMed
    1. Buhimschi CS, Buhimschi IA, Malinow AM, Wiener CP. Effects of sublingual nitroglycerin on human uterine contractility during the active phase of labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;187:235‐8. - PubMed
Burke 1989 {published data only}
    1. Burke MS, Porreco RP, Day D, Watson JD, Haverkamp AD, Orleans M, et al. Intrauterine resuscitation with tocolysis: an alternate month clinical trial. Journal of Perinatology 1989;9(3):296‐300. - PubMed
Chopra 2009 {published data only}
    1. Chopra S, Bagga R, Keepanasseril A, Jain V, Kalra J, Suri V. Disengagement of the deeply engaged fetal head during cesarean section in advanced labour: Conventional method versus reverse breech extraction. Acta Obstetricia & Gynecologica 2009;88:1163‐6. - PubMed
Eisler 1999 {published data only}
    1. Eisler G, Hjertberg R, Lagercrantz H. Randomised controlled trial of effect of terbutaline before elective caesarean section on postnatal respiration and glucose homeostasis. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition 1999;80:F88‐F92. - PMC - PubMed
Fothergill 1971 {published data only}
    1. Fothergill RJ, Robertson A, Bond RA. Neonatal acidaemia related to procrastination at caesarean section.. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth 1978;78:1010‐23. - PubMed
Hong 1993 {published data only}
    1. Hong YJ, Lin CF, Chen JC, Pan P, Wong KL, Wei TT. Nifedipine in preeclampsia for cesarean section. Acta Anesthesiologica Sinica 1993;31(1):43‐8. - PubMed
Kadhum 2009 {published data only}
    1. Kadhum T. Head pushing versus reverse breech extraction for delivery of impacted head during cesarean section. Kufa Medical Journal 2009;12(1):200‐5.
Kaukinen 1978 {published data only}
    1. Kaukinen S, Kaukinen L. The harmful effects of beta‐2 sympathomimetic drugs as uterine relaxants on caesarean section. Anaesthetist 1978;27(8):388‐91. - PubMed
Kulier 1997 {published data only}
    1. Kulier R, Gulmezoglu AM, Hofmeyr GJ, Gelderen CJ. Betamimetics in fetal distress: randomised controlled trial. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 1997;25(1):97‐100. - PubMed
Kumar Saha 2014 {published data only}
    1. Kumar Saha P, Gulati R, Huria A. Second stage caesarean section: evaluation of Patwardhan technique. Journal of Clinical Diagnostic Research 2014;8(1):93‐5. - PMC - PubMed
Levy 2005 {published data only}
    1. Levy R, Chernomoretz T, Appelman Z, Levin D, Or Y, Hagay Z. Head pushing versus reverse breech extraction in cases of impacted fetal head during cesarean section. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2005;121:24‐6. - PubMed
Magann 1993 {published data only}
    1. Magann EF, Cleveland RS, Dockery JR, Chauhan SP, Martin JN, Morrison JC. Acute tocolysis for fetal distress: terbutaline versus magnesium sulphate. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1993;33(4):362‐4. - PubMed
    1. Magann EF, Norman PF, Bass JD, Chauhan SP, Martin JN, Morrison JC. Acute tocolysis for suspected intrapartum fetal distress: maternal effects of terbutaline versus magnesium sulfate. International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 1995;4:140‐4. - PubMed
Mukhopadhyay 2005 {published data only}
    1. Mukhopadhyay P, Naskar T, Dalui R, Hazra S, Bhattacharya D. Evaluation of Patwardhan's technic ‐ a four year study in a rural teaching hospital. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India 2005;55(3):244‐6.
Naghibi 2008 {published data only}
    1. Naghibi K. Randomized comparison of glyceryl trinitrate and volatile anesthetics to facilitate fetal extraction in cesarean section. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 2008;33(5 Suppl 1):137.
Papanikolaou 2009 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Papanikolaou N, Tillisi A, Louay L, Singh M, Ikomi A, Varma R. Reducing complications related to caesarean section in second stage: UK experience in the use of fetal disimpacting system (FDS). International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2009:S304.
Seal 2013 {published data only}
    1. Seal S, Barman SC, Tibriwal R, De A, Kanrar P, Mukherjii J. Reducing complications in a caesarean section at full dilation using fetal pillow: a prospective randomised trial. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2013;120(Suppl s1):184.
    1. Seal S, Mukherji J. A novel technique to reduce the complications of the 2nd stage caesarean delivery using fetal pillow: A randomised controlled trial. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2015;122(Suppl S1):375.
    1. Seal S, Tibriwal R, Kanrar P, De A, Mukherjii J, Barman SC. Elevating fetal head prior to performing a caesarean section at full dilation using fetal pillow: A prospective randomised trial. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2015;122(Suppl S1):215.
Visser 1979 {published data only}
    1. Visser AA, Prinsloo ST, Giesteria MVK. Suppression of uterine activity with salbutamol before caesarean section. South African Medical Journal 1979;56:1093‐8. - PubMed
Wright 1995 {published data only}
    1. Wright M. Silcup extraction of the fetal head at elective caesarean section. 27th British Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; 1995 July 4‐7; Dublin, Ireland. 1995:Abstract no: 510.

Additional references

Acosta‐Sison 1938
    1. Acosta Sison H, Manilla, P. Forceps for the floating head in low cesarean section. American Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology 1938;35:703‐5.
Berhan 2014
    1. Berhan Y, Berhan A. A meta‐analysis of reverse breech extraction to deliver a deeply impacted head during cesarean delivery. Internation Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2014;124:99‐105. - PubMed
Boehm 1985
    1. Boehm F. Vacuum extraction during caesarean section. Southern Medical Journal 1985;78(12):1502. - PubMed
Crowther 2014
    1. Crowther CA, Brown J, McKinlay CJD, Middleton P. Magnesium sulphate for preventing preterm birth in threatened preterm labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 8. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001060.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
De Costa 2006
    1. Costa C, Howat P. Caesarean Section: A Manual for Doctors. Australasian Medical Publishing, 2006.
Dessole 2004
    1. Dessole S, Cosmi E, Balata A, Uras L, Caserta D, Capobianco G, et al. Accidental fetal lacerations during cesarean delivery. American Journal Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;191(5):1673‐7. - PubMed
Duckitt 2014
    1. Duckitt K, Thornton S, O'Donovan OP, Dowswell T. Nitric oxide donors for treating preterm labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 5. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002860.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Flenady 2014a
    1. Flenady V, Wojcieszek AM, Papatsonis DNM, Stock OM, Murray L, Jardine LA, et al. Calcium channel blockers for inhibiting preterm labour and birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002255.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Flenady 2014b
    1. Flenady V, Reinebrant HE, Liley HG, Tambimuttu EG, Papatsonis DNM. Oxytocin receptor antagonists for inhibiting preterm labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004452.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Fong 1997
    1. Fong YF, Arulkumaran S. Breech extraction ‐ an alternative method of delivering a deeply engaged head at cesarean section. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 1997;56:183‐4. - PubMed
Gyetvai 1999
    1. Gyetvai K, Hannah ME, Hodnett ED, Ohlsson A. Tocolytics for preterm labor: a systematic review. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1999;94:869‐77. - PubMed
Haas 2002
    1. Hass DM, Ayres AW. Laceration injury at cesarean section. Journal of Maternal‐Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2002;11(3):197‐8. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Landesman 1984
    1. Landesman R, Graber E. Abdominovaginal delivery: Modification of the cesarean operation to facilitate delivery of the impacted head. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1984;148:707‐10. - PubMed
Landon 2004
    1. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, Spong CY, Leindecker S, Varner MW, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. New England Journal of Medicine 2004;351:2581‐9. - PubMed
Neilson 2014
    1. Neilson J, West HM, Dowswell T. Betamimetics for inhibiting preterm labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004352.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Pelosi 1984
    1. Pelosi M, Apuzzio J. Use of the soft silicone obstetric vacuum cup for delivery of the fetal head at caesarean section. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1984;29:289‐92. - PubMed
Reinebrant 2015
    1. Reinebrant HE, Pileggi‐Castro C, Romero CLT, dos Santos RAN, Kumar S, Souza J, et al. Cyclo‐oxygenase (COX) inhibitors for treating preterm labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001992.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
RevMan 2014 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Smith 1997
    1. Smith JF, Hernandez C, Wax JR. Fetal laceration injury at cesarean delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1997;90(3):344‐6. - PubMed
Solomens 1962
    1. Solomen, E. Delivery of the head by Malmstrom vacuum extractor during cesarean section. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1962;19:201. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Dodd 2006
    1. Dodd JM, Reid K. Tocolysis for assisting delivery at caesarean section. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004944.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources