Malpresentations - Impact on mode of delivery

Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Volumn 90, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 540-542

  Gardberg, Mikael ^a   Leonova, Yana ^a   Laakkonen, Eero ^b  

^a VAASA CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

Author keywords

incidence; Malpresentations; mode of delivery

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREECH PRESENTATION; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DELIVERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL DELIVERY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALPRESENTATION; PARITY; PRIMIPARA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

ADULT; BIRTH INJURIES; CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; DYSTOCIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; INFANT MORTALITY; INFANT, NEWBORN; LABOR PRESENTATION; ODDS RATIO; PARITY; PREGNANCY;

EID: 79955064238     PISSN: 00016349     EISSN: 16000412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01105.x     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Yeomans ER, Gilstrap LC,. The role of forceps in modern obstetrics. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 37: 785-93. (Pubitemid 24354379)
2. Gardberg M, Tuppurainen M,. Persistent occiput posterior presentation-a clinical problem. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1994; 73: 45-7. (Pubitemid 24193781)
3. Ingolfsson A,. Brow presentations. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1969; 48: 486-96.
4. Johanson R,. Malposition, malpresentation and cephalopelvic disproportion. In:, Edmonds DK, (ed). Dewhurst's textbook of obstetrics and gynecology for postgraduates, 6th edn. London: Blackwell Science, 1999. pp. 277-90.
5. Posner LB, Rubin EJ, Posner AC,. Face and brow presentations: a continuing study. Obstet Gynecol. 1963; 21: 745-9.
6. Herrera E, Pernoll ML,. Complications of labor and delivery. In:, Pernoll ML, (ed). Current obstetric and gynecologic diagnosis and treatment. Appleton & Lange, 1991. pp. 493-507.
7. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Rouse DJ, Spong CY,. Williams obstetrics, 23rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. pp. 374-409.
8. Gardberg M, Sälevaara M, Laakkonen E., Inrapartum sonography and persistent occiput posterior position: a study of 408 deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 1998: 9: 746-9. (Pubitemid 28208868)
9. Fitzpatrick M, McQuillan K, O'Herlihy C,. Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 98: 1027-31. (Pubitemid 34075325)
10. Cruikshank DP, White A,. Obstetric malpresentations: Twenty years' experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1973; 116: 1097-1104.
11. Johnson CT,. Transverse presentation of the fetus. JAMA. 1964; 642: 82-6.
12. Ponkey SE, Cohen AP, Heffner LJ, Lieberman E,. Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 101: 915-20. (Pubitemid 36561254)
13. Cheng YW, Schaffer BL, Caughey AB,. The association between persistent occiput posterior position and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107: 837-44.
14. Gardberg M, Stenwall O, Laakkonen E,. Recurrent persistent occipito-posterior position in subsequent deliveries. BJOG. 2004; 111: 170-1. (Pubitemid 38186808)