Macrosomia: Mode of delivery and pregnancy outcome

Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Volumn 89, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 664-669

  Bjørstad, Astrid R ^a   Irgens Hansen, Kaja ^a   Daltveit, Anne Kjersti ^a,b   Irgens, Lorentz M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Norway)

Author keywords

Birthweight; Cesarean section; Macrosomia; Plexus injury; Shoulder dystocia

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIRTH WEIGHT; BRACHIAL PLEXUS INJURY; CESAREAN SECTION; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DELIVERY; FEMALE; FETUS; HUMAN; MACROSOMIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MATERNAL AGE; NORWAY; OBSTETRIC ANALGESIA; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; SHOULDER DYSTOCIA; STILLBIRTH; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; APGAR SCORE; BIRTH WEIGHT; CESAREAN SECTION; COHORT STUDIES; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; FEMALE; FETAL MACROSOMIA; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMANS; INFANT MORTALITY; INFANT, NEWBORN; MATERNAL AGE; MIDDLE AGED; NATURAL CHILDBIRTH; NORWAY; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; ODDS RATIO; PARITY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; REGISTRIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77951862859     PISSN: 00016349     EISSN: 16000412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/00016341003686099     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Bergmann RL, Richter R, Bergmann KE, Plagemann A, Brauer M, Dudenhausen JW. Secular trends in neonatal macrosomia in Berlin: Influences of potential determinants. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2003;17:244-9.
2. Stotland NE, Caughey AB, Breed EM, Escobar GJ. Risk factors and obstetric complications associated with macrosomia. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;87:220-6.
3. Alberman E. Are our babies becoming bigger? J Royal Soc Med. 1991;84:257-60.
4. Zhang X, Decker A, Platt RW, Kramer MS. How big is too big? The perinatal consequences of fetal macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:517.e1-6.
5. Annual Reports of the Medical Birth Registry of Norway 1990-2008. Available online at: www.mfr.no.
6. Boulet SL, Alexander GR, Hamisu MS, Pass MA. Macrosomic births in the United States: Determinants, outcomes and proposed grades of risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:1372-8.
7. European perinatal Health Report, 2008. Available online at: www.europeristat.com.
8. Irgens LM. The Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Epidemiological research and surveillance throughout 30 years. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79:433-4.
9. SPSS version 11.5.1 SPSS for Windows, Rel.15.0 2006 Chicago:SPSS Inc.
10. Henriksen T. The macrosomic fetus: a challenge in current obstetrics. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(2):134-45.
11. Gregory KD, Henry OA, Ramicone E, Chan LS, Platt LD. Maternal and infant complications in high and normal weight infants by method of delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:507-13.
12. Handa VL, Danielsen BH, Gilbert WM. Obstetric anal sphincter lacerations. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:225-30.
13. Lipscomb KR, Gregory K, Shaw K. The outcome of macrosomic infants weighing at least 4500 grams: Los Angeles County + University of Southern California experience. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85:558-64.
14. Kolderup LB, Laros RK Jr, Musci TJ. Incidence of persistent birth injury in macrosomic infants: association with mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:37-41.
15. Gupta N, Kiran TU, Mulik V, Bethel J, Bhal K. The incidence, risk factors and obstetric outcome in primigravid women sustaining anal sphincter tears. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82(8):736-43.