- •Impacted fetal head at caesarean section is almost as common as shoulder dystocia.
- •Impacted fetal head is as common in caesarean sections prior to, as at full cervical dilatation.
- •Complications of impacted fetal head are independent of those of second-stage caesarean.
- •Impacted fetal head at caesarean section is variably managed within UK maternity units.
- •Junior obstetricians are more likely to diagnose an impacted fetal head than consultants.
Purchase one-time access:Academic and Personal
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
- The impacted foetal head at caesarean section: incidence and techniques used in a single UK institution.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 10: 1-4https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2019.1593333
- The Early Notification scheme progress report: collaboration and improved experience for families.2019: 1-70
- Is a fractured skull discovered in the neonate after caesarean section delivery always evidence of negligence?.BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016; 123: 336https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13613
- “Negligent” technique for dis-impacting the fetal head at caesarean section: a scientific opinion paper.BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013; 120: 459
- Inquest into the death of Nixon Martin Tonkin.2017: 1-31
- Delivery of an impacted fetal head during cesarean: a literature review and proposed management algorithm.Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2015; 70: 719-724https://doi.org/10.1097/ogx.0000000000000248
- Comparison of techniques used to deliver a deeply impacted fetal head at full dilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015; 123: 337-345https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13593
- A re-evaluation of the role of rotational forceps: retrospective comparison of maternal and perinatal outcomes following different methods of birth for malposition in the second stage of labour.BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013; 120: 1277-1284https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12199
- Rising rates of caesarean deliveries at full cervical dilatation: a concerning trend.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011; 157: 141-144https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.03.008
- Changing trends in operative delivery performed at full dilatation over a 10-year period.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010; 30: 370-375https://doi.org/10.3109/01443611003628411
- Exploring full cervical dilatation caesarean sections–A retrospective cohort study.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018; 224: 188-191https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.03.031
- Caesarean section at full cervical dilatation.Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015; 55: 565-571https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12374
- A meta-analysis of reverse breech extraction to deliver a deeply impacted head during cesarean delivery.Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2014; 124: 99-105https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.08.014
- Impacted foetal head at caesarean section: a national survey of practice and training.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020; : 1-7https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2020.1780422
- Cesarean delivery outcomes after a prolonged second stage of labor.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197: 306.e1-306.e5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.07.005
- Caesarean section in the second stage of labour: a retrospective review of obstetric setting and morbidity.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010; 30: 264-267https://doi.org/10.3109/01443610903572109
- Second-stage vs first-stage caesarean delivery: comparison of maternal and perinatal outcomes.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 34: 598-604https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2014.920790
- Maternal and perinatal morbidity of caesarean delivery at full cervical dilatation compared with caesarean delivery in the first stage of labour.BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005; 112: 986-990https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00615.x
- Nitroglycerin to facilitate fetal extraction during cesarean delivery.Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 91: 119-124https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00575-9
- Abdominovaginal delivery - modification of the cesarean-section operation to facilitate delivery of the impacted head.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984; 148: 707-710
- Reverse breech extraction versus the standard approach of pushing the impacted fetal head up through the vagina in caesarean section for obstructed labour: a randomised controlled trial.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017; 37: 459-463https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2016.1256958
- RCOG Good Practice No 11: classification of urgency of caesarean section - a continuum of risk.2010
- Protocol for the prospective observational clinical study: estimation of fetal weight by MRI to PREdict neonatal MACROsomia (PREMACRO study) and small-for-gestational age neonates.BMJ Open. 2019; 9e027160https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027160
- A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data.Am J Epidemiol. 2004; 159: 702-706https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwh090
- Rotational forceps versus manual rotation and direct forceps: a retrospective cohort study.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017; 212: 119-125https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.03.031
- Randomized controlled trial of elevation of the fetal head with a fetal pillow during cesarean delivery at full cervical dilatation.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016; 133: 178-182https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.09.019
- Second stage caesarean section: evaluation of Patwardhan technique.J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; : 1-3https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2014/6709.3782
- Reducing neonatal morbidity by discontinuing oxytocin during the active phase of first stage of labor: a multicenter randomized controlled trial STOPOXY.BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2020; 20: 640https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03331-x
- Maternal and neonatal outcome of reverse breech extraction of an impacted fetal head during caesarean section in advanced stage of labour: a retrospective cohort study.BMC Pregnancy Childb. 2019; : 1-8https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2253-3
- Delivery of the impacted head of the fetus at caesarean section after prolonged obstructed labour: a randomised comparative study of two methods.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002; 22: 375-378https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610220141290