Mode of delivery and birth outcomes of macrosomic infants

Reference

• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) (2000) ACOG Practice Bulletin, no. 22. Washington, DC, ACOG.
   Google Scholar
• Anoon S.S., Rizk D.E.E. and Ezimokhai M. (2003) Obstetric outcome of excessively grown fetuses ( ?.• 5000 g): a case—control study. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 31, 295-301. Ben Shachar I. and Weinstein D. (1998) High risk pregnancy outcome by route of delivery. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 10, 447 —452.
   Google Scholar
• Bérard J., Dufour P., Vinatier D., Subtil D., Vanderstichèle S., Monnier J.C. and Puech F. (1998) Fetal macrosomia: risk factors and outcome. A study of the outcome concerning 100 cases 4500 g. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 77, 51— 59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergmann R.L., Richter R., Bergmann K.E., Plagemann A., Brauer M. and Dudenhausen J.W. (2003) Secular trends in neonatal macrosomia in Berlin: influences of potential determinants. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 17, 244— 249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkus M.D., Conway D. and Langer 0. (1999) The large fetus. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 42, 766–784.
   Google Scholar
• Blackwell S.C., Hassan S.S., Wolfe H.W., Michaelson J., Berry S.M. and Sorokin Y. (2000) Why are caesarean delivery rates so high in diabetic pregnancies? Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 28, 316–320.
   Google Scholar
• Blickstein I., Ben-Arie A. and Hagay Z.J. (1998) Antepartum risks of shoulder dystocia and brachial plexus injury for infants weighing 4,200 g or more. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation, 45, 77–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulet S.B., Alexander G.R., Salihu H.M. and Pass M. (2003) Macrosomic births in the United States: determinants, outcomes, and proposed grades of risk. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 188, 1372–1378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulvain M., Stan C. and Irion 0. (2004) Elective delivery in diabetic pregnant women (Cochrane Review) In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1. Chichester, UK, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Bryant DR., Leonardi MR., Landwehr J.B. and Bottoms S.F. (1998) Limited usefulness of fetal weight in predicting neonatal brachial plexus injury. American Journal of Ob-stetrics and Gynecology, 179, 686–689.
   Google Scholar
• Maternal and Child Health Research Consortium (1997) Confidential Inquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy. 6th Annual Report. London, Maternal and Child Health Research Consortium.
   Google Scholar
• Conway D.L. and Langer O.D. (1998) Elective delivery of infants with macrosomia in diabetic women: reduced shoulder dystocia versus increased caesarean deliveries. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 178, 922–925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway D.L. (2002) Delivery of the macrosomic infant: caesarean delivery versus vaginal delivery. Seminars in Perinatology, 26, 225–231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham F.G., MacDonald P.C., Gant N.F., Leveno K.J., Gilstrap L.C. III, Hankins G.D.V. and Clark S.I. (1997) Macrosomia. In: Williams Obstetrics, 20th edn, chapter 37, pp. 855–859. Connecticut, Appleton and Lange.
   Google Scholar
• Delpapa E.H., and Mueller-Heubach E. (1991) Pregnancy outcome following ultrasound diagnosis of macrosomia. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 78, 340–343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diani F., Venanzi S., Zanconato G., Murari S., Moscatelli C. and Turinetto A. (1997) Fetal macrosomia and management of delivery. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics and Gyne-cology, 24, 212–214.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ecker J.L., Greenberg J.A., Norwitz ER., Nadel A.S. and Repke J.T. (1991) Birth weight as a predictor of brachial plexus injury. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 89, 643–647.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• el Madany A.A., Jallad KB., Radi F.A., el Hamdan H. and O'deh H,M. (1991) Shoulder dystocia: anticipation and outcome. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obste-trics, 34, 7–12.
   Google Scholar
• Friesen C.D., Miller A.M. and Rayburn W.F. (1995) Influence of spontaneous or induced labour on delivering the macro-somic fetus. American Journal of Perinatology, 12, 63-66. Gonen R., Bader D. and Ajami M. (2000) Effects of a policy of elective caesarean delivery in cases of suspected fetal macrosomia on the incidence of brachial plexus injury and the rate of caesarean delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 183, 332–338.
   Google Scholar
• Grassi A.E. and Giuliano M.A. (2000) The neonate with macrosomia. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 43, 340-348. Gregory K.D., Henry 0.A., Ramicone E., Chan L.S. and Platt L.D. (1998) Maternal and infant complications in high and normal weight infants by method of delivery. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 92, 507–513.
   Google Scholar
• Haram K., Pirhonen J. and Bergsjo P. (2002) Suspected big baby: a difficult problem in obstetrics. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 81, 185–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hod M., Bar J., Peled Y., Fried S., Katz I., Itzhak M., Ashkenazi S., Schindel B. and Ben-Rafael Z. (1998) Antepartum manage-ment protocol. Timing and mode of delivery in gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care, 21 (Suppl. 2), B113—B117.
   Google Scholar
• Jolly MC., Sebire N.J., Harris J.P., Regan L. and Robinson S. (2003) Risk factors for macrosomia and its clinical con-sequences: a study of 350,311 pregnancies. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Reproductive Biology, 111, 9–14.
   Google Scholar
• Karim S.A., Mastoor M., Ahmed A.J., Pasha 0., Qureshi F., Akhtar S. and Robinson S.C. (1994) Macrosomia: maternal and fetal outcome. Asia-Oceania Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 20, 73–76.
   Google Scholar
• Kolderup LB., Laros R.K. and Musci T.J. (1997) Incidence of persistent birth injury in macrosomic infants: Association with mode of delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 177, 37–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langer 0., Berkus M.D., Huff R.W. and Samueloff A. (1991) Shoulder dystocia: should the fetus weighing greater than or equal to 4000 grams be delivered by caesarean section? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 165, 831 —837.
   Google Scholar
• Levine A.B., Lockwood C.J., Brown B., Lapinski R. and Berkowitz R.L. (1992) Sonographic diagnosis of the large for gestational age fetus at term: does it make a difference? Obstetrics and Gynecology, 79, 55–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim J.H., Tan B.C., Jammal A.E. and Symonds E.M. (2002) Delivery of macrosomic babies: management and outcomes of 330 cases. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 22, 370-374. Lipscomb KR., Gregory K. and Shaw K. (1995) The outcome of macrosomic infants weighing at least 4500 grams: Los Angeles County + University of Southern California experience. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 85, 558–564.
   Google Scholar
• Mastrogiannis D.S. and Knuppel R.A. (1996) Critical manage-ment of the very low birth weight infant and macrosomic fetus. Clinics in Perinatology, 23, 51— 89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menticoglou S.M., Manning F.A., Morrison I. and Harman C.R. (1992) Must macrosomic fetuses be delivered by a caesarean section? A review of outcome for 786 babies greater than or equal to 4,500 g. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 32, 100–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meshari A.A., DeSilva S. and Rahman I. (1990) Fetal macrosomia—maternal risks and fetal outcome. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 32, 215–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikulandra F., Perisa M. and Stojnic E. (1996) When is fetal macrosomia ( or 4500 g) an indication for caesarean section? Zentralblatt fur Gynakologie, 118, 441 — 417.
   Google Scholar
• Mocanu E.V., Greene R.A., Byrne B.M. and Turner M.J. (2000) Obstetric and neonatal outcome of babies weighing more than 4.5kg: an analysis by parity. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 92, 229–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulik V., Usha Kiran T.S., Bethal J. and Bhal P.S. (2003) The outcome of macrosomic fetuses in a low risk primigravid population. International Journal of Gynaecology and Ob-stetrics, 80, 15–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nassar A.H., Usta I.M., Khalil A.M., Melhem Z.I., Nakad T.I. and Abu Musa A.A. (2003) Fetal macrosomia ( or 4500 g): perinatal outcome of 231 cases according to the mode of delivery. Journal of Perinatology, 23, 136–141.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Naylor C.D., Sermer M., Chen E. and Sykora K. (1996) Caesarean delivery in relation to birth weight and gestational glucose tolerance: pathophysiology or practice style? Toronto Trihospital Gestational Diabetes Investigators. Journal of the American Medical Association, 275, 1165–1170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Reilly-Green C. and Divon M. (2000) Sonographic and clinical methods in the diagnosis of macrosomia. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 43, 309–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oger F., Kaleli S., Budak E. and Oral E. (1999) Fetal weight estimation and prediction of fetal macrosomia in non-diabetic pregnant women. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 83, 47–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oral E., Cagda§ A., Gezer A., Semih K., Aydinli K. and 09er F. (2001) Perinatal and maternal outcomes of fetal macro-somia. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 99, 167–171.
   Google Scholar
• Parry S., Severs C.P., Sehdev H.M., Macones G.A., White L.M. and Morgan M.A. (2000) Ultrasonographic prediction of fetal macrosomia. Association with caesarean delivery. Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 45, 17–22.
   Google Scholar
• Rouse D.J., Owen J., Goldenberg R.L. and Cliver S.P. (1996) The effectiveness and costs of elective caesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by ultrasound. Journal of the American Medical Association, 276, 1480— 1486.
   Google Scholar
• Rouse D.J. and Owen J. (2000) Sonography, suspected macrosomia, and prophylactic caesarean: a limited partner-ship. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 43, 326— 334.
   Google Scholar
• Rouse D.J. and Owen J. (1999) Prophylactic caesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by means of ultrasonogra-phy—a faustian bargain? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 181, 332–338.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks D.A. and Chen W. (2000) Estimating fetal weight in the management of macrosomia. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey, 55, 229–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez-Ramos, L., Bernstein S. and Kaunitz A.M. (2002) Expectant management versus labour induction for suspected fetal macrosomia: a systematic review. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 100, 997–1002.
   Google Scholar
• Sandmire H.F. and Wooley R.J. (1998) Macrosomia: can we prevent big problems with big babies? Birth, 25, 263–267.
   Google Scholar
• Sandmire H.F. and DeMott R.K. (1996) The Green Bay caesarean section study. IV. The physician factor as a determinant of caesarean birth rates for the large fetus. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 174, 1557 — 1564.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sokol R.J., Chik L., Dombrowski M.P. and Zador I.E. (2000) Correctly identifying the macrosomic fetus. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 182, 1489— 1495.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weeks J.W., Pitman T. and Spinnato J.A. II (1995) Fetal macrosomia: does antenatal prediction affect delivery route and outcome? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecol-ogy, 173, 1215–1219.
   Google Scholar
• Wollschlaeger K., Nieder J., Köppe I. and Härtlein K. (1999) A study of fetal macrosomia. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 263, 51–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yawn B.P., Wollan P., McKeon K. and Field C.S. (2001) Temporal changes in rates and reasons for medical induction of term labour, 1980–1986. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 184, 611 — 619.
   Google Scholar
• Zamorski M.A. and Biggs W.S. (2001) Management of suspected fetal macrosomia. American Family Physician, 63, 302— 306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar