The modified Mueller-Hillis maneuver in predicting abnormalities in second stage labor

International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Volumn 55, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 105-109

  March, Michael R ^a,b   Adair, C David ^a   Veille, Jean Claude ^a   Burrus, David R ^a  

^a WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Cap Area Obstetrics and Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

Mueller hillis maneuver; Predictive value; Second stage labor

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LABOR COMPLICATION; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERUS CONTRACTION; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

EID: 0030296537     PISSN: 00207292     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0020-7292(96)02739-7     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. [1] Mueller P. About the prognosis for delivery with a narrow pelvis. Arch Gynaekol 1885; 27: 311-312.
2. [2] Hillis DS. Diagnosis of contracted pelvis by impression method. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1930; 51: 852-854.
3. [3] Thorp JM, Pahel-Short L, Bowes WA. The Mueller-Hillis maneuver: can it be used to predict dystocia? Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 519-522.
4. [4] Guillemette J, Fraser WD. Differences between obstetricians in caesarean section rates and the management of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 105-108.
5. [5] Bowes WA. Normal and abnormal labor. In: Resnik R, Creasy RK, editors. Maternal fetal medicine: principles and practice. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1989: 510-547.
6. [6] Rayburn WF, Siemers KH, Legino LJ, Nabity MR, Anderson JC, Patil KD. Dystocia in late with labor: determining fetal position by clinical and ultrasound techniques. Am J Perinatol 1989; 6: 316-319.
7. [7] Gardberg M, Tuppurainen M. Effects of persistent occiput posterior presentation on mode of delivery. Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol 1994; 198: 117-119.
8. [8] Thorp JA, Parisi VM, Boylan PC, Johnston DA. The effect of continuous epidural anesthesia on cesarean section for dystocia in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 670-675.
9. [9] Notzon FC, Cnattingius S, Bergsjo P, et al. Cesarean section delivery in the 1980s: international comparison by indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170: 495-504.
10. [10] Eskew PN Jr, Saywell RM Jr, Zollinger TW, Erner BK, Oser TL. Trends in frequency of cesarean delivery: a 21 year experience 1970-90. J Reprod Med 1994; 39: 809-817.
11. [11] Sheehan KH. Cesarean section for dystocia: a comparison of practices in two countries. Lancet 1987; 1 (8532): 548-551.
12. [12] Shiono PH, McNellis DM, Rhoads CC. Reasons for rising cesarean delivery rates, 1978-84. Obstet Gynecol 1987; 69: 696-700.
13. [13] Parks DG, Ziel HK. Macrosomia: a proposed indication for primary cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1978; 52: 407-409.
14. [14] Flamm BL. Letter to the editor. J Reprod Med 1991; 36: 829-831.
15. [15] Walling AD. Mueller-Hillis maneuver: value in predicting dystocia (letter). Am Fam Physician 1994; 49: 913.