Mode of delivery and outcomes by birth weight among spontaneous and induced singleton cephalic nulliparous labors

International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Volumn 129, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 22-25

  Walsh, Jennifer M ^a   Hehir, Mark P ^a   Robson, Michael S ^a   Mahony, Rhona M ^a  

^a NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Birth weight; Cesarean delivery; Labor

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIRTH WEIGHT; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; LABOR INDUCTION; LABOR MANAGEMENT; LABOR ONSET; MACROSOMIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NULLIPARA; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT COUNSELING; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHOULDER DYSTOCIA; VAGINAL DELIVERY; DELIVERY; IRELAND; NEWBORN; PARITY; PREGNANCY; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

ADULT; BIRTH WEIGHT; CESAREAN SECTION; DELIVERY, OBSTETRIC; FEMALE; FETAL MACROSOMIA; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; IRELAND; LABOR ONSET; LABOR PRESENTATION; PARITY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME;

EID: 84930474985     PISSN: 00207292     EISSN: 18793479     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.10.029     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. H.F. Sandmire, and R.K. DeMott The Green Bay Cesarean Section Study. IV. The physician factor as a determinant of cesarean birth rates for the large fetus Am J Obstet Gynecol 174 5 1996 1557 1564
2. S.L. Boulet, G.R. Alexander, H.M. Salihu, and M. Pass Macrosomic births in the united states: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk Am J Obstet Gynecol 188 5 2003 1372 1378
3. K.D. Gregory, O.A. Henry, E. Ramicone, L.S. Chan, and L.D. Platt Maternal and infant complications in high and normal weight infants by method of delivery Obstet Gynecol 92 4 Pt 1 1998 507 513
4. V.L. Handa, B.H. Danielsen, and W.M. Gilbert Obstetric anal sphincter lacerations Obstet Gynecol 98 2 2001 225 230
5. K.M. Groom, S. Paterson-Brown, and N.M. Fisk Temporal and geographical variation in UK obstetricians' personal preference regarding mode of delivery Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 100 2 2002 185 188
6. K.D. Gregory, L.M. Korst, and L.D. Platt Variation in elective primary cesarean delivery by patient and hospital factors Am J Obstet Gynecol 184 7 2001 1521 1534
7. L. Sanchez-Ramos, S. Bernstein, and A.M. Kaunitz Expectant management versus labor induction for suspected fetal macrosomia: a systematic review Obstet Gynecol 100 5 Pt 1 2002 997 1002
8. N. Melamed, Y. Yogev, I. Meizner, R. Mashiach, J. Pardo, and A. Ben-Haroush Prediction of fetal macrosomia: effect of sonographic fetal weight-estimation model and threshold used Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 38 1 2011 74 81
9. S.P. Chauhan, D.J. West, J.A. Scardo, J.M. Boyd, J. Joiner, and N.W. Hendrix Antepartum detection of macrosomic fetus: clinical versus sonographic, including soft-tissue measurements Obstet Gynecol 95 5 2000 639 642
10. R.J. Sokol, S.C. Blackwell, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology ACOG practice bulletin: Shoulder dystocia. Number 40, November 2002. (Replaces practice pattern number 7, October 1997) Int J Gynecol Obstet 80 1 2003 87 92
11. K. O'Driscoll, D. Meagher, and M. Robson Active Management of Labour: The Dublin Experience 3rd ed. 2003 Mosby Year Book London
12. D.J. Brennan, M.S. Robson, M. Murphy, and C. O'Herlihy Comparative analysis of international cesarean delivery rates using 10-group classification identifies significant variation in spontaneous labor Am J Obstet Gynecol 201 3 2009 308.e1 308.e8
13. E.H. Bishop Pelvic scoring for elective induction Obstet Gynecol 24 1964 266 268
14. O. Gonen, D.J. Rosen, Z. Dolfin, R. Tepper, S. Markov, and M.D. Fejgin Induction of labor versus expectant management in macrosomia: a randomized study Obstet Gynecol 89 6 1997 913 917
15. M.A. Herbst Treatment of suspected fetal macrosomia: a cost-effectiveness analysis Am J Obstet Gynecol 193 3 Pt 2 2005 1035 1039
16. S.P. Chauhan, N.W. Hendrix, E.F. Magann, J.C. Morrison, J.A. Scardo, and V. Berghella A review of sonographic estimate of fetal weight: vagaries of accuracy J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 18 4 2005 211 220