Search

Objective(s): To understand current practice, expertise and training requirements for management of an impacted fetal head (IFH) at caesarean section (CS) in the UK, and whether a clinical trial of techniques to manage an IFH is acceptable., Study Design: Five hundred and thirty-eight online surveys were completed by obstetricians (n = 206), obstetric anaesthetists (n = 38), midwives (n = 35) and parents (n = 259). Data was collected on incidences of CS and IFH, current use of techniques, and acceptability of a clinical trial to manage an IFH from health care professionals. Information on incidences of CS and recollection of an IFH, acceptability of techniques, and likelihood of taking part in a clinical trial were sought from parents., Results: The most common technique used by obstetricians (84%) and midwives (69%) was the 'push technique'. Eighty-seven percent of health care professionals would be willing to participate in a clinical trial, with 89% confirming that results would guide their clinical practice. Most parents expressed reluctance regarding participation in a clinical trial during labour (62%), due to preferring a doctor to adopt the technique they felt most comfortable with (63%)., Conclusion(s): Given the lack of national guidance on appropriate techniques, no formal training, and no consensus on best practice for the management of an IFH during emergency CS, it is perhaps not surprising that the majority of heath care professionals would be willing to participate in a clinical trial, where results will guide their clinical practice. The future development of clinical trials, involving relevant stakeholders in the design of such trials, is crucial to improve upon the guidance and training provided to staff who may encounter an IFH., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Malposition complicates 2-13% of births at delivery, leading to increased obstetric interventions (cesarean section and instrumental delivery) and higher rates of adverse fetal and maternal outcomes. Limited data are available regarding the likely rates of obstetric intervention and subsequent neonatal and maternal outcomes of births with babies in persistent occiput posterior position vs those in persistent occiput transverse position. The UK Audit and Research trainee Collaborative in Obstetrics and Gynecology (UK-ARCOG) network set out to collect data prospectively at delivery on final mode of delivery and immediate outcomes., Material and Methods: The UK-ARCOG network collected data on all births with malposition of the fetal head complicating the second stage of labor (n = 838) (occiput posterior/occiput transverse) requiring rotational vaginal operative birth or emergency cesarean to expedite delivery across 66 participating UK National Health Service maternity units over a 1-month period. The outcomes considered were the need for emergency cesarean section without a trial of instrumental delivery, success of the first method of delivery employed in achieving a vaginal delivery and neonatal/maternal outcomes., Results: Obstetricians regarded assistance with an operative vaginal delivery method to be unsafe in 15% of babies in occiput posterior position and 6.1% of babies in occiput transverse position, and they were delivered by primary emergency cesarean section. When vaginal delivery was deemed safe (defined as attempted assisted vaginal rotational delivery), the first instrument attempted was successful in 74.4% of occiput posterior babies and 79.3% of occiput transverse babies., Conclusions: Our data facilitates decision making by obstetricians to increase safety of assisted rotational operative delivery of a malpositioned baby at initial assessment and in counseling women. Until data from a well-designed randomized controlled trial of instrumental delivery vs emergency cesarean section are available, this manuscript provides contemporaneous national data from a high resource setting within a structured training program, to assist the selection of an appropriate instrument/method for the delivery of a malpositioned baby., (© 2019 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).)

Purpose of Review: This article reviews recent significant contributions to the literature concerning advanced operative obstetric procedures used for rotational vaginal deliveries and their alternative, primary caesarean section., Recent Findings: Rising caesarean section rates are a global concern. Caesarean section in the second stage of labour is associated with high rates of maternal and fetal morbidity. Rotational vaginal deliveries may reduce the caesarean section rate without additional adverse effects on maternal and fetal outcomes. A recent national trainees' survey highlighted that training in the management of operative birth in the second stage of labour, especially when there is malposition of the fetal head, is a priority., Summary: There is a need for evidence-based guidelines, including standardized documentation of these advanced procedures. Training strategies for junior practitioners to acquire these skills and for experienced practitioners to maintain and disseminate their skills should be prioritized. The safety of rotational delivery methods versus primary caesarean section is likely to prove difficult to assess directly, in the context of a randomized controlled trial, but may be approximated via a national prospective audit.

Key content: Second stage caesarean section (CS) is associated with greater maternal and neonatal morbidity and second stage CS rates are rising.Malposition of the fetal head is the most common indication for CS in the second stage of labour.Rotational vaginal deliveries are high risk obstetric procedures requiring advanced operator expertise and are associated with increased rates of failure.Currently, there are no UK guidelines for performing, training and documentation of rotational vaginal deliveries.The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' training matrix advises trainees to be competent at rotational ventouse before commencing specialist training year 6 and does not mention any other methods of rotational vaginal delivery. Learning objectives: To learn how to manage fetal malposition in the second stage of labour.To identify appropriate maternal and fetal factors for trials of rotational instrumental vaginal delivery.To understand the requirement for national guidelines for documentation and training. Ethical issues: Is exclusion of Kielland forceps and manual rotation in the current training matrix deskilling the future workforce?Is 24‐hour consultant presence on the labour ward a practical solution to promote training and increase success rates in rotational vaginal deliveries?Can the use of training mannequins replace or reduce the length of appropriately supervised hands‐on practice? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]