title: Techniques for assisting difficult delivery at caesarean section.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Caesarean section involves making an incision in the woman's abdomen and cutting through the uterine muscle. The baby is then delivered through that incision. Difficult caesarean birth may result in injury for the infant or complications for the mother. Methods to assist with delivery include vacuum or forceps extraction or manual delivery utilising fundal pressure. Medication that relaxes the uterus (tocolytic medication) may facilitate the birth of the baby at caesarean section. Delivery of the impacted head after prolonged obstructed labour can be associated with significant maternal and neonatal complication; to facilitate delivery of the head the surgeon may utilise either reverse breech extraction or head pushing.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare the use of tocolysis (routine or selective use) with no use of tocolysis or placebo and to compare different extraction methods at the time of caesarean section for outcomes of infant birth trauma, maternal complications (particularly postpartum haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion), and long-term measures of infant and childhood morbidity.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
  
  
  METHODS
  All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials comparing the use of tocolytic agents (routine or selective) at caesarean section versus no use of tocolytic or placebo at caesarean section to facilitate the birth of the baby. Use of instrument versus manual delivery to facilitate birth of the baby. Reverse breech extraction versus head pushing to facilitate delivery of the deeply impacted fetal head.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Seven randomised controlled trials, involving 582 women undergoing caesarean section were included in this review. The risk of bias of included trials was variable, with some trials not adequately describing allocation or randomisation.Three comparisons were included. 1. Tocolysis versus no tocolysisA single randomised trial involving 97 women was identified and included in the review. Birth trauma was not reported. There were no cases of any maternal side-effect reported in either the nitroglycerin or the placebo group. No other maternal and infant health outcomes were reported. 2. Reverse breech extraction versus head push for the deeply impacted head at full dilation at caesarean section Four randomised trials involving 357 women were identified and included in the review. The primary outcome of birth trauma was reported by three trials and there was no difference between reverse breech extraction and head push for this rare outcome (three studies, 239 women, risk ratio (RR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 5.73). Secondary outcomes including endometritis rate (three studies, 285 women, average RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.05, Tau I² = 0.22, I² = 56%), extension of uterine incision (four studies, 357 women, average RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.40), mean blood loss (three studies, 298 women, mean difference (MD) -294.92, 95% CI -493.25 to -96.59; I² = 98%) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)/special care nursery (SCN) admission (two studies, 226 babies, average RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.22, Tau I² = 0.27, I² = 74%) were decreased with reverse breech extraction. No differences were observed between groups for many of the other secondary outcomes reported (blood loss > 500 mL; blood transfusion; wound infection; mean hospital stay; average Apgar score).There was significant heterogeneity between the trials for the outcomes mean blood loss, operative time and mean hospital stay, making comparison difficult. However the operation duration was significantly shorter for reverse breech extraction, which may correspond with ease of delivery and therefore, the amount of tissue trauma and therefore, significantly less blood loss. Given the heterogeneity, we cannot define the amount of difference in blood loss, operative time or hospital stay however. 3. Instrument (vacuum or forceps) versus manual extraction at elective caesarean section Two randomised trials involving 128 women were identified and included in the review. Only one trial reported maternal and infant health outcomes as prespecified in this review. This trial reported birth trauma as an outcome but there were no instances of birth trauma in either comparison group. There were no differences found in mean fall in haemoglobin (Hb) between groups (one study, 44 women, MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.59), or in uterine incision extension (one study, 44 women, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.73).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is currently insufficient information available from randomised trials to support or refute the routine or selective use of tocolytic agents or instrument to facilitate infant birth at the time of difficult caesarean section. There is limited evidence that reverse breech extraction may improve maternal and fetal outcomes, though there was no difference in primary outcome of infant birth trauma. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to answer these questions.
authors.affiliation: Women's and Children's Division, Lyell McEwin Hospital, Haydown Road, Elizabeth, SA, Australia.
authors.forename: Heather
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Waterfall
authors.forename: Rosalie M
authors.initials: RM
authors.lastname: Grivell
authors.forename: Jodie M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Dodd
mesh_terms: D001720:Birth Injuries / Q000209:etiology; D002585:Cesarean Section / Q000379:methods*; D005113:Extraction, Obstetrical / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D011247:Pregnancy; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D015145:Tocolysis; D015149:Tocolytic Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage*
chemical_list: D015149:Tocolytic Agents
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Apr;182(4):955-61
references.pmid: 10764480
references.citation: Anaesthesist. 1978 Aug;27(8):388-91
references.pmid: 696985
references.citation: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(10):1163-6
references.pmid: 19925377
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Jul;118(1):1-3
references.pmid: 22521199
references.citation: J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2003 Jun;29(3):152-6
references.pmid: 12841698
references.citation: Am J Perinatol. 2000;17(5):265-9
references.pmid: 11110345
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Nov;94(5 Pt 2):869-77
references.pmid: 10546776
references.citation: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993 Nov;33(4):362-4
references.pmid: 8179541
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1997 Feb;56(2):183-4
references.pmid: 9061396
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Jul;118(1):4-6
references.pmid: 22541809
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Jan;91(1):119-24
references.pmid: 9464734
references.citation: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005 Jul 1;121(1):24-6
references.pmid: 15961214
references.citation: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002 Mar;11(3):196-8
references.pmid: 12380677
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1962 Feb;19:201-3
references.pmid: 13915007
references.citation: J Perinatol. 1989 Sep;9(3):296-300
references.pmid: 2681580
references.citation: J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1971 Nov;78(11):1010-23
references.pmid: 5124557
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jul;187(1):235-8
references.pmid: 12114917
references.citation: Ma Zui Xue Za Zhi. 1993 Mar;31(1):43-8
references.pmid: 7968328
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 05;(2):CD004352
references.pmid: 24500892
references.citation: J Reprod Med. 1984 Apr;29(4):289-92
references.pmid: 6716375
references.citation: South Med J. 1985 Dec;78(12):1502
references.pmid: 4071181
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 05;(6):CD001992
references.pmid: 26042617
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD004944
references.pmid: 17054225
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Aug 15;(8):CD001060
references.pmid: 25126773
references.citation: Saudi Med J. 2011 Dec;32(12):1261-6
references.pmid: 22159381
references.citation: J Perinat Med. 1997;25(1):97-100
references.pmid: 9085210
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Nov;191(5):1673-7
references.pmid: 15547541
references.citation: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1999 Mar;80(2):F88-92
references.pmid: 10325782
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Mar 15;148(6):707-10
references.pmid: 6702937
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 05;(6):CD002255
references.pmid: 24901312
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 May 08;(5):CD002860
references.pmid: 24809331
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Sep;90(3):344-6
references.pmid: 9277641
references.citation: Int J Obstet Anesth. 1995 Jul;4(3):140-4
references.pmid: 15636996
references.citation: J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 Jan;8(1):93-5
references.pmid: 24596734
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 16;351(25):2581-9
references.pmid: 15598960
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Feb;124(2):99-105
references.pmid: 24290068
references.citation: Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 1998 Jul-Aug;202(4):168-71
references.pmid: 9783376
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 06;(6):CD004452
references.pmid: 24903678
references.citation: S Afr Med J. 1979 Dec 15;56(25):1093-8
references.pmid: 45058
references.citation: J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002 Jul;22(4):375-8
references.pmid: 12521457