Digital rotation from occipito-posterior to occipito-anterior decreases the need for cesarean section

European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

Volumn 136, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 25-28

  Reichman, Orna ^a   Gdansky, Efraim ^a   Latinsky, Boris ^a   Labi, Sylvie ^a   Samueloff, Arnon ^a  

^a SHAARE ZEDEK MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

Author keywords

Digital manual rotation; Obstetric outcome; Occipito posterior

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FETAL BIOPHYSICAL PROFILE; FETUS; FETUS OUTCOME; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL DELIVERY; LABOR; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

EID: 37648999294     PISSN: 03012115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.12.025     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Phillips R.D., and Freeman M. The management of the persistent occiput posterior position. Obstet Gynecol 43 (1974) 171-177
2. Gardberg M., Laakkonen E., and Salevaara M. Intrapartum sonography and persistent occiput posterior position: a study of 408 deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 91 (1998) 746-749
3. Ponkey S.E., Cohen A.P., Heffner L.J., and Liberman E. Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: obstetrics outcome. Obstet Gynecol 101 (2003) 915-920
4. Fitzpatrick M., McQuillan K., and O'Herlihy C. Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet Gynecol 98 (2001) 1027-1031
5. Gardberg M., and Tuppurainen M. Persistent occiput posterior presentation-a clinical problem. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 73 (1994) 45-47
6. Scott J.R., Gibbs R.S., Karlan B.Y., and Haney A.F. Danforth's obstetrics and gynecology. 9th ed. (2003), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins p. 438
7. Cunningham F.G., Gant N.F., Leveno K.J., Gilstrap L.C., Hauth J.C., and Wenstrom K.D. Williams obstetrics. 21st ed. (2001), McGraw Hill p. 495
8. Walkowiac R.G. Manual rotation of the transverse posterior occiput. Obstet Gynecol 37 (1971) 464-467
9. Sherer D.M., and Abulafia O. Intrapartum assessment of fetal head engagement: comparison between transvaginal digital and transabdominal ultrasound determinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21 (2003) 430-436
10. Sherer D.M., Miodovnik M., Bradley K.S., and Langer O. Intrapartum fetal head position I: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19 (2002) 258-262
11. Sherer D.M., Miodovnik M., Bradley K.S., and Langer O. Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 19 (2002) 264-268
12. Akmal S. Intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position. J Maternal Fetal Med 12 (2002) 172-177
13. Akmal S., Kametas N., and Tsoi E. Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21 (2003) 437-440