Unintended uterine extension at the time of cesarean delivery – risk factors and associated adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes

References

• Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, et al. Births: final data for 2017. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018;67(8):1–50.
   Google Scholar
• Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, et al. Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in cesarean sections. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341–1348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ACOG Committee Opinion No. 761. Cesarean delivery on maternal request; 2023.
   Google Scholar
• Hammad IA, Chauhan SP, Magann EF, et al. Peripartum complications with cesarean delivery: a review of maternal-fetal medicine units network publications. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(5):463–474.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belfort MA, Clark SL, Saade GR, et al. Hospital readmission after delivery: evidence for an increased incidence of non-urogenital infection in the immediate postpartum period. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(1):35.e1–35–e7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallasmaa N, Ekblad U, Aitokallio-Tallberg A, et al. Cesarean delivery in Finland: maternal complications and obstetric risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(7):896–902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel SS, Koelper NC, Srinivas SK, et al. Adverse maternal outcomes associated with uterine extensions at the time of cesarean delivery. Am J Perinatol. 2019;36(8):785–789.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de la Torre L, González-Quintero VH, Mayor-Lynn K, et al. Significance of accidental extensions in the lower uterine segment during cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):e4–e6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Asıcıoglu O, Gungorduk K, Asıcıoglu BB, et al. Unintended extension of the lower segment uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized comparison of sharp versus blunt techniques. Am J Perinatol. 2014;31(10):837–844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chopra S, Bagga R, Keepanasseril A, et al. Disengagement of the deeply engaged fetal head during cesarean section in advanced labor: conventional method versus reverse breech extraction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(10):1163–1166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pergialiotis V, Vlachos DG, Rodolakis A, et al. First versus second stage C/S maternal and neonatal morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;175:15–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitner D, Bleicher I, Levy E, et al. Differences in outcomes between CD in the second versus the first stages of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(15):2539–2542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giugale LE, Sakamoto S, Yabes J, et al. Unintended hysterotomy extension during caesarean delivery: risk factors and maternal morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38(8):1048–1053.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karavani G, Chill HH, Reuveni-Salzman A, et al. Risk factors for uterine incision extension during cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35(11):2156–2161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hameed N, Ali MA. Maternal blood loss by expansion of uterine incision at caesarean section – a comparison between sharp and blunt techniques. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2004;16(3):47–50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, et al. Blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision at cesarean delivery: a randomized comparison of 2 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(3):292.e1–292.e6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morales A, Reyes O, Cárdenas G. Type of blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision during caesarean section and the risk of postoperative complications: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41(3):306–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saad AF, Rahman M, Costantine MM, et al. Blunt versus sharp uterine incision expansion during low transverse cesarean delivery: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(6):684.e1–684.e11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xodo S, Saccone G, Cromi A, et al. Cephalad–caudad versus transverse blunt expansion of the low transverse uterine incision during cesarean delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;202:75–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veisi F, Zangeneh M, Malekkhosravi S, et al. Comparison of “push” and “pull” methods for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;118(1):4–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fasubaa OB, Ezechi OC, Orji EO, et al. 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 J Inst Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;22:375–378.
   Google Scholar
• Levy R, Chernomoretz T, Appelman Z, et al. Head pushing versus reverse breech extraction in cases of impacted fetal head during cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;121(1):24–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning JB, Tolcher MC, Chandraharan E, et al. Delivery of an impacted fetal head during cesarean: a literature review and proposed management algorithm. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2015;70(11):719–724.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Safa H, Beckmann M. Comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes from full-dilatation cesarean deliveries using the fetal pillow or hand-push method. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;135(3):281–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacre H, Bird A, Clement-Jones M, et al. Effectiveness of the fetal pillow to prevent adverse maternal and fetal outcomes at full dilatation cesarean section in routine practice. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(5):949–954.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterfall H, Grivell RM, Dodd JM. Techniques for assisting difficult delivery at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016:CD004944.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar