Comparison of maternal and neonatal complications in caesarian section due to arrest of descent in pull VS push methods

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Fellowship of Neonatology, Children and Adolescents Health Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran.

2 Ph.D, Department of Midwifery and Reproductive Health, Student Research Committee, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

3 Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: Arrest of descent is one of the major indications of cesarean delivery and two commonly used methods are Push and Pull methods. In this study, considering the complications and problems caused by cesarean section, and the necessity of an appropriate strategy to reduce these problems, and the problems created for full-arrest neonates, we determined the APGAR score of neonates and compared the maternal and neonatal outcomes in cesarean section by Pull and Push methods in order to improve the quality of life and reduce the neonatal complications.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed on 126 women who had undergone an emergency cesarean section due to arrest of descent in Ali ibn Abi Talib Hospital of Zahedan in 2016-2017. The maternal outcomes (bladder injury, uterine extension, duration of hospitalization) and neonatal outcomes (Apgar score) in cesarean section by Pull and Push methods were collected using the forms containing these information. Data were analyzed by SPSS software (version 21), and descriptive tests, Chi-square and independent t-test.
Results: The mean of 1 and 5 minutes Apgar score in Pull method was significantly higher than Push method (p <0.001). Also, uterine extension in cesarean section by Pull method was significantly lower than Push method (p <0.001).
Conclusion: The pull method is superior to the push method due to lower complications and better maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Keywords

References

  1. Farr SL, Jamieson DJ, Rivera HV, Ahmed Y, Heilig CM. Risk factors for cesarean delivery among Puerto Rican women. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109(6):1351-7.
  2. Mohamad BA, Tabatabaee S, Mohammad SN, Yazdani M. Factors influencing cesarean delivery method in Shiraz Hospitals. Iran J Nurs 2009; 21(56):37-45. 
  3. Hong X. Factors related to the high cesarean section rate and their effects on the" price transparency policy" in Beijing, China. Tohoku J Exp Med 2007; 212(3):283-98.
  4. Ganji F, Raeisi R, Khosravi S, Soltani P, Kasiry K, Jafarzadeh L, et al. Effect of a participatory intervention to reduce the number of unnecessary cesarean sections performed in Shahrekord, Iran. J Shahrekord Univ Med Sci 2006; 8(1):14-8. (Persian).
  5. Friedman EA. Primigravid labor: a graphicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1955; 6(6):567-89.
  6. Saleh HS, Kassem GA, Mohamed ME, Ibrahiem MA, El Behery MM. Pull breech out versus push impacted head up in emergency cesarean section: a comparative study. Open J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 4(6):260-5.
  7. Berhan Y, Berhan A. A meta-analysis of reverse breech extraction to deliver a deeply impacted head during cesarean delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2014; 124(2):99-105.
  8. Veisi F, Zangeneh M, Malekkhosravi S, Rezavand N. Comparison of “push” and “pull” methods for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2012; 118(1):4-6.
  9. Jeve YB, Navti OB, Konje JC. Comparison of techniques used to deliver a deeply impacted fetal head at full dilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2016; 123(3):337-45.
  10. Brown HC, Paranjothy S, Dowswell T, Thomas J. Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low-risk women. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113(1):218-20.
  11. Dadipoor S, Madani AB, Alavi AZ, Roozbeh NA, Safari Moradabadi A. A survey of the growing trend of caesarian section in Iran and the world: a review article. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2016; 19(27):8-17. (Persian).
  12. Bastani P, Pourabolghase S, Abbasalizadeh F, Motvalli L. Comparison of neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with head-pushing and head-pulling methods for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2012; 118(1):1-3.
  13. Nooh AM, Abdeldayem HM, Ben-Affan O. 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(4):459-63.
  14. Fasubaa O, Ezechi O, Orji E, Ogunniyi S, Akindele S, Loto O, 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 2002; 22(4):375-8.
  15. Chopra S, Bagga R, Keepanasseril A, Jain V, Kalra J, Suri V. 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):1163-6.
  16. Levy R, Chernomoretz T, Appelman Z, Levin D, Or Y, Hagay ZJ. Head pushing versus reverse breech extraction in cases of impacted fetal head during cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005; 121(1):24-6.
The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility
Volume 21, Issue 12
March 2019
Pages 11-15

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics