Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:27:28.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Section 3 - Pathology of Labor and Labor and Delivery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2017

P. Joep Dörr
Affiliation:
HMC Haaglanden Medical Centre, The Hague
Vincent M. Khouw
Affiliation:
VMK Designs, Utrecht
Frank A. Chervenak
Affiliation:
NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital
Amos Grunebaum
Affiliation:
NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital
Yves Jacquemyn
Affiliation:
Antwerp University Hospital
Jan G. Nijhuis
Affiliation:
Maastricht University Medical Centre, the Netherlands
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
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

References

van Everdingen, JE, Burgers, JS, Assendelft, WJJ, et al. Evidence-based richtlijn ontwikkeling. Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum, 2004.Google Scholar
Bhose, L. Compound presentation. A review of 91 cases. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1961;68:307–14.Google Scholar
El-Mowafi, D. Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Complex and breech presentation. http://www.gfmer.chGoogle Scholar
Perkins, R. Compound presentations. eMedicine, 2015. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/262444-overview.Google Scholar
Martius, G. Pathologie der Geburt. In: Martius, G (ed). Lehrbuch der Geburtshilfe. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag, 1971, pp. 374–6.Google Scholar
Asimakopulos, N. Compound presentation: prolapse of three extremities with the head. Can Med Assoc J. 1965;92:929–31.Google Scholar
Newton, P. Foetal arm prolapse and presumed maternal death in a wild hanuman langur (Presbytis entellus). Primates. 1990;31:143–5.Google Scholar
World Health Organization, UNFPA, UNICEF, World Bank (eds). Compound presentation. In: Managing complications in pregnancy and childbirth. A guide for midwives and doctors. Geneva: WHO, 2003. http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/impact/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Vacca, A. The ‘sacral hand wedge’; a cause of arrest of descent of the fetal head during vacuum assisted delivery. BJOG. 2002;109:1063–5.Google Scholar
Tebes, CC, Mehta, P, Calhoun, DA, et al. Congenital ischemic forearm necrosis associated with a compound presentation. J Matern Fetal Med. 1999;8:231–3.Google Scholar
Siassakos, D, Fox, R, Draycott, TJ. Umbilical cord prolapse. Green-top Guideline No 50. RCOG, April 2008.Google Scholar
Lin, MG. Umbilical cord prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2006;61:269–77.Google Scholar
Barclay, M. Umbilical cord prolapse and other cord accidents. In: Sciarra, JJ (ed). Gynecology and obstetrics. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, 1989, p. 1.Google Scholar
Koonings, PP, Paul, RH, Campbell, K. Umbilical cord prolapse. A contemporary look. J Reprod Med. 1990;35:690–2.Google ScholarPubMed
Usta, JM, Mercer, BM, Sibai, BM. Current obstetrical practice and umbilical cord prolapse. Am J Perinatol. 1999;16:479–84.Google Scholar
World Health Organization, UNFPA, UNICEF, World Bank (eds). Prolapsed cord. In: Managing complications in pregnancy and childbirth. A guide for midwives and doctors. Geneva: WHO, 2003. http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/impact/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Carlin, A, Alfirevic, Z. Intrapartum fetal emergencies. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2006;11:150–7.Google Scholar
Ezra, Y, Strasberg, SR, Farine, D. Does cord presentation on ultrasound predict cord prolapse? Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2005;56:69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Loos, RJF, Derom, C, Eeckels, R, et al. Length of gestation and birthweight in dizygotic twins. Lancet. 2001;358:560–1.Google Scholar
Breart, G, Barros, H, Wagener, Y, et al. Characteristics of the childbearing population in Europe. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;111:S4552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruikshank, DP. Intrapartum management of twin gestations. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1167–76.Google Scholar
Cheung, YB, Yip, P, Karlberg, L. Mortality of twins and singletons by gestational age: a varying-coefficient approach. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;152:1107–16.Google Scholar
Lee, YM, Wylie, B, Simpson, L, D’Alton, ME. Twin chorionicity and the risk of stillbirth. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:301–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hack, KE, Derks, JB, Elias, SG, et al. Increased perinatal mortality and morbidity in monochorionic versus dichorionic twin pregnancies: clinical implications of a large Dutch cohort study. BJOG. 2008;115:5867.Google Scholar
Vergani, P, Russo, FM, Follesa, I, et al. Perinatal complications in twin pregnancies after 34 weeks: effects of gestational age at delivery and chorionicity. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30(7):545–50.Google Scholar
Vayssière, C, Benoist, G, Blondel, B, et al. Twin pregnancies: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;156(1):1217. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.12.045CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hack, KE, Derks, JB, Elias, SG, et al Perinatal mortality and mode of delivery in monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies >32 weeks of gestation: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. BJOG. 2011;118:1090–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breathnach, FM, McAuliffe, FM, Geary, M, et al. Optimum timing for planned delivery of uncomplicated monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:50–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, AE, Hopkins, PN, Hsoin-Yi, W, et al. Delivery of monochorionic diamniotic twins in the absence of complications: analysis of neonatal outcome and costs. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:257e17.Google Scholar
Bakr, AF, Karkour, T. What is the optimal gestational age for twin delivery. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2006;6:3.Google Scholar
Dodd, JM, Crowther, CA, Haslam, RR, Robinson, JDS; Twins Timing of Birth Study group. Elective birth at 37 weeks of gestation versus standard care for women with an uncomplicated twin pregnancy near term: the Twins Timing of Birth Randomized Trial. BJOG. 2012; 119:964–73.Google Scholar
Carroll, MA, Yeomans, ER. Vaginal delivery of twins. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49:154–66.Google Scholar
Rossi, AC, Mullin, PM, Chmait, RH. Neonatal outcomes of twins according to birth order, presentation and mode of delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2011;118(5):523–32.Google Scholar
Hofmeyr, GJ, Barrett, JF, Crowther, CA. Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12: CD006553.Google Scholar
Vendetelli, F, Rivière, O, Crenn-Hébert, C, et al. Is a planned cesarean necessary in twin pregnancies? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:1147–58.Google Scholar
Barrett, JFR, Hannah, ME, Hutton, EK, et al. Twin Birth Study Collaborative Group: a randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1295–305.Google Scholar
Griffith, HB. Monoamniotic twin pregnancy. Br J Clin Pract. 1996;40:294–7.Google Scholar
Steins Bisschop, CN, Vogelvang, TE, May, AM, Schuitemaker, NW. Mode of delivery in non-cephalic presenting twins: a systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(1):237–47.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. Lancet. 2000;356:1375–83.Google Scholar
Schmitz, T, de Carnavalet, C, Azria, E, et al. Neonatal outcomes of twin pregnancy according to the planned mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:695703.Google Scholar
Armson, BA, O’Connell, C, Persa, V, et al. Determinants of perinatal mortality and serious morbidity in the second twin. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:556–64.Google Scholar
Zhang, J, Bowes, WA Jr, Grey, TW, et al. Twin delivery and neonatal and infant mortality: a population-based study. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88:593–8.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, NA, Levine, EM. Delivery of the second twin. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;91:217–20.Google Scholar
Amaru, RC, Bush, MC, Berkowitz, RL, et al. Is discordant growth in twins an independent risk factor for adverse neonatal outcome? Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:71–6.Google Scholar
Ford, AA, Bateman, BT, Simpson, L. Vaginal birth after cesarean delivery in twin gestations: a large, nationwide sample of deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(4):1138–42.Google Scholar
Yang, Q, Walker, MC, Chen, XK, et al. Impacts of operative delivery for the first twin on neonatal outcomes in the second twin. Am J Perinatol. 2006;23(7):381–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edris, F, Oppenheimer, L, Yang, Q, et al. Relationship between intertwin delivery interval and metabolic acidosis in the second twin. Am J Perinatol. 2006;23(8):481–5.Google Scholar
Wen, SW, Fung Kee Fung, K, Oppenheimer, L, et al. Neonatal mortality in second twin according to cause of death, gestational age, and mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(3):778–83.Google Scholar
Barrett, J, Bocking, A. The SOGC Consensus Statement: management of twin pregnancies. Part 2. J Soc Obstet Gynecol Can. 2000;22:623.Google Scholar
Robinson, C, Chauhan, SP. Intrapartum management of twins. Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;47:248–62.Google Scholar
Rayburn, WF, Lavin, JP Jr, Miodovnik, M, et al. Multiple gestation: time interval between delivery of first and second twins. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63:502–5.Google Scholar
Brown, HL, Miller, JM Jr, Neumann, DE, et al. Umbilical cord blood gas assessment of twins. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:826–9.Google Scholar
Stein, W, Misselwitz, B, Schmidt, S. Twin-to-twin delivery time interval: influencing factors and effect on short-term outcome of the second twin. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87:346–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sentilhes, L, Bonhours, AC, Biquard, F, et al. Mode d’accouchement des grosses gemellaires. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2009;37:432–41.Google Scholar
Usta, IM, Nassar, AH, Awwad, JT, et al. Comparison of the perinatal morbidity and mortality of the presenting twin and its co-twin. J Perinatol. 2002;22:391–6.Google Scholar
Chauhan, SP, Roberts, WE, McLaren, RA, et al. Delivery of the nonvertex second twin: breech extraction versus external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173:1015–20.Google Scholar
Gocke, SE, Nageotte, MP, Garite, T, et al. Management of the nonvertex second twin: primary cesarean section, external version, or primary breech extraction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;161:111–14.Google Scholar
Wells, SR, Thorp, JM Jr, Bowes, WA Jr. Management of the nonvertex second twin. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991;172:383–5.Google Scholar
Smith, SJ, Zebrowitz, J, Latta, RA. Method of delivery of the nonvertex second twin: a community hospital experience. J Matern Fetal Med. 1997;6:146–50.Google Scholar
Barrett, JF, Ritchie, WK. Twin delivery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;16:4356.Google Scholar
Rabinovici, J, Barkai, G, Reichmann, B, et al. Internal podalic version with unruptured membranes for the second twin in transverse lie. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;71:428–30.Google Scholar
Caukwell, S, Murphy, DJ. The effect of mode of delivery and gestational age on neonatal outcome of the non-cephalic-presenting second twin. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:1356–61.Google Scholar
Baghdadi, S, Gee, H, Whittle, MJ. Twin pregnancy outcome and chorionicity. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82:1821.Google Scholar
Sau, A, Chalmers, S, Shennan, AH, et al. Vaginal delivery can be considered in monochorionic diamniotic twins. BJOG. 2006;113:602–4.Google Scholar
Riethmuller, D, Lantheaume, S, Teffaud, O, et al. [Obstetrical and neonatal prognosis of monoamniotic twin gestations.] J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2004;33(7):632–6.Google Scholar
Sau, AK, Langford, K, Elliott, C, et al. Monoamniotic twins, what should be the optimal antenatal management. Twin Res. 2003;6:270–4.Google Scholar
Kurzel, RB. Twin entanglement revisited. Twin Res. 1998;1(3):138–41.Google Scholar
Dufour, P, Vinatyier, D, Vanderstichele, S, et al. Intravenous nitroglycerin for internal podalic version of the second twin in transverse lie. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:416–19.Google ScholarPubMed

References

Hannah, ME, Hannah, WJ, Hewson, SA, et al; Term Breech Trial Collaborative Group. Planned cesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2000;356:1375–83.Google Scholar
Hanssens, M, Claerhout, F, Corremans, A, et al. Beleid en techniek bij uitwendige kering. In: Slager, E, Fauser, BCJM, Devroey, P, et al. (ed). Infertiliteit, gynaecologie en obstetrie anno 2001 (Nederland) – Congress Proceedings, 2001:300–7.Google Scholar
Grootscholten, K, Kok, M, Oei, SG, et al. External cephalic version-related risks: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(5):1143–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feitsma, AH, Middeldorp, JM, Oepkes, D. De uitwendige versie bij de aterme stuit: een inventariserend onderzoek. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;120:47.Google Scholar
Kok, M, van der Steeg, JW, Mol, BW, et al. Which factors play a role in clinical decision-making in external cephalic version? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(1):31–5.Google Scholar
Rosman, AN, Guijt, A, Vlemmix, F, et al. Contraindications for external cephalic version in breech position at term: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(2):137–42.Google Scholar
Hutton, EK, Hofmeyr, GJ. External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;1:CD000084.Google Scholar
Kok, M, Cnossen, J, Gravendeel, L, et al. Clinical factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):630.e17.Google Scholar
Briggs, ND. Engagement of the fetal head in the negro primigravida. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1981;88(11):1086–9.Google Scholar
Haas, DM, Magann, EF. External cephalic version with an amniotic fluid index < or = 10: a systematic review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;18(4):249–52.Google Scholar
Kok, M, Cnossen, J, Gravendeel, L, et al. Ultrasound factors to predict the outcome of external cephalic version: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(1):7684.Google Scholar
Rovinsky, JJ. Abnormalities of position, lie, presentation and rotation. In: Kaminetsky, HA, Iffy, L (eds). Principles and practice of obstetrics and perinatology. 1st edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981: Chapter 49.Google Scholar
Percival, R. Obstetric operations. In: Percival, R (ed). Holland & Brews’ manual of obstetrics. 14th edition. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1980:614740.Google Scholar
Collaris, RJ, Oei, SG. External cephalic version: a safe procedure? A systematic review of version-related risks. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83(6):511–18.Google Scholar
WHO. The WHO Reproductive Health Library. 1997;8. http://apps.who.int/rhl/archives/cd000083_leder_com/en/Google Scholar
Hofmeyr, GJ, Gyte, GML. Interventions to help external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;1:CD000184.Google Scholar
Kok, M, Bais, JM, van Lith, JM, et al. Nifedipine as uterine relaxant for external cephalic version: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(2Pt1):271–6.Google Scholar
Hutton, EK, Hannah, ME, Ross, SJ, et al. Early ECV2 Trial Collaborative Group. The Early External Cephalic Version (ECV) 2 Trial: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial of timing of ECV for breech pregnancies. BJOG. 2011;118(5):564–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, JE, Dyson, DC. Intrapartum external cephalic version. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985;152:297–8.Google Scholar
Sheiner, E, Abramowicz, JS, Levy, A, et al. Nuchal cord is not associated with adverse perinatal outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2006;274(2):81–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, GP, Weller, RO, Normand, IC, et al. Spinal cord transsection in utero. Br Med J. 1978;2:398.Google Scholar
de Hundt, M, Velzel, J, de Groot, CJ, et al. Mode of delivery after successful external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1327–34.Google Scholar
Corremans, A, Hanssens, M, Gabriëls, K. Arbeid en bevalling na een geslaagde uitwendige kering à terme. Gunaekeia. 2004;9(2):4750.Google Scholar

References

Holmer, AJM, Ten Berge, BS, Van Bouwdijk Bastiaanse, MA, et al (eds). Leerboek der Verloskunde. 3rd edition. Amsterdam: Van Holkema Warendorf, 1963.Google Scholar
Dudenhausen, JW, Pschyrembel, W. Praktische Geburtshilfe. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000.Google Scholar
Cunningham, G, Gant, NF, Leveno, KJ, et al (eds). Williams Obstetrics: Techniques for breech delivery. 21st edition. Stanford, Connecticut: Appleton & Lange, 2001, pp. 495508.Google Scholar
Stoeckel, W. Lehrbuch der Geburtshilfe. 7th edition. Jena: Fisher Verlag, 1943.Google Scholar
Gimovsky, ML, McIlhargie, CJ. Munro Kerr’s operative obstetrics. London: Williams & Wilkins, 1995.Google Scholar
Martius, H. Die geburtshilflichen Operationen. 8th edition. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag, 1958.Google Scholar
Hickock, DE, Gordon, DC, Milberg, JA, et al. The frequency of breech presentation by gestational age at birth: a large population-based study Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:605–18.Google Scholar
Hsieh, YY, Tsai, FJ, Lin, CC, et al. Breech deformation-complex in neonates. J Reprod Med. 2000;45:933–5.Google Scholar
Shipp, TD, Bromley, B, Benacerraf, B. The prognostic significance of hyperextension of the fetal head detected antenatally with ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;15:391–6.Google Scholar
Collea, JV, Rabin, SC, Weghorst, GR, et al. The randomized management of term frank breech presentation. Vaginal delivery vs cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978;131:186–95.Google Scholar
Krebs, L, Langhoff-Roos, J. Breech presentation at term: indications for secondary caesarean section. In: Künzel, W (ed). Breech delivery, European practice in gynaecology and obstetrics. Paris: Éditions Scientifiques et Médicales/Elsevier SAS, 2002, pp. 129–37.Google Scholar
Fischl, F, Janisch, H, Wagner, G. pH-Messungen nach Geburt aus Beckenendlage. Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol. 1979;58:183–7.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, P, Zimmerman, M, Dehnhard, F. Noch eine Untersuchung zur Frage des optimalen Entbindungsmodus bei Beckenendlage. Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol. 1978;57:182–8.Google Scholar
Kubli, F, Boos, W, Rüttgers, H. Caesarean section in the management of singleton breech presentation. In: Rooth, G, Bratteby, LE (eds). Perinatal medicine. 5th European Congress of Perinatal Medicine, Uppsala. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1976, pp. 6975.Google Scholar
Kubli, F. Geburtsleitung bei Beckenendlagen. Gynäkologe. 1975;8:4857.Google Scholar
Flanagan, TA, Mulchahey, KM, Korenbrot, CC, et al. Management of term breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;156:1492–9.Google Scholar
Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists of Canada. Vaginal delivery of breech presentation. Guideline Society of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists of Canada (www.sogc.org). J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009;31:557–66.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, ATM, de Leeuw, JP, Bruinse, HW. Aterme stuitligging: onterechte keus voor de electieve keizersnede als standaardbehandeling vanwege te hoge risico’s voor moeder en haar volgende kinderen. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005;149:2007–10.Google Scholar
Rietberg, C. Term breech delivery in the Netherlands. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Utrecht, 2006.Google Scholar
Goffinet, F, Carayol, M, Foidart, JM, et al. Is planned vaginal delivery for breech presentation still an option? Results of an observational prospective survey in France and Belgium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1002–11.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, ATM. Tien jaar na de Term Breech Trial, een balans voor Nederland. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;124:143–7.Google Scholar
Dutch Society Obstetrics & Gynecology. Guideline Breech Position, 2008. www.nvog.nl.Google Scholar
Bergenhenegouwen, LA, Meertens, LJE, Schaaf, J, et al. Vaginal delivery versus caesarean section in preterm delivery: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;172:16.Google Scholar
Barrett, JFR, Hannah, ME, Hutton, EK, et al. A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:295305.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The management of breech presentation. Guideline No 20b. London: RCOG, 2006.Google Scholar
Su, M, McLeod, L, Ross, S, et al. Factors associated with adverse perinatal outcome in the Term Breech Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:740–5.Google Scholar
Mulder, ME. Het ontwikkelen der armen en de extractie volgens A. Müller. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen, 1908.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, ATM. Handgreep van Mauriceau (Levret-Smellie-Veit) – Eponiemen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;123:8692.Google Scholar
Bracht, E. Vortrag: Zur Manualhilfe bei Beckenendlage. Z Geburtsh Gynäkol. 1936;112:271.Google Scholar
Bracht, E. Zur Behandlung der Steisslage. Handelingen Internationaal Congres voor Verloskunde en Gynaecologie. Congresbericht II. Amsterdam: Brill, 1938, pp. 93–4.Google Scholar
Bracht, E. Zur Beckenendlage-Behandlung. Geburtsh Frauenheilkd. 1965;25:635–7.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, ATM. Methode van Bracht – 70 jaar – Eponiemen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;119:812.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, ATM, de Leeuw, JP. De theorie van de methode van Bracht en de praktische gevolgen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;121:5860.Google Scholar
Løvset, J. Schulterentwicklung ohne Armlösung bei natürlicher und künstlicher Beckenendlage. Arch Gynäkol. 1936;161:397–8.Google Scholar
Løvset, J. Shoulder delivery by breech presentation. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1937;44:696704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Løvset, J. Vaginal operative delivery. Oslo: Scandinavian University Books, 1968.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, ATM. Handgreep van Løvset – 70 jaar Eponiemen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;120:21–3.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, ATM. Dührssense incisies. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;123:61–3.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, ATM. De handgreep van Wigand-Martin- Von Winckel – Eponiemen, Geschiedkundige ontwikkeling en betekenis voor de huidige praktijk. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;121:345–50.Google Scholar
van Loon, AJ, Mantingh, A, Serlier, EK, et al. Randomised controlled trial of magnetic resonance pelvimetry in breech presentation at term. Lancet. 1997;350:1799–804.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, JW de, Struijk, PC, Vierhout, ME, et al. Risk factors for third degree perineal ruptures during delivery. BJOG. 2001;108:383–7.Google Scholar
Kurz, CS, Künzel, W. Fetale Herzfrequenz, Dezelerationsfläche und Säure-Basen-Status bei Entbindung aus Beckenendlage-und Schädellage. Z Geburtshilfe Perinat. 1977;181:916.Ref in: Künzel W (ed). Breech delivery, European practice in gynaecology and obstetrics. Paris: Elsevier, 2002, p. 126.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, JP. Breech presentation vaginal or abdominal delivery? A prospective longitudinal study. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maastricht, 1989.Google Scholar
Brady, K, Duff, P, Read, JA, et al. Reliability of fetal buttock sampling in assessing the acid-base balance of the breech fetus. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:886–8.Google Scholar
Collea, JV, Chein, C, Quilligan, EJ. The randomized management of term frank breech presentation: a study of 208 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980;137:235–44.Google Scholar
Künzel, W, Kirschbaum, M. Management of vaginal delivery in breech presentation at term. In: Künzel, W (ed). Breech delivery, European practice in gynaecology and obstetrics. Paris: Elsevier, 2002.Google Scholar
van Grinsven-Dmitrieva, N, Verhoeven, ATM. Stuitgeboorte volgens Bracht (1935) of Covjanov (1928)… wie had de primeur? Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;126:245–50.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, ATM, De ontwikkeling van de armpjes bij stuitgeboorte volgens Müller – 110 jaar – Eponiemen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;122:251–4.Google Scholar
von Mickulicz-Radecki, F. Geburtshilfe des praktischen Ärztes. 3rd edition. Leipzig: Barth, 1943.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, ATM, Methode volgens Sellheim. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;121:64–6.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, ATM. Handgreep van De Snoo – Eponiemen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;116:101–2.Google Scholar
de Snoo, K. Leerboek der verloskunde. 4th edition. Groningen: Wolters, 1943.Google Scholar
Piper, EB, Backman, C. The prevention of fetal injuries in breech delivery. JAMA. 1929;92:217–21.Google Scholar
Douglas, Gordon R, Stromme, W. Operative obstetrics. 3rd edition. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1976.Google Scholar
Grady, JP, Gimovsky, M. Instrumental delivery: a lost art? In: Studd, J (ed). Progress in obstetrics and gynecology. Vol 10. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1993.Google Scholar
Gabbe, SG, Niebyl, JR, Simpson, JL, et al. Obstetrics, normal and problem pregnancies. 4th edition. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2002.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, ATM. De Piperforceps – 80 jaar – Eponiemen. Ned Tijdschr Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;122:180–5.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, ATM. Handgreep van DeLee. In: Eponiemen en geschiedenis van de stuitgeboorte. Haarlem: DCHG, 2010, pp. 131–7.Google Scholar
Crowther, CA. Caesarean delivery for the second twin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000047.Google Scholar
Ayres, A, Johnson, TR. Management of multiple pregnancy: labor and delivery. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2005;60:550–6.Google Scholar
Rabinovici, J, Barkai, G, Reichman, B, et al. Randomized management of the second nonvertex twin: vaginal delivery or caesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;156:52–6.Google Scholar
Hofmeyr, GJ, Kulier, R. Expedited versus conservative approaches for vaginal delivery in breech presentation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000082.Google Scholar
Usta, IM, Nassar, AH, Awwad, JT, et al. Comparison of the perinatal morbidity and mortality of the presenting twin and its co-twin. J Perinatol. 2002;22:391–6.Google Scholar
Caukwell, S, Murphy, DJ. The effect of mode of delivery and gestational age on neonatal outcome of the non-cephalic-presenting second twin. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:1356–61.Google Scholar

References

Essed, GGM. Complicaties bij kunstverlossingen. In: Heineman, MJ (ed.). Complicaties in obstetrie en gynaecologie. Bussum: Medicom Europe, 1994, pp. 1930.Google Scholar
NVOG. Vaginale kunstverlossing (vacuümextractie, forcipale extractie). NVOG richtlijn, 2005.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Guideline No 26, Operative Vaginal Delivery, 2011.Google Scholar
Lumbiganon, P, Laopaiboon, M, Gülmezoglu, M, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007–8. Lancet. 2010;375:490–9.Google Scholar
Goetzonger, KR, Macones, GA. Operative vaginal delivery: current trends in obstetrics. Womens Health (Lond Engl). 2008;4:281–90.Google Scholar
Births: Final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2012;61:170.Google Scholar
ACOG. Operative vaginal delivery. ACOG Practice Bulletin No 17, 2000.Google Scholar
Meijer, K, Bouman, K, Sollie, KM, et al. Begeleiding van de zwangerschap en de partus bij draagsters van hemofilie. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2008;152:1249–53.Google Scholar
Roberts, IF, Stone, M. Fetal hemorrhage: complication of vacuum extractor after fetal blood sampling. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978;132:109.Google Scholar
Thierry, M. Fetal hemorrhage following blood sampling and use of vacuum extractor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1979;134:251Google Scholar
Wegner, EK, Lockwood, CJ, Baras, VA. Operative vaginal delivery. UpToDate. 2013; April.Google Scholar
Kolderup, LB, Laros, RK Jr, Musci, TJ. Incidence of persistent birth injury in macrosomic infant: association with mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:3741.Google Scholar
Morales, R Adair, CD, Sanchez-Ramos, L, et al. Vacuum extraction of preterm infants with birthweights of 1500 to 2499 grams. J Reprod Med. 1995;40:127–30.Google Scholar
Castro, MA, Hoey, SD, Towner, D. Controversies in the use of the vacuum extractor. Semin Perinatal 2003;27:4653.Google Scholar
Hankins, DV, Rowe, TF. Operative vaginal delivery – Year 2000. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:275–82.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;193:381–6.Google Scholar
Ramphul, M, Kennelly, M, Murphy, DJ. Establishing the accuracy and acceptability of abdominal ultrasound to define the foetal head position in the second stage of labour: a validation study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;164:35–9.Google Scholar
Murphey, DJ, Liebling, RE, Patel, R, et al. Cohort study of operative delivery in the second stage of labour and standard of obstetric care. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;110:610–15.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, JW, de Wit, C, Kuijken, JPJA, et al. Mediolateral episiotomy reduces the risk for anal sphincter injury during operative vaginal delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115:104–8.Google Scholar
Räisänen, SH, Vehviläinen-Julkunen, K, Gissler, M, et al. Lateral episiotomy protects primiparous women from obstetric anal sphincter rupture. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:1365–72.Google Scholar
Macleod, M, Strachan, B, Bahl, R, et al. A prospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115:1688–94.Google Scholar
Murphey, DJ, Macleod, M, Bahl, R, et al. A randomized controlled trial of routine versus restrictive use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery: a multicenter pilot study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115:1695–702.Google Scholar
Anim-Somuah, M, Smyth, RM, Jones, L. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12:CD000331. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub3.Google Scholar
Roberts, CL, Torvaldsen, S, Camaron, CA, et al. Delayed versus early pushing in women with epidural anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2004;111:1333–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torvaldsen, S, Roberts, CL, Bell, JC, et al. Discontinuation of epidural analgesia late in labour for reducing adverse delivery outcomes associated with epidural analgesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD004457.Google Scholar
Johanson, RB, Menon, V. Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 1999;2:CD000224. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000224.Google Scholar
Smit-Wu, MN, Moonen-Delarue, DM, Benders, MJ, et al. Onset of vacuum-related complaints in neonates. Eur J Pediatr. 2006;165:374–9.Google Scholar
Demissie, K, Rhoads, GC, Smulian, JC, et al. Operative vaginal delivery and neonatal and infant adverse outcomes: population based retrospective analyses. BMJ. 2004;329:16.Google Scholar
Towner, D, Castro, MA, Eby-Wilkins, BS, et al. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial delivery. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1709–14.Google Scholar
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 of a randomized controlled study comparing forceps and ventouse. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:544–9.Google Scholar
Sedan, O, Dishi, M, Somekh, E, et al. Vacuum extraction and herpes simplex virus infections. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2005;89:242–6.Google Scholar
Wang, J, Zhu, O, Zhang, X. Effect of delivery mode on maternal-infant transistor of hepatitis B virus by immunoprophylaxis. Chin Med J. 2002;115:1510–12.Google Scholar
MacArthur, C, Glazener, CM, Wilson, PD, et al. Persistent urinary incontinence and delivery mode history: a six-year longitudinal study. BJOG. 2006;113:218–24.Google Scholar
Glazener, CM, Herbison, GP, MacArthur, C, et al. New postnatal urinary incontinence: obstetric and other risk factors in primiparae. BJOG. 2006;113:208–17.Google Scholar
Gartland, D, Donath, S, MacArthur, C, Brown, SJ. The onset, recurrence and associated obstetric risk factors for urine incontinence in the first 18 months after a first birth: an Australian nulliparous cohort study. BJOG. 2012;119:1361–9.Google Scholar
Pretlove, SJ, Thompson, PJ, Toosz-Hobson, PM, et al. Does the mode of delivery predispose women to anal incontinence in the first year postpartum? A comparative systematic review. BJOG. 2008;115:421–34.Google Scholar
Handa, VL, Brubaker, L, Flak, S. Pelvic floor disorders associated with pregnancy. UpToDate. 2008;May.Google Scholar
Tegerstedt, G, Miedel, A, Maehle-Schmidt, M, et al. Obstetric risk factors for symptomatic prolapse: a population-based approach. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:7581.Google Scholar
Essed, GGM. Geschiedenis van de vaginale kunstverlossing. In: Merkus, JMWM (ed.). Obstetrische interventies. Bussum: Medicom Europe, 1991, pp. 315.Google Scholar
O’Grady, JP, McIlhargie, CJ. Instrumental delivery. In: O’Grady, JP, Gomovski, ML, McIlhargie, CJ (eds). Operative obstetrics. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1995.Google Scholar
Johanson, R, Menon, V. Soft versus rigid vacuum extractor cups for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000446. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000446.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J, Lockwood, CJ, Barss, V. Procedure for vacuum assisted operative vaginal delivery. UpToDate. 2013, March.Google Scholar
Suwannachat, B, Lumbiganon, P, Laopaiboon, M. Rapid versus stepwise negative pressure application for vacuum extraction assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD006636. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD006636.pub3.Google Scholar
O’Mahony, F, Hofmeyr, GJ, Menon, V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;11:CD005455. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005455.pub2.Google Scholar
Muise, KL, Duchon, MA, Brown, RH. The effect of artificial caput on performance of vacuum extractors. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81:170–3.Google Scholar

References

Resnik, R. Management of shoulder girdle dystocia. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1980;23:559–64.Google Scholar
Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Guideline Shoulder dystocia. September 2008.Google Scholar
Geary, M, McParland, P, Johnson, H, et al. Shoulder dystocia – is it predictable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995;62:1518.Google Scholar
Gobbo, R, Baxley, EG. Shoulder dystocia. In: Leeman, L (ed.). ALSO: advanced life support in obstetrics provider course syllabus. Leawood: American Academy of Family Physicians, 2000; p. 5.Google Scholar
Baxley, EG, Gobbo, RW. Shoulder dystocia. Am Fam Physician. 2004;69:17072014.Google Scholar
Gaskin, IM. For the first time in history an obstetrical maneuver is named after a midwife. Birth Gaz. 1998;14:50.Google Scholar
Bruner, JP, Drummond, SB, Meenan, AL, et al. All-fours maneuver for reducing shoulder dystocia during labor. J Reprod Med. 1998;43:439–43.Google Scholar
Coppus, SFPJ, Langeveld, J, Oei, SG. Een onderschatte techniek voor het opheffen van schouderdystocie: baren op handen en knieën (‘all-fours manoeuvre’). Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2007;151:1493–7.Google Scholar
Grady, K, Howell, C, Cox, C (eds). Shoulder dystocia. In: The MOET Course Manual, 2nd edition. London: RCOG Press, 2007; pp. 221–33.Google Scholar
Gherman, RB, Ouzounian, JG, Goodwin, TM. Obstetric maneuvers for shoulder dystocia and associated fetal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178:1126–30.Google Scholar
McFarland, MB, Langer, O, Piper, JM, et al. Perinatal outcome and the type and number of maneuvers in shoulder dystocia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1996;55:219–24.Google Scholar
Borell, U, Femstrom, I. A pelvimetric method for the assessment of pelvic mouldability. Acta Radiol. 1957;47:365–70.Google Scholar
Boulvain, M, Stan, C, Irion, O. Elective delivery in diabetic pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;2:CD001997.Google Scholar
Irion, O, Boulvain, M. Induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000938.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. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61904–8.Google Scholar
Metzger, BE; HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:19912002.Google Scholar
Landon, MB, Spong, GY, Thom, E, et al. A multicenter, randomized trial of treatment for mild gestational diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1339–48.Google Scholar
Deering, S, Poggi, S, Macedonia, C, et al. Improving resident competency in the management of shoulder dystocia with simulation. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:1224–8.Google Scholar
Deering, S, Poggi, S, Hodor, J, et al. Evaluation of residents’ delivery notes after a simulated shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:667–70.Google Scholar
Draycott, T, Sibanda, T, Owen, L, et al. Does training in obstetric emergencies improve neonatal outcome? BJOG. 2006;113:177–82.Google Scholar
Draycott, TJ, Crofts, JF, Ash, JP, et al. Improving neonatal outcome through practical shoulder dystocia training. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1420.Google Scholar
Fransen, AF, van de Ven, J, Merién, AE, et al. Effect of obstetric team training on team performance and medical technical skills: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2012;119(11):1387–93.Google Scholar
Grobman, WA, Miller, D, Burke, C, et al. Outcomes associated with introduction of a shoulder dystocia protocol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:513–17.Google Scholar
Grobman, W. Shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2013;40:5967.Google Scholar

References

Mathai, M, Gülmezoglu, AM, Hill, S. WHO Guidelines for the Management of Postpartum Haemorrhage and Retained Placenta. 2009. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/75411/1/9789241548502_eng.pdf?ua=1Google Scholar
Begley, CM, Gyte, GM, Murphy, DJ, et al. Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;7:CD007412.Google Scholar
Deneux-Tharaux, C, Sentilhes, L, Maillard, F, et al. Effect of routine controlled cord traction as part of the active management of the third stage of labour on postpartum haemorrhage: multicentre randomised controlled trial (TRACOR). BMJ. 2013;346:f1541. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1541.Google Scholar
Gulmezoglu, AM, Lumbiganon, P, Landoulsi, S, et al. Active management of the third stage of labour with and without controlled cord traction: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9827):1721–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, SJ, Middleton, P. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;2:CD004074.Google Scholar
Combs, CA, Laros, RK Jr. Prolonged third stage of labor: morbidity and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77(6):863–7.Google Scholar
Dombrowski, MP, Bottoms, SF, Saleh, AA, Hurd, WW, Romero, R. Third stage of labor: analysis of duration and clinical practice. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172(4, Part 1):1279–84.Google Scholar
Adelusi, B, Soltan, MH, Chowdhury, N, Kangave, D. Risk of retained placenta: multivariate approach. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997;76(5):414–18.Google Scholar
Bais, JM, Eskes, M, Pel, M, Bonsel, GJ, Bleker, OP. Postpartum haemorrhage in nulliparous women: incidence and risk factors in low and high risk women. A Dutch population-based cohort study on standard (> or = 500 ml) and severe (> or = 1000 ml) postpartum haemorrhage. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;115(2):166–72.Google Scholar
Chhabra, S, Dhorey, M. Retained placenta continues to be fatal but frequency can be reduced. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;22(6):630–3.Google Scholar
Owolabi, AT, Dare, FO, Fasubaa, OB, et al. Risk factors for retained placenta in southwestern Nigeria. Singapore Med J. 2008;49(7):532–7.Google Scholar
Panpaprai, P, Boriboonhirunsarn, D. Risk factors of retained placenta in Siriraj Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai. 2007;90(7):1293–7.Google Scholar
Soltan, MH, Khashoggi, T. Retained placenta and associated risk factors. J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;17(3):245–7.Google Scholar
Tandberg, A, Albrechtsen, S, Iversen, OE. Manual removal of the placenta: incidence and clinical significance. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999;78(1):33–6.Google Scholar
Titiz, H, Wallace, A, Voaklander, DC. Manual removal of the placenta – a case control study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;41(1):41–4.Google Scholar
Weeks, AD. The retained placenta. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;22(6):1103–17.Google Scholar
Onwudiegwu, U, Makinde, ON. Retained placenta: a cause of reproductive morbidity in Nigeria. J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;19(4):355–9.Google Scholar
Cheung, WM, Hawkes, A, Ibish, S, Weeks, AD. The retained placenta: historical and geographical rate variations. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31(1):3742.Google Scholar
Endler, M, Grunewald, C, Saltvedt, S. Epidemiology of retained placenta: oxytocin as an independent risk factor. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(4):801–9.Google Scholar
Westerhoff, G, Cotter, AM, Tolosa, JE. Prophylactic oxytocin for the third stage of labour to prevent postpartum haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;10:CD001808. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001808.pub2.Google Scholar
Liabsuetrakul, T, Choobun, T, Peeyananjarassri, K, Islam, QM. Prophylactic use of ergot alkaloids in the third stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:CD005456.Google Scholar
Gulmezoglu, AM, Forna, F, Villar, J, Hofmeyr, GJ. Prostaglandins for preventing postpartum haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;3:CD000494.Google Scholar
McDonald, S, Abbott, JM, Higgins, SP. Prophylactic ergometrine-oxytocin versus oxytocin for the third stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;1:CD000201.Google Scholar
Leung, SW, Ng, PS, Wong, WY, Cheung, TH. A randomised trial of carbetocin versus syntometrine in the management of the third stage of labour. BJOG. 2006;113(12):1459–64.Google Scholar
Giacalone, PL, Vignal, J, Daures, JP, Boulot, P, Hedon, B, Laffargue, F. A randomised evaluation of two techniques of management of the third stage of labour in women at low risk of postpartum haemorrhage. BJOG. 2000;107(3):396400.Google Scholar
Chongsomchai, C, Lumbiganon, P, Laopaiboon, M. Prophylactic antibiotics for manual removal of retained placenta in vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2:CD004904.Google Scholar
Weeks, AD, Alia, G, Vernon, G, et al. Umbilical vein oxytocin for the treatment of retained placenta (Release Study): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9709):141–7.Google Scholar
van Beekhuizen, HJ, de Groot, AN, De Boo, T, et al. Sulprostone reduces the need for the manual removal of the placenta in patients with retained placenta: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(2):446–50.Google Scholar
van Beekhuizen, HJ, Tarimo, V, Pembe, AB, Fauteck, H, Lotgering, FK. Misoprostol is not beneficial in the treatment of retained placenta in a low-resource setting. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;122(3):234–7.Google Scholar
van Stralen, G, Veenhof, M, Holleboom, C, van Roosmalen, J. No reduction of manual removal after misoprostol for retained placenta: a double-blind, randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(4):398403.Google Scholar
Johanson, R, Cox, C, Grady, K, Howell, C, editors. Managing Obstetric Emergencies and Trauma: The MOET Course Manual. 2nd edition. London: RCOG Press; 2007.Google Scholar
Rao, KP, Belogolovkin, V, Yankowitz, J, Spinnato, JA. Abnormal placentation: evidence-based diagnosis and management of placenta previa, placenta accreta, and vasa previa. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2012;67(8):503–19.Google Scholar
Herman, A. Complicated third stage of labor: time to switch on the scanner. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;15(2):8995.Google Scholar

References

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Placenta accreta. ACOG. 2012;529:207–11.Google Scholar
O’Brien, JM, Barton, JR, Donaldson, ES. The management of placenta percreta: conservative and operative strategies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:1632–8.Google Scholar
Wu, S, Kocherginsky, M, Hibbard, JU. Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1458–61.Google Scholar
Miller, DA, Chollet, JA, Goodwin, TM. Clinical risk factors for placenta previa-placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:210–14.Google Scholar
Higgins, MF, Monteith, C, Foley, M, O’Herlihy, C. Real increasing incidence of hysterectomy for placenta accreta following previous caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;171:54–6.Google Scholar
Morlando, M, Sarno, L, Napolitano, R, et al. Placenta accreta: incidence and risk factors in an area with a particularly high rate of cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:457–60.Google Scholar
Al-Serehi, A, Mhoyan, Q, Brown, M, et al. Placenta accreta: an association with fibroids and Asherman syndrome. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:1623–8.Google Scholar
Hamar, BD, Wolff, EF, Kodaman, PH, et al. Premature rupture of membranes, placenta increta and hysterectomy in a pregnancy following endometrial ablation. J Perinatol. 2006;26:135–7.Google Scholar
Pron, G, Mocarski, E, Bennet, J, et al. Pregnancy after uterine artery embolization for leiomyomata: the Ontario multicenter trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:8996.Google Scholar
Silver, RM, Landon, MB, Rouse, DJ, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1226–32.Google Scholar
Eshkoli, T, Weintraub, AY, Sergienko, R, Sheiner, E. Placenta accreta: risk factors, perinatal outcomes, and consequences for subsequent births. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:219.e1–7.Google Scholar
Kamara, M, Henderson, JJ, Doherty, DA, et al. The risk of placenta accreta following primary elective caesarean delivery: a case-control study. BJOG. 2013;120:879–86.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 27: Placenta praevia, placenta praevia accreta and vasa praevia: diagnosis and management. London: RCOG, 2011.Google Scholar
Calì, G, Giambanco, L, Puccio, G, Forlani, F. Morbidly adherent placenta: evaluation of ultrasound diagnostic criteria and differentiation of placenta accreta from percreta. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:406–12.Google Scholar
D’Antonio, F, Iacovella, C, Bhide, A. Prenatal identification of invasive placentation using ultrasound: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42:509–17.Google ScholarPubMed
Shih, JC, Palacios Jaraquemada, JM, Su, YN, et al. Role of three-dimensional power Doppler in the antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: comparison with gray-scale and color Doppler techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:193203.Google Scholar
Comstock, CH. Antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:8996.Google Scholar
Warshak, CR, Eskander, R, Hull, AD, et al. Accuracy of ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:573–81.Google Scholar
Dwyer, BK, Belogolovin, V, Tran, L, et al. Prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: sonography or magnetic resonance imaging? J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:1275–81.Google Scholar
Masseli, G, Brunelli, R, Casciani, E, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of placental adhesive disorders: correlation with color Doppler ultrasound. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:1292–9.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 95: anemia in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:201–7.Google Scholar
Eller, AG, Porter, TF, Soisson, P, et al. Optimal management strategies for placenta accreta. BJOG. 2009;116:648–54.Google Scholar
Stutchfield, P, Whitaker, R, Russell, I; Antenatal Steroids for Term Elective Caesarean Section (ASTECS) Research Team. Antenatal betamethasone and incidence of neonatal respiratory distress after elective caesarean section: pragmatic randomised trial. BMJ. 2005;331:662.Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Green-top Guideline No. 7: Antenatal corticosteroids to reduce neonatal morbidity and mortality. London: RCOG, 2010.Google Scholar
Rao, KP, Belogolovkin, V, Yankowitz, Y, et al. Abnormal placentation: evidence-based diagnosis and management of placenta previa, placenta accreta and vasa previa. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2012;67:503–19.Google Scholar
Eller, AG, Bennett, MA, Sharshiner, M, et al. Maternal morbidity in cases of placenta accreta managed by a multidisciplinary care team compared with standard obstetric care. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:331–7.Google Scholar
Hoffman, MS, Karlnoski, RA, Mangar, D, et al. Morbidity associated with nonemergent hysterectomy for placenta accreta. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:628.e15.Google Scholar
Kato, R, Terui, K, Yokota, K, et al. Anesthetic management for cases of placenta accreta presented for cesarean section: a 7-year single-center experience [article in Japanese; English abstract]. Masui. 2008;57:1421–6.Google Scholar
Dutch Blood Transfusion Guideline, 2011. Core group: Haas, F.J.L.M., Prof. van Rhenen, D.J., Prof. de Vries, R.R.P., Mrs. Overbeeke, M.A.M., Dr Novotny, V.M.J., Dr Henny, Ch.P.. http://www.sanquin.nl/repository/documenten/en/prod-en-dienst/287294/blood-transfusion-guideline.pdfGoogle Scholar
Timmermans, S, van Hof, AC, Duvekot, JJ. Conservative management of abnormally invasive placentation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2007;62:529–39.Google Scholar
Bretelle, F, Courbiere, B, Mazouni, C, et al. Management of placenta accreta: morbidity and outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;133:34–9.Google Scholar
Sentilhes, L, Ambroselli, C, Kayem, G, et al. Maternal outcome after conservative treatment of placenta accreta. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:526–34.Google Scholar
Arulkumaran, S, Ng, CS, Ingemarsson, I, et al. Medical treatment of placenta accreta with methotrexate. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986;65:285–6.Google Scholar
Winick, M, Coscia, A, Noble, A. Cellular growth in human placenta: normal placental growth. Pediatrics. 1967;39:248–51.Google Scholar
Sentilhes, L, Kayem, G, Ambroselli, C, et al. Fertility and pregnancy outcomes following conservative treatment for placenta accreta. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2803–10.Google Scholar
Kayem, G, Clement, D, Goffinet, F. Recurrence following conservative management of placenta accreta. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;99:142–3.Google Scholar

References

Zwart, JJ, Richters, JM, Öry, F, et al. Severe maternal morbidity during pregnancy, delivery and puerperium in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based study of 371000 pregnancies. BJOG. 2008;115:842–50.Google Scholar
Cunningham, FG, Gant, NF, Leveno, KJ, et al. Williams obstetrics. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 2001.Google Scholar
Witteveen, T, van Stralen, G, Zwart, J, van Roosmalen, J. Puerperal uterine inversion in the Netherlands: a nationwide cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(3):334–7.Google Scholar
Kochenour, NK. Diagnosis and management of uterine inversion. In: Hankins, GDV, Clark, SL, Cunningham, FG, et al (eds). Operative obstetrics. Connecticut: Appleton & Lange, 1995: pp. 273–81.Google Scholar
Soleymani Majd, H, Pilsniak, A, Reginald, PW. Recurrent uterine inversion: a novel treatment approach using SOS Bakri balloon. BJOG. 2009;116:9991001.Google Scholar
Grady, K, Howell, C, Cox, C. Managing obstetric emergencies and trauma: The MOET course manual. Uterine inversion. London: RCOG Press, 2007: pp. 239–42.Google Scholar
Brar, HS, Greenspoon, JS, Platt, LD, et al. Acute puerperal uterine inversion: New approaches to management. J Reprod Med. 1989;34:173–7.Google Scholar

References

Leith, CR, Walker, JJ. The rise in caesarean section rate: the same indications but a lower threshold. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;105:621–6.Google Scholar
Wax, JR. Maternal request cesarean versus planned spontaneous vaginal delivery: maternal morbidity and short term outcomes. Semin Perinatol. 2006;30:247–52.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG committee opinion no. 559: Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:904–7.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
Ecker, JL, Frigoletto, FD. Cesarean delivery and the risk–benefit calculus. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:885–8.Google Scholar
Althabe, F, Sosa, C, Belizan, JM, et al. Cesarean section rates and maternal and neonatal mortality in low-, medium-, and high-income countries: an ecological study. Birth. 2006;33:270–7.Google Scholar
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. NICE Clinical Guideline. Caesarean section. Commissioned by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. London: RCOG Press, 2004. http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/CG013fullguideline.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hofmeyr, GJ, Smaill, FM. Antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;3:CD000933. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000933, 2002.Google Scholar
Costantine, MM, Rahman, M, Ghulmiyah, L, et al. Timing of perioperative antibiotics for cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:301.e1–6.Google Scholar
Tita, AT, Rouse, DJ, Blackwell, S, et al. Emerging concepts in antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean delivery: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:675–82.Google Scholar
Lamont, RF, Sobel, JD, Kusanovic, JP, et al. Current debate on the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section. BJOG. 2011;118:193201.Google Scholar
Anderson, SB, Lin, SN, Reiss, J, Skupski, D, Grunebaum, A. Peripartum thromboprophylaxis before and after implementation of a uniform heparin protocol. J Perinat Med. 2014;42:219–23.Google Scholar
Quiñones, JN, James, DN, Stamilio, DM, et al. Thromboprophylaxis after cesarean delivery: a decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:733–40.Google Scholar
Su, LL, Chong, YS, Samuel, M. Carbetocin for preventing postpartum haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;4:CD005457.Google Scholar
Borruto, F, Treiser, A, Comparetto, C. Utilization of carbetocin for prevention of postpartum hemorrhage after caesarean section: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280(5):707–12. DOI 10.1007/S00404-009–0973-8.Google Scholar
Peters, NCJ, Duvekot, JJ. Carbetocin for the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage. A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2009;64:129–35.Google Scholar
Cluver, C, Novikova, N, Hofmeyr, GJ, et al. Maternal position during caesarean section for preventing maternal and neonatal complications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD007623. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007623.Google Scholar
Senanayake, H. Elective cesarean section without urethral catheterization. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;31:32–7.Google Scholar
Usta, IM, Hobeika, EM, Musa, AA, et al. Placenta previa-accreta: risk factors and complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1045–9.Google Scholar
Clark, SL, Koonings, PP, Phelan, JP. Placenta previa/accreta and prior cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;66:8992.Google Scholar
Mazouni, C, Gorincour, G, Juhan, V, et al. Placenta accreta: a review of current advances in prenatal diagnosis. Placenta. 2007;28:599603.Google Scholar
Wu, S, Kocherginsky, M, Hibbard, JU. Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1458–61.Google Scholar
Rac, MW, Dashe, JS, Wells, CE, et al. Ultrasound predictors of placental invasion: the Placenta Accreta Index. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:343.e1–7.Google Scholar
Comstock, CH. Antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:8996.Google Scholar
Su, TM, Lan, CM, Yang, LC, et al. Brain tumor presenting with fatal herniation following delivery under epidural anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:508–9.Google Scholar
Butwick, AJ, Carvalho, B. Neuraxial anesthesia in obstetric patients receiving anticoagulant and antithrombotic drugs. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2010;19:193201.Google Scholar
Jenkins, JG, Khan, MM. Anaesthesia for caesarean section: a survey in a UK region from 1992 to 2002. Anaesthesia. 2003;58:1114–18.Google Scholar
Hager, RME, Daltveit, AK, Hofoss, D, et al. Complications of cesarean deliveries: rates and risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;109:428–32.Google Scholar
Afolabi, BB, Lesio, FEA. Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;10:CD004350.Google Scholar
Ong, BY, Cohen, MM, Palahniuk, RJ. Anesthesia for cesarean section – effects on neonates. Anesth Analg. 1989;100:50–4.Google Scholar
Lagrew, DC, Bush, MC, McKeown, AM, et al. Emergent (crash) cesarean delivery indications and outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1638–43.Google Scholar
Abrams, B, Parker, J. Overweight and pregnancy complications. Int J Obes. 1988;12:293303.Google Scholar
Soens, MA, Birnbach, DJ, Ranasinghe, JS, et al. Obstetric anesthesia for the obese and morbidly obese patient: an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of treatment. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008;52:619.Google Scholar
Hood, DD, Dewan, DM. Anesthetic and obstetric outcome in morbidly obese patients. Anesthesiology. 1993;79:1210–18.Google Scholar
Munnur, U, de Boisblanc, B, Suresh, MS. Airway problems in pregnancy. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(suppl 10):S259–68.Google Scholar
Jordan, H, Perlow, MD, Mark, A, et al. Massive maternal obesity and perioperative caesarean morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:560–5.Google Scholar
Rothrock, RA, Kabiru, W, Kelbick, N, et al. Maternal obesity and postcesarean infectious morbidity. Obstet Gynecol. 2006:107:675.Google Scholar
Terris, DJ, Seybt, MW, Elchoufi, M, et al. Cosmetic thyroid surgery: defining the essential principles. Laryngoscope. 2007;117:1169–72.Google Scholar
Hasselgren, PO, Hagberg, E, Malmer, H, et al. One instead of two knives for surgical incision. Does it increase the risk of postoperative wound infection? Arch Surg. 1984;119:917–20.Google Scholar
Lipscomb, GH, Givens, VM. Preventing electrosurgical energy-related injuries. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2010;37:369–77.Google Scholar
Kearns, SR, Connolly, EM, McNally, S, et al. Randomized clinical trial of diathermy versus scalpel incision in elective midline laparotomy Br J Surg. 2001;88:41–4.Google Scholar
Makoha, FW, Fathuddien, MA, Felimban, HM. Choice of abdominal incision and risk of trauma to the uterine bladder and bowel in multiple cesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;125:50–3.Google Scholar
Loos, MJ, Scheltinga, MR, Mulders, LG, Roumen, RM. The Pfannenstiel incision as a source of chronic pain. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:839–46.Google Scholar
Joel-Cohen, S. Abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies. New techniques based on time and motion studies. London: W Heinemann Books, 1972, p.170.Google Scholar
Stark, M. Clinical evidence that suturing the peritoneum after laparotomy is unnecessary. World J Surg. 1993;17:419.Google Scholar
Stark, M, Finkel, AR. Comparison between the Joel-Cohen and Pfannenstiel incisions in caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1994;53:121–2.Google Scholar
Hohlagschwandter, M, Ruecklinger, E, Husslein, P, et al. Is the formation of a bladder flap at cesarean necessary? A randomised trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:1089–92.Google Scholar
Mahajan, NN. Justifying formation of bladder flap at cesarean section? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;279:853–5.Google Scholar
Tuuli, MG, Odibo, AO, Fogertey, P, et al. Utility of the bladder flap at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:815–21.Google Scholar
Stark, M, Chavkin, Y, Kupfersztain, C, et al. Evaluation of combinations of procedures in cesarean section. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1993;48:273–6.Google Scholar
Holmgren, G, Sjoholm, L, Stark, M. The Misgav-Ladach method for cesarean section: method description. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1999;78:615–21.Google Scholar
Kadir, RA, Khan, A, Wilcock, F, Chapman, L. Is inferior dissection of the rectus sheath necessary during pfannenstiel incision for lower segment caesarean section? A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;128:262–6.Google Scholar
Giacalone, PL, Daures, JP, Vignal, J, et al. Pfannenstiel verus Maylard incision for cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:745–50.Google Scholar
Tixier, H, Thouvenot, S, Coulange, L, et al. Cesarean section in morbidly obese women: supra or subumbilical transverse incision? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:1049–52.Google Scholar
Hema, KR, Johanson, R. Techniques for performing caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15:1747.Google Scholar
Magann, EF, Chauhan, SP, Bufkin, L, et al. Intra-operative haemorrhage by blunt versus sharp expansion of the uterine incision at caesarean delivery a randomised clinical study. BJOG. 2002;109:448–52.Google Scholar
Dodd, JM, Anderson, ER, Gates, S. Surgical techniques for uterine incision and uterine closure at the time of caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD004732. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004732.pub2.Google Scholar
Cromi, A, Ghezzi, F, Di Naro, E, et al. Blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision at caesarean delivery a randomised comparison of 2 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:292.e16.Google Scholar
Picone, O, Fubini, A, Doumere, S, et al. Cesarean delivery by posterior hysterotomy due to torsion of the pregnant uterus. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:533–5.Google Scholar
Gilson, GJ, Kephart, WH, Izquierdo, LA, et al. Comparison of absorbable uterine staples and traditional hysterotomy during cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:384–8.Google Scholar
Levy, R, Chernomoretz, T, Appelman, Z, et al. Head pushing versus reverse breech extraction in cases of impacted head during Cesarean section Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;121:24–6.Google Scholar
Bastani, P, Pourabolghasem, S, Abbasalizadeh, F, Motvalli, L. Comparison of neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with head-pushing and head-pulling for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;118:13. Erratum in Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;119:292.Google Scholar
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. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2003;29:152–6.Google Scholar
David, M, Halle, H, Lichtenegger, W, et al. Nitroglycerin to facilitate fetal extraction during cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:119–24.Google Scholar
Dodd, JM, Reid, K. Tocolysis for assisting delivery at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2:CD004944. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004944.Google Scholar
Smith, GN, Brien, JF. Use of nitroglycerin for uterine relaxation. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1998;53:559–65.Google Scholar
Clift, K, Clift, J. Uterine relaxation during caesarean section under regional anaesthesia: a survey of UK obstetric anaesthetists. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2008;17:374–5.Google Scholar
Anorlu, RI, Maholwana, B, Hofmeyr, GJ. Methods of delivering the placenta at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;3:CD004737. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004737.pub2.Google Scholar
Hidar, S, Jennane, TM, Bouguizane, S, et al. The effect of placental removal method at caesarean section delivery on preoperative hemorrhage: a randomized clinical trial ISRCTN 49779257. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;117:179–82.Google Scholar
Dehbashi, S, Honarvar, M, Fardi, FH. Manual removal or spontaneous placental delivery and postcesarean endometritis and bleeding. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;86:1215.Google Scholar
Morales, M, Ceysens, G, Jastrow, N, et al. Spontaneous delivery or manual removal of the placenta during caesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. BJOG. 2004;111:908–12.Google Scholar
van Rheenen, P. Delayed cord clamping and improved infant outcomes. BMJ. 2011;343:d7127.Google Scholar
Andersson, O, Hellström-Westas, L, Andersson, D, Clausen, J, Domellöf, M. Effects of delayed compared with early umbilical cord clamping on maternal postpartum hemorrhage and cord blood gas sampling: a randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(5):567–74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600–0412.2012.01530.Google Scholar
Andersson, O, Hellström-Westas, L, Andersson, D, Domellöf, M. Effect of delayed versus early umbilical cord clamping on neonatal outcomes and iron status at 4 months: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d7157.Google Scholar
Timor-Tritsch, IE, Monteagudo, A. Unforeseen consequences of the increasing rate of cesarean deliveries: early placenta accreta and cesarean scar pregnancy. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:1429.Google Scholar
RCOG. Guideline no. 27: Placenta praevia, placenta praevia accreta and vasa praevia: diagnosis and management, 2011. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg27Google Scholar
Vrachnis, N, Iavazzo, C, Salakos, N, et al. Uterine tamponade balloon for the management of massive hemorrhage during cesarean section due to placenta previa/increta. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39:255–7.Google Scholar
Ishii, T, Sawada, K, Koyama, S, et al. Balloon tamponade during cesarean section is useful for severe post-partum hemorrhage due to placenta previa. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2012;38:102–7.Google Scholar
Penotti, M, Vercellini, P, Bolis, G, Fedele, L. Compressive suture of the lower uterine segment for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage due to complete placenta previa: a preliminary study. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2012;73:314–20.Google Scholar
Amorim-Costa, C, Mota, R, Rebelo, C, Silva, PT. Uterine compression sutures for postpartum hemorrhage: is routine postoperative cavity evaluation needed? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:701–6.Google Scholar
Jacobs-Jokhan, D, Hofmeyr, GJ. Extra-abdominal versus intra-abdominal repair of the uterine incision at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD000085. DOI: 10.1002Z14651858.CD000085.pub2.Google Scholar
Coutinho, IC, Ramos de Amorim, MM, Katz, L, et al. Uterine exteriorization compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:639–47.Google Scholar
Orji, EO, Olaleye, AO, Loto, OM, Ogunniyi, SO. A randomised controlled trial of uterine exteriorisation and non-exteriorisation at caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;48:570–4.Google Scholar
Wahab, MA, Karantis, P, Eccersley, PS, et al. A randomised, controlled study of uterine exteriorisation and repair at caesarean section. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:913–16.Google Scholar
Siddiqui, M, Goldszmidt, E, Fallah, S, et al. Complications of exteriorized compared with in situ repair at cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:570–5.Google Scholar
Nafisi, S. Influence of uterine exteriorization versus in situ repair on post-cesarean maternal pain: a randomized trial. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2007;16:135–8.Google Scholar
Ozbay, K. Exteriorized versus in-situ repair of the uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:155–8.Google Scholar
Kearns, SR, Connolly, EM, McNally, S, et al. Infection rates after cesarean delivery with exteriorized versus intraperitoneal uterine closure. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:6895.Google Scholar
CAESAR Study Collaborative Group. Caesarean section surgical techniques: a randomised factorial trial (CAESAR). BJOG. 2010;117:1366–76.Google Scholar
Hamar, BD, Saber, SB, Cackovic, M, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial of one- and two-layer closure. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:808–13.Google Scholar
Lal, K, Tomso, K. Comparative study of single and conventional closure of uterine incision in cesarean section. Int J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;27:349–52.Google Scholar
Chapman, SJ, Owen, J, Hauth, JC. One- versus two-layer closure of a low transverse cesarean: the next pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:1618.Google Scholar
Bujold, E, Bujold, C, Hamilton, EF, et al. The impact of a single-layer or double-layer closure on uterine rupture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1326–30.Discussion: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;189:895–6.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;115:510.Google Scholar
Berghella, V, Baxter, JK, Chauhun, SP. Evidence-based surgery for cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1607–17.Google Scholar
Oligbo, N, Revicky, V, Udeh, R. Pomeroy technique or Filshie clips for postpartum sterilisation? Retrospective study on comparison between Pomeroy procedure and Filshie clips for a tubal occlusion at the time of Caesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;28:1073–5.Google Scholar
Ozyer, S, Moraloğlu, O, Gülerman, C, et al. Tubal sterilization during cesarean section or as an elective procedure? Effect on the ovarian reserve. Contraception. 2012;86:488–93.Google Scholar
Nelson, AL, Chen, S, Eden, R. Intraoperative placement of the Copper T-380 intrauterine devices in women undergoing elective cesarean delivery: a pilot study. Contraception. 2009;80:81–3.Google Scholar
Grundsell, HS, Rizk, DEE, Kumar, MR. Randomized study of non-closure of peritoneum in lower segment cesarean section. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;77:110–15.Google Scholar
Makoha, FW, Felimban, HM, Fathuddien, MA, et al. Multiple cesarean section morbidity. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2004;68:227–32.Google Scholar
Nabhan, AF. Long-term outcomes of two different surgical techniques for cesarean. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;100:6975.Google Scholar
Kapustian, V, Anteby, EY, Gdalevich, M, et al. Effect of closure versus nonclosure of peritoneum at cesarean section on adhesions: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:56.e1–4.Google Scholar
Shi, Z, Ma, L, Yang, Y, et al. Adhesion formation after previous caesarean section–a meta-analysis and systematic review. BJOG. 2011;118:410–22.Google Scholar
Bamigboje, AA, Hofmeyr, GJ. Closure versus non-closure of the peritoneum at cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;4:CD000163. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000163.Google Scholar
Rafique, Z, Shibli, KU, Russell, LF, et al. A randomised controlled trial of the closure or non-closure of peritoneum at caesarean section: effect on post-operative pain. BJOG. 2002;109:694–8.Google Scholar
Zareian, Z, Zareian, P. Non-closure versus closure of peritoneum during cesarean section: a randomized study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;128:267–9.Google Scholar
Lyell, DJ, Caughy, AB, Hu, E, et al. Peritoneal closure at primary cesarean delivery and adhesions. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:275–80.Google Scholar
Anderson, ER, Gates, S. Techniques and materials for closure of the abdominal wall in caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD004663. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004663.pub2.Google Scholar
Gaertner, I, Burkhardt, T, Beinder, E. Scar appearance of different skin and subcutaneous tissue closure techniques in caesarean section: a randomized study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;138:2933.Google Scholar
Alderdice, F, McKenna, D, Dorman, J. Techniques and materials for skin closure in caesarean section (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library Issue 2. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2004.Google Scholar
Clay, FSH, Walsh, CA, Walsh, SR. Staples vs subcuticular sutures for skin closure at cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;202:378–83.Google Scholar
Rousseau, J-A, Girard, K, Turcot-Lemay, L, Thomas, N. A randomized study comparing skin closure in cesarean sections: staples vs subcuticular sutures. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:265.e14.Google Scholar
Ferrari, AG, Frigero, LG, Candotti, G, et al. Can Joel-Cohen incision and single layer reconstruction reduce cesarean section morbidity? Int J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;72:135–43.Google Scholar
Mathai, M, Hofmeyr, GJ. Abdominal surgical incisions for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;1:CD004453. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004453.pub2.Google Scholar
Hofmeyr, GJ, Mathai, M, Shah, AN, et al. Techniques for caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;1:CD004662. DOI: 10.1002Z14651858.CD004662.pub2.Google Scholar
Joura, EA, Nather, A, Husslein, P. Non-closure of peritoneum and adhesions: the repeat caesarean section (letter). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80;286.Google Scholar
Wechter, ME, Pearlman, MD, Hartmann, KE. Reclosure of the disrupted laparotomy wound: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:376–83.Google Scholar
Hansen, AK, Wisborg, K, Uldbjerg, N, et al. Elective caesarean section and respiratory morbidity in the term and near-term neonate. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86:389–94.Google Scholar
Gerten, KA, Coonrod, DV, Bay, RC, et al. Cesarean delivery and respiratory distress syndrome: does labor make a difference? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1061–4.Google Scholar
LeRay, C, Boithias, C, Castaigne-Meary, V, et al. Caesarean before labour between 34 and 37 weeks: what are the risk factors of severe neonatal repiratory distress? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;127:5660.Google Scholar
van den Berg, A, van Elburg, RM, van Geijn, HP, et al. Neonatal respiratory morbidity following elective caesarean section in term infants: a 5-year retrospective study and a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;98:913.Google Scholar
Jain, L, Dudell, GG. Respiratory transition in infants delivered by cesarean section. Semin Perinatol. 2006;30:296304.Google Scholar
Morrison, JJ, Rennie, JM, Milton, PJ. Neonatal respiratory failure after elective repeat cesarean delivery: a potential preventable condition leading to extracorporal membrane oxygenation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:101–6.Google Scholar
Hansen, AK, Wisborg, K, Uldbjerg, N, et al. Risk of respiratory morbidity in term infants delivered by elective caesarean section: cohort study. BMJ. 2008;236:85–7.Google Scholar
Kolas, T, Saugstad, OD, Daltveit, AK, et al. Planned cesarean versus planned vaginal delivery at term: comparison of newborn infant outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1538–43.Google Scholar
Stutchfield, P, Whitaker, R, Russell, I. Antenatal betamethasone and incidence of neonatal respiratory distress after elective caesarean section: pragmatic randomized trial. BMJ. 2005;331:662.Google Scholar
Smith, J, Plaat, F, Fisk, NM. The natural caesarean: a women-centered technique. BJOG. 2008;115:1037–42.Google Scholar
Faiz, AS, Annath, CV. Etiology and risk factors for placenta previa: an overview and meta-analysis of observational studies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003;13:175–90.Google Scholar
Gilliam, M, Rosenberg, D, Davis, F. The likelihood of placenta previa with greater number of cesarean deliveries and higher parity. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:976–80.Google Scholar
Silver, RM, Landon, MB, Rouse, RJ, et al, for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1126–32.Google Scholar
Mozurkewich, EL, Hutton, EK. Elective repeat cesarean delivery versus trial of labor: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1989 to 1999. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:1187–97.Google Scholar
Smith, GCS, Peil, JP, Dobbie, R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet. 2003;362:1779–84.Google Scholar
Salihu, MH, Sharma, PP, Kristensen, S, et al. Risk of stillbirth following a cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:383–90.Google Scholar
Smith, GC, Peil, JP, Cameron, AD, et al. Risk of perinatal death associated with labor after previous cesarean delivery in uncomplicated term pregnancies. J Am Med Assoc. 2002;287:2684–90.Google Scholar
Smith, GCS, Wood, AM, Peil, JP, et al. First cesarean birth and subsequent fertility. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:90–5.Google Scholar
Katz, V, Balderston, K, DeFreest, M. Perimortem cesarean delivery: were our assumptions correct? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1916–21.Google Scholar
Su, LL, Chong, YS, Samuel, M. Oxytocin agonists for preventing postpartum hemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;3:CD005457. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005457.Google Scholar

References

Leeuw, JW, Struijk, PC, Vierhout, ME, et al. Risk factors for third degree perineal ruptures during delivery. BJOG. 2001;108(4):383–7.Google Scholar
Andrews, V, Sultan, AH, Thakar, R, et al. Occult anal sphincter injuries – myth or reality? BJOG. 2006;113:195200.Google Scholar
Eason, E, Labrecque, M, Wells, G, et al. Preventing perineal trauma during childbirth: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95(3):464–71.Google Scholar
Sultan, AH, Kamm, MA, Hudson, CN, et al. Third degree obstetric anal sphincter tears: risk factors and clinical outcome of primary repair. BMJ. 1994;308:887–91.Google Scholar
Carroli, G, Belizan, J. Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Eogan, M, Daly, L, O’Connell, PR, et al. Does the angle of episiotomy affect the incidence of anal sphincter injury? BJOG. 2006;113:190–4.Google Scholar
Fernando, R, Sultan, AH, Kettle, C, et al. Methods of repair for obstetric anal sphincter injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;3:CD002866.Google Scholar
Williams, A, Adams, EJ, Tincello, DG, et al. How to repair an anal sphincter injury after vaginal delivery: results of a randomized controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113(2):201–7.Google Scholar
Farrell, SA, Gilmour, D, Turnbull, GK, et al. Overlapping compared with end-to-end repair of third- and fourth-degree obstetric anal sphincter tears: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(1):1624.Google Scholar
Fernando, R, Sultan, AH, Kettle, C, Thakar, R, Radley, S. Methods of repair for obstetric anal sphincter injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;12:CD002866. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002866.pub3.Google Scholar
Rygh, AB, Korner, H. The overlap technique versus end-to-end approximation technique for primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter rupture: a randomized controlled study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(10):1256–62.Google Scholar
Fernando, RJ, Williams, AA, Adams, EJ. The management of third- and fourth-degree perineal tears. RCOG Green-top Guideline 2007;29.Google Scholar
Lindqvist, PG, Jernetz, M. A modified surgical approach to women with obstetric anal sphincter tears by separate suturing of external and internal anal sphincter. A modified approach to obstetric anal sphincter injury. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010;10:51.Google Scholar
Nordenstam, J, Mellgren, A, Altman, D, López, A, Zetterström, J. Immediate or delayed repair of obstetric anal sphincter tears – a randomized controlled trial. BJOG. 2008;115:857–65.Google Scholar
Hooi, GR, Lieber, ML, Church, JM. Postoperative anal canal length predicts outcome in patients having sphincter repair for fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42(3):313–18.Google Scholar
van Kasteren, MEE, Gijssens, IC, Kullberg, BJ, et al. Optimaliseren van het antibioticabeleid in Nederland. V. SWAB-richtlijnen voor perioperatieve antibiotische profylaxe. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2000;144(43):2049–55.Google Scholar
Fernando, R, Sultan, AH, Kettle, C, et al. Repair techniques for obstetric anal sphincter injuries: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:1261–8.Google Scholar
Sultan, AH, Thakar, R, Fenner, DE. Perineal and anal sphincter trauma. London: Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
Pinta, TM, Kylanpaa, ML, Salmi, TK, et al. Primary sphincter repair: are the results of the operation good enough? Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(1):1823.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, N, Parry, L, Tasker, M, et al. Anal function following third degree tears. Colorectal Dis. 2004;6(2):92–6.Google Scholar
Goffeng, AR, Andersch, B, Andersson, M, et al. Objective methods cannot predict anal incontinence after primary repair of extensive anal tears. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;77(4):439–43.Google Scholar
Harkin, R, Fitzpatrick, M, O’Connell, PR, et al. Anal sphincter disruption at vaginal delivery: is recurrence predictable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;109(2):149–52.Google Scholar
Bek, KM, Laurberg, S. Risk of anal incontinence from subsequent vaginal deliveries after a complete obstetric anal sphincter tear. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992;99:724–6.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×