- Latest14,000 take part in Niger 'public vow' to end FGM
- LatestUK girls in danger as FGM 'cutting season' approaches
- LatestRate of decline in maternal deaths 'needs to double' to meet MDG 5
- LatestStrengthening Midwifery Care – Global Symposium (26-27 May 2013)
- LatestNew to download: FIGO Newsletter, May 2013
- Latest‘Midwives key in the fight against maternal and newborn morbidity and mortality’
Comparison of “push” and “pull” methods for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery - Corrected Proof
Abstract: Objective: To compare maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with the “push” and “pull” methods for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery.Methods: A prospective study was conducted at Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah, Iran, from April 2006 to March 2008. After failed vacuum extraction, women with obstructed labor caused by impacted fetal head were randomly assigned to deliver via the push method (n=35) or the pull method (n=37). The outcomes investigated included operation time, operative blood loss, incidence of extension of the uterine incision, and postpartum fever. Data were analyzed using χ2 and Student t tests.Results: Mean operative time and incidence of extension of the uterine incision were significantly increased in the group that delivered via the push method (P<0.001). There were no significant differences in the other maternal and neonatal morbidities between the groups, although there was 1 case of neonatal femoral fracture in the pull group.Conclusion: Although the pull method may lead to some neonatal complications, it is associated with lower maternal morbidity than the push method when used for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery.
World Congress 2015

![Sift.com [Opens in a new window]](/sites/www.figo.org/themes/figocorp/images/footer-sift-logo.gif)