Persistent Occiput Posterior position - OUTcomes following manual rotation (POP-OUT): Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Trials

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Phipps, Hala ^a,b   Hyett, Jon A ^a,b   Kuah, Sabrina ^c   Pardey, John ^d   Ludlow, Joanne ^a   Bisits, Andrew ^e   Park, Felicity ^f   Kowalski, David ^g   de Vries, Bradley ^a,b  

^a ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c WOMEN S AND CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d NEPEAN HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^e ROYAL HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN   (Australia)

^f JOHN HUNTER HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^g Canterbury Hospital   (Australia)

Author keywords

Abdominal ultrasound; Caesarean section; Fetal malposition; Instrumental delivery; Occipito anterior position; Operative delivery; Posterior position

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FEMALE; FORCEPS DELIVERY; HUMAN; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALPRESENTATION; MANUAL ROTATION; OBSTETRIC PROCEDURE; OCCIPUT POSTERIOR POSITION; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TRANSABDOMINAL ULTRASOUND; ULTRASOUND; VACUUM EXTRACTION; YOUNG ADULT; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; DEVICES; FETAL VERSION; FETUS ECHOGRAPHY; GESTATIONAL AGE; LABOR STAGE 2; LIVE BIRTH; METHODOLOGY; MULTICENTER STUDY; NEW SOUTH WALES; OBSTETRIC FORCEPS; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; SAMPLE SIZE; SOUTH AUSTRALIA; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CESAREAN SECTION; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CLINICAL PROTOCOLS; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EXTRACTION, OBSTETRICAL; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMANS; INTENTION TO TREAT ANALYSIS; LABOR PRESENTATION; LABOR STAGE, SECOND; LIVE BIRTH; LOGISTIC MODELS; NEW SOUTH WALES; OBSTETRIC LABOR COMPLICATIONS; OBSTETRICAL FORCEPS; PREGNANCY; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; SOUTH AUSTRALIA; TREATMENT OUTCOME; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, PRENATAL; VACUUM EXTRACTION, OBSTETRICAL; VERSION, FETAL;

EID: 84929310073     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17456215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0603-7     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Macara LM, Murphy KW. The contribution of dystocia to the cesarean section rate. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171:71-7.
2. Senecal J, Xiong X, Fraser WE. Effect of fetal position on second-stage duration and labor outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:763-72.
3. Carseldine WJ, Phipps H, Zawada SF, Campbell NT, Ludlow JP, Krishnan SY, et al. Does occiput posterior position in the second stage of labour increase the operative delivery rate? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;53:265-70.
4. Hall MH, Bewley S. Maternal mortality and mode of delivery. Lancet. 1999;354:776.
5. Barros FC, Victoria CG, Barros AJ, Santos IS, Albernaz E, Matijasevich A, et al. The challenge of reducing neonatal mortality in middle-income countries: findings from three Brazilian birth cohorts in 1982, 1993 and 2004. Lancet. 2005;365:847-54.
6. Bahl R, Strachan B, Murphy DJ. Outcome of subsequent pregnancy three years after previous operative delivery in the second stage of labour: cohort study. BMJ. 2004;328:311.
7. Islam A, Hanif Khan A, Murtaza NJ. Vacuum extraction and forceps deliveries; comparison of maternal and neonatal complications. J ShSMC. 2008;15:87-90.
8. Murphy DJ, Macleod M, Bahl R, Strachan B. A cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of sequential instruments at operative vaginal delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;156:41-5.
9. SOGC. Guidelines for operative vaginal birth. Number 148, May 2004. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;88:229-36.
10. Phipps H, de Vries B, Lee PN, Hyett JA. Management of occiput posterior position in the second stage of labour: a survey of obstetric practice in Australia and New Zealand. Aus NZ J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;52:450-4.
11. Phipps H, de Vries B, Jagadish U, Hyett J. Management of occiput posterior position in the second stage of labour: a survey of midwifery practice in Australia. Birth. 2014;41:64-9. 10.1111/birt.12094.
12. Reichman O, Gdansky E, Latinsky B, Labi S, Samueloff A. Digital rotation from occipito-posterior to occipito-anterior decreases the need for cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;136:25-8.
13. Shaffer BL, Cheng YW, Vargas E. Manual rotation to reduce caesarean delivery in persistent occiput posterior or transverse position. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;24:65-72.
14. Simkin P. The fetal occiput posterior position: state of the science and a new perspective. Birth. 2010;37:61-71.
15. Gardberg M, Laakkonen E, Salevaara M. Intrapartum sonography and persistent occiput posterior position: a study of 408 deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:746-9.
16. Sizer AR, Nirmal DM. Occipitoposterior position: associated factors and obstetric outcome in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96:749-52.
17. Lieberman E, Davidson K, Lee-Parritz A, Shearer E. Changes in fetal position during labor and their association with epidural analgesia. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:974-82.
18. Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Caughey AB. Associated factors and outcomes of persistent occiput posterior position: a retrospective cohort study from 1976 to 2001. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2006;19:563-8.
19. Fitzpatrick M, McQuillan K, O'Herlihy C. Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:1027-31.
20. Ponkey SE, Cohen AP, Heffner LJ, Lieberman E. Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:915-20.
21. Hanson L. Second-stage labor care: challenges in spontaneous bearing down. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2009;23:31.
22. Souka AP, Haritos T, Basayiannis K, Noikokyri N, Antsaklis A. Intrapartum ultrasound for the examination of the fetal head position in normal and obstructed labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003;13:59-63.
23. Benavides L, Wu JM, Hundley AF. The impact of occiput posterior fetal head position on the risk of anal sphincter injury in forceps-assisted vaginal deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1702-6.
24. Cheng YW, Hubbard A, Caughey AB, Tager IB. The association between persistent fetal occiput posterior position and perinatal outcomes: an example of propensity score and covariate distance matching. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171:656-63.
25. Abrahams I. Guidelines for operative vaginal birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2004;26:965.
26. Shaffer BL, Cheng YW, Vargas JE, Laros Jr RK, Caughey AB. Manual rotation of the fetal occiput: predictors of success and delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:e7-9.
27. Usta IM, Mercer BM, Sibai BM. Current obstetrical practice and umbilical cord prolapse. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;16:479-84.
28. Le Ray C. Manual rotation in occiput posterior or transverse positions: risk factors and consequences on the cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:873-9.
29. Jackson N, Paterson-Brown S. Physical sequelae of caesarean section [Review]. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2001;15:49-61.
30. Zelop C, Heffner LJ. The downside of cesarean delivery: short-and long-term complications. Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;47:386.
31. Guise JM, McDonagh MS, Osterweil P, Nygren P, Chan BK, Helfand M. Systematic review of the incidence and consequences of uterine rupture in women with previous caesarean section [Review]. BMJ. 2004;329:19-25.
32. Sarsam SE, Elliott JP, Lam GK. Management of wound complications from cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2005;60:462-73.
33. Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Gulmezoglu AM, Souza JP, Taneepanichskul S, Ruyan P, et al. Method of delivery and pregnancy outcomes in Asia: the WHO global survey on maternal and perinatal health 2007-08. Lancet. 2010;375:490-9.
34. Baessler K, O'Neill SM, Maher CF, Battistutta D. A validated self-administered female pelvic floor questionnaire. J Int Urogynecol. 2010;21:163-72.