Management of impacted fetal head at cesarean delivery.

Globally, more than 1 in 5 women give birth by cesarean delivery, and at least 5% of these births are at full cervical dilatation. In these circumstances, and when labor has been prolonged in the first stage of labor, the fetal head can become low and wedged deep in the woman's pelvis, making it difficult to deliver the baby. This emergency is known as impacted fetal head. These are technically challenging births associated with serious risks to both the woman and the baby. The difficulty in disimpacting the fetal head increases maternal risks of hemorrhage and injury to adjacent organs and may have long-term consequences for future pregnancies. In addition, there can be associated neonatal consequences, such as skull fractures, brain hemorrhage, hypoxic brain injury, and, rarely, perinatal death. Globally, maternity staff are increasingly encountering this emergency, with studies in the United Kingdom suggesting that impacted fetal head may complicate as many as 1 in 10 emergency cesarean deliveries. Moreover, there has been a sharp increase in reports of perinatal brain injuries associated with impaction of the fetal head at cesarean delivery. When an impacted fetal head occurs, the maternity team can employ a range of approaches to help deliver the fetal head, including an assistant (another obstetrician or midwife) pushing the head up from the vagina, delivering the baby feet first (reverse breech extraction), administering tocolysis to relax the uterus, and using a balloon cephalic elevation device (Fetal Pillow) to elevate the baby's head. However, there is currently no consensus on how best to manage these births, resulting in a lack of confidence among maternity staff, variable practice, and potentially avoidable harm in some circumstances. This article examined the evidence for the prevention and management of this critical obstetrical emergency and outlined recommendations for best practices and training.

Management of impacted fetal head at cesarean birth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing incidence of impacted fetal head at cesarean birth and associated injury, it is unclear which techniques are most effective for prevention and management. A high quality evidence review in accordance with international reporting standards is currently lacking. To address this gap, we aimed to identify, assess, and synthesize studies comparing techniques to prevent or manage impacted fetal head at cesarean birth prior to or at full cervical dilatation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Emcare, Embase and Cochrane databases up to 1 January 2023 (PROSPERO: CRD420212750016). Included were randomized controlled trials (any size) and non-randomized comparative studies (n ≥ 30 in each arm) comparing techniques or adjunctive measures to prevent or manage impacted fetal head at cesarean birth. Following screening and data extraction, we assessed risk of bias for individual studies using RoB2 and ROBINS-I, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We synthesized data using meta-analysis where appropriate, including sensitivity analyses excluding data published in potential predatory journals or at risk of retraction. RESULTS: We identified 24 eligible studies (11 randomized and 13 non-randomized) including 3558 women, that compared vaginal disimpaction, reverse breech extraction, the Patwardhan method and/or the Fetal Pillow®. GRADE certainty of evidence was low or very low for all 96 outcomes across seven reported comparisons. Pooled analysis mostly showed no or equivocal differences in outcomes across comparisons of techniques. Although some maternal outcomes suggested differences between techniques (eg risk ratio of 3.41 [95% CI: 2.50-4.66] for uterine incision extension with vaginal disimpaction vs. reverse breech extraction), these were based on unreliable pooled estimates given very low GRADE certainty and, in some cases, additional risk of bias introduced by data published in potential predatory journals or at risk of retraction. CONCLUSIONS: The current weaknesses in the evidence base mean that no firm recommendations can be made about the superiority of any one impacted fetal head technique over another, indicating that high quality training is needed across the range of techniques. Future studies to improve the evidence base are urgently required, using a standard definition of impacted fetal head, agreed maternal and neonatal outcome sets for impacted fetal head, and internationally recommended reporting standards.

Management of Impacted Fetal Head at Caesarean Birth: Scientific Impact Paper No. 73.

Over one-quarter of women in the UK have a caesarean birth (CB). More than one in 20 of these births occurs near the end of labour, when the cervix is fully dilated (second stage). In these circumstances, and when labour has been prolonged, the baby's head can become lodged deep in the maternal pelvis making it challenging to deliver the baby. During the caesarean birth, difficulty in delivery of the baby's head may result - this emergency is known as impacted fetal head (IFH). These are technically challenging births that pose significant risks to both the woman and baby. Complications for the woman include tears in the womb, serious bleeding and longer hospital stay. Babies are at increased risk of injury including damage to the head and face, lack of oxygen to the brain, nerve damage, and in rare cases, the baby may die from these complications. Maternity staff are increasingly encountering IFH at CB, and reports of associated injuries have risen dramatically in recent years. The latest UK studies suggest that IFH may complicate as many as one in 10 unplanned CBs (1.5% of all births) and that two in 100 babies affected by IFH die or are seriously injured. Moreover, there has been a sharp increase in reports of babies having brain injuries when their birth was complicated by IFH. When an IFH occurs, the maternity team can use different approaches to help deliver the baby's head at CB. These include: an assistant (another obstetrician or midwife) pushing the head up from the vagina; delivering the baby feet first; using a specially designed inflatable balloon device to elevate the baby's head and/or giving the mother a medicine to relax the womb. However, there is currently no consensus for how best to manage these births. This has resulted in a lack of confidence among maternity staff, variable practice and potentially avoidable harm in some circumstances. This paper reviews the current evidence regarding the prediction, prevention and management of IFH at CB, integrating findings from a systematic review commissioned from the National Guideline Alliance.

Validation of a novel birth simulator for impacted fetal head at cesarean section: An observational simulation study.

INTRODUCTION: Impacted fetal head (IFH) is a challenging complication of cesarean section (CS) associated with significant morbidity. Training opportunities for IFH have been reported as inconsistent and inadequate. This study assessed the validity of a novel birth simulator for IFH at cesarean section. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Obstetricians and midwives collaborated with model-making company, Limbs & Things (UK), to modify the original PROMPT Flex® simulator and develop a new "Enhanced CS Module" for IFH at cesarean section. Changes included addition of a retractable uterus and restricted pelvic inlet, and the fetal mannequin was modified to allow accurate limb articulation and flexion at the waist. Obstetricians and midwives from three maternity units in Southwest England were individually recorded, each undertaking three simulated scenarios of IFH at cesarean section. Obstetricians were asked to deliver the fetal head and midwives, to perform a vaginal push-up. Participants completed a questionnaire on realism (face validity) and usefulness for training (content validity) with five-point Likert scale responses. Construct validity was assessed by testing an a priori hypothesis that "experts" (consultant obstetricians with >7 years' experience) would be more likely to achieve delivery than "novices" (registrars with <7 years' experience). Performance variables were compared between groups using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U-tests. RESULTS: In all, 105 simulated scenarios were undertaken by 35 obstetricians and midwives. A range of techniques were employed to deliver the IFH including change of hand, vaginal disimpaction and reverse breech extraction. Overall, 86% (30/35) described the model as fairly (4)/very realistic (5) (median = 4, interquartile range [IQR] = 4-5). The model was considered fairly (4)/very useful (5) for training by 97% (34/35; median = 5; IQR = 5-5). Experts delivered the fetal head in all simulations (36/36) and novices delivered the head in 76.9% (30/39) (p = 0.002). Experts delivered the fetal head 58% quicker than novices (median = 66.8 s, IQR = 53-86 vs median = 104 s, IQR = 67.7-137). CONCLUSIONS: This novel birth trainer realistically simulates IFH at cesarean section and allows rehearsal of all disimpaction techniques. It was reported to be very useful for training and distinguishes between novice and expert obstetricians. Techniques for IFH are difficult to learn experientially. Simulation is likely to provide an effective and safe form of training.

Definition, management, and training in impacted fetal head at cesarean birth: a national survey of maternity professionals.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed views, understanding and current practices of maternity professionals in relation to impacted fetal head at cesarean birth, with the aim of informing a standardized definition, clinical management approaches and training. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a survey consultation including the range of maternity professionals who attend emergency cesarean births in the UK. Thiscovery, an online research and development platform, was used to ask closed-ended and free-text questions. Simple descriptive analysis was undertaken for closed-ended responses, and content analysis for categorization and counting of free-text responses. Main outcome measures included the count and percentage of participants selecting predefined options on clinical definition, multi-professional team approach, communication, clinical management and training. RESULTS: In total, 419 professionals took part, including 144 midwives, 216 obstetricians and 59 other clinicians (eg anesthetists). We found high levels of agreement on the components of an impacted fetal head definition (79% of obstetricians) and the need for use of a multi-professional approach to management (95% of all participants). Over 70% of obstetricians deemed nine techniques acceptable for management of impacted fetal head, but some obstetricians also considered potentially unsafe practices appropriate. Access to professional training in management of impacted fetal head was highly variable, with over 80% of midwives reporting no training in vaginal disimpaction. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate agreement on the components of a standardized definition for impacted fetal head, and a need and appetite for multi-professional training. These findings can inform a program of work to improve care, including use of structured management algorithms and simulation-based multi-professional training.

Impacted foetal head at caesarean section: a national survey of practice and training.

This is a national survey of UK obstetric trainees and consultant labour ward leads designed to investigate the current practice and training for an impacted foetal head (IFH) at Caesarean Section (CS). An anonymous, on-line survey was disseminated to trainees via Postgraduate Schools and RCOG trainee representatives, and to labour ward leads via their national network. Three hundred and forty-five obstetric trainees and consultants responded. The results show that IFH is variably defined and encountered by most UK obstetricians (98% had encountered IFH and 76% had experienced it before full cervical dilatation). There is significant variation in management strategies, although most respondents would use a vaginal push up to assist delivery prior to reverse breech extraction. Responses revealed a paucity of training and lack of confidence in disimpaction techniques: over one in ten respondents had not received any training for IFH and less than half had received instruction in reverse breech extraction.Impact statementWhat is already known on the subject? IFH is an increasingly recognised, technically challenging complication of intrapartum CS. A recent report suggested that birth injuries associated with IFH are now as common as with shoulder dystocia. However, there is no consensus nor guidelines regarding the best practice for management or training.What do the results of this study add? This study demonstrates that IFH is poorly defined and commonly encountered by UK obstetricians. It highlights that IFH is not restricted to CS at full dilatation and reveals the ubiquity of the vaginal push method in UK practice. We found evidence that UK obstetricians are using techniques which have not been investigated and are not recommended for managing an IFH. Moreover, this survey is an eye-opener as to the paucity of training, highlighting that UK obstetric trainees are not adequately prepared to manage this emergency.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? There is a pressing need to standardise the definition, guidance and training for IFH at CS. Further research should clarify the appropriate techniques for IFH and establish consensus for the best practice. An evidence-based simulation training package, which allows clinicians to learn and practice recognised disimpaction techniques is urgently required.

Simulation TRaining for Operative vaginal Birth Evaluation: study protocol for an observational stepped-wedge interrupted time-series study (STROBE).

BACKGROUND: Operative vaginal birth is a common procedure used to expedite birth after full cervical dilatation where there is a clinical need to do so (15% of births in the UK in 2016). The acquisition of skills for operative vaginal birth is dependent on the exposure of junior obstetricians to situations in which they can undertake directly supervised learning from senior accouchers. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has recently introduced the first structured course in operative vaginal birth. To date, there have been no attempts to determine the clinical impact of a structured training package for operative vaginal birth. METHODS: The STROBE study is a quasi-experimental before-after interrupted time-series study of the effect of simulation training in operative vaginal birth for obstetricians on clinical outcomes of women and babies following operative vaginal birth. Similar to a stepped-wedge design, the intervention will be gradually implemented in all participating units but at different time periods. The primary outcome is failed operative vaginal birth with the first intended instrument. Secondary maternal outcomes are; use of second instrument to achieve operative vaginal birth, caesarean section, episiotomy, perineal trauma (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th degree tear), cervical tear requiring suturing, general anaesthesia and estimated blood loss. Secondary neonatal outcomes are; Apgar score at one, five, and ten minutes, Umbilical artery pH, shoulder dystocia, admission to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and death within 28 days of birth. The analysis will be intention-to-treat (per unit) on the primary and secondary outcomes. The STROBE study received approval from the Health Research Authority and is sponsored by North Bristol NHS Trust. Results will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed medical journal within one year of completion of data gathering. DISCUSSION: The STROBE study will help establish our understanding of the effectiveness of locally-delivered simulation training for operative vaginal birth. Robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of such an approach would add weight to the argument supporting regular, local training for junior obstetricians in operative vaginal birth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11760611 05/03/2018 (retrospectively registered).

One size does not fit all. Management of the laparoscopic adjustable gastric band in pregnancy: a national prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancies are increasingly seen in women with a gastric band, but no guidance exists on band management during pregnancy. Although band inflation can prevent excessive gestational weight gain and its associated complications, it might have detrimental effects on fetal growth. We compared maternal and perinatal outcomes according to band management strategy-keeping the band inflated throughout pregnancy versus deflation. METHODS: Data were collected by means of the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS) on all pregnancies in women with a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band, booking in UK maternity units (Nov 1, 2011, to Oct 31, 2012). Maternal and perinatal outcomes were compared according to band management strategy, with women in a control group who had not undergone the procedure and with national data. Multivariable regression analyses were used to adjust for potential confounders. FINDINGS: 109 cases were reported (prevalence 1·7 per 10 000 maternities), of whom 42 underwent band deflation and 54 had inflation maintained (remainder unknown). Mean weight gain was higher with deflation than inflation (15·4 kg [95% CI 10·8-20·0] vs 7·6 [3·7-11·5], p=0·047). Some evidence of a higher risk of gestational hypertension with deflation than with inflation was noted (relative risk [RR] 6·86, p=0·07). There was strong evidence of a high risk of gestational hypertension with deflation compared with controls and national data (RR 4·74, p=0·001). Mean birth weight was significantly lower in the inflation group than in the deflation group (3380 g [95% CI 3255-3505] vs 3712 [3572-3851], p=0·002). Infants of women with deflation had a high risk of macrosomia compared with controls (adjusted RR 0·40, p=0·002) and national data (RR 2·04, p=0·01). INTERPRETATION: Pregnant women with a laparoscopic adjustable gastric band are high risk; the monitoring of both fetal and maternal wellbeing is essential. Maintainance of band inflation during pregnancy reduces gestational weight gain and associated complications, but affects fetal growth. Therefore, maintainance of band inflation throughout pregnancy cannot be recommended. However, inflation for part of the pregnancy might improve some maternal outcomes. Further studies are needed to define the optimum timing of band adjustment. FUNDING: Bristol Bariatric Pregnancy Research Hub.

Training for managing impacted fetal head at caesarean birth: multimethod evaluation of a pilot.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of national multiprofessional training for managing the obstetric emergency of impacted fetal head (IFH) at caesarean birth has potential to improve quality and safety in maternity care, but is currently lacking in the UK. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a training package for managing IFH at caesarean birth with multiprofessional maternity teams. METHODS: The training included an evidence-based lecture supported by an animated video showing management of IFH, followed by hands-on workshops and real-time simulations with use of a birth simulation trainer, augmented reality and management algorithms. Guided by the Kirkpatrick framework, we conducted a multimethod evaluation of the training with multiprofessional maternity teams. Participants rated post-training statements about relevance and helpfulness of the training and pre-training and post-training confidence in their knowledge and skills relating to IFH (7-point Likert scales, strongly disagree to strongly agree). An ethnographer recorded sociotechnical observations during the training. Participants provided feedback in post-training focus groups. RESULTS: Participants (N=57) included 21 midwives, 25 obstetricians, 7 anaesthetists and 4 other professionals from five maternity units. Over 95% of participants agreed that the training was relevant and helpful for their clinical practice and improving outcomes following IFH. Confidence in technical and non-technical skills relating to managing IFH was variable before the training (5%-92% agreement with the pre-training statements), but improved in nearly all participants after the training (71%-100% agreement with the post-training statements). Participants and ethnographers reported that the training helped to: (i) better understand the complexity of IFH, (ii) recognise the need for multiprofessional training and management and (iii) optimise communication with those in labour and their birth partners. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated training package can improve self-reported knowledge, skills and confidence of multiprofessional teams involved in management of IFH at caesarean birth. A larger-scale evaluation is required to validate these findings and establish how best to scale and implement the training.

Impacted fetal head: A retrospective cohort study of emergency caesarean section.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate risk factors, management and outcomes of impacted fetal head (IFH) at caesarean section (CS). STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of all women with singleton, cephalic pregnancies who had an emergency CS during one-year (2016) at North Bristol NHS Trust, UK (n = 838). The incidence of caesarean section at full dilatation (CSFD) and IFH were calculated using the annual birth rate. To identify risk factors for IFH, maternal, perinatal and intrapartum characteristics were compared according to the presence or absence of IFH, and separately for first- and second-stage CS. Techniques employed to disimpact the fetal head were described. Univariable and multivariable comparisons of maternal and perinatal outcomes were made between cases with and without an IFH. Characteristics and outcomes were compared using modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: CSFD accounted for 2.1 % of all births. IFH complicated 1.5 % of all births (11.3 % of emergency CS), with 55.8 % occurring prior to full cervical dilatation. Increased rates of IFH at CS were associated with: oxytocin augmentation (RR = 2.47 [1.61-3.80]), full cervical dilatation (RR = 4.24 [2.96-6.07], mid/low station (RR = 4.14 [2.72-6.32]), moulding (RR = 4.39 [2.55-7.54]) and caput (RR = 6.60 [3.09-14.10]). Junior operators documented IFH more than consultants (RR = 9.61 [1.35-68.2]). The strategies recorded for managing IFH included: tocolysis, reverse breech extraction and vaginal push up (33.7 %, 14.7 % and 11.6 % cases respectively) with two or more techniques used in 21.1 % cases. IFH at CS was independently associated with an increased risk of uterine extensions (RR = 3.09 [1.96-4.87]) and a composite adverse perinatal outcome (RR = 1.66 [1.21-2.28]). CONCLUSIONS: IFH is a common and heterogeneous complication associated with increased complications for both mother and baby, independent of those of CSFD. Obstetricians must remain vigilant to the possibility of IFH at all emergency CS, particularly those at full cervical dilatation or with evidence of obstructed labour. There is an urgent need for a standardised management algorithm and training in evidence-based disimpaction techniques.

Pregnancy outcomes following different types of bariatric surgery: A national cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of type of bariatric surgery on pregnancy outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This is a national prospective observational study using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System (UKOSS). Data collection was undertaken in 200 consultant-led NHS maternity units between November 2011 and October 2012 (gastric banding), and April 2014 and March 2016 (gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy). Participants were pregnant women following gastric banding (n = 127), gastric bypass (n = 134) and sleeve gastrectomy (n = 29). Maternal and perinatal outcomes were compared using generalised linear and linear mixed models. Maternal outcomes included gestational weight gain, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, anaemia, surgical complications. Perinatal outcomes included birthweight, small/large for gestational age (SGA/LGA), preterm birth, stillbirth. RESULTS: Maternal: Women pregnant after gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy had a lower risk of anaemia compared with gastric bypass (banding (16 %) vs bypass (39 %): p = 0.002, sleeve (21 %) vs bypass: p = 0.04). Gestational diabetes risk was lower after gastric banding compared with gastric bypass (7 % vs 16 %, p = 0.03) despite women with banding having significantly greater weight at booking as well as gestational weight gain. Women pregnant after gastric banding and sleeve gastrectomy had a lower risk of surgical complications than after gastric bypass (banding (0.9 %) vs bypass (11.4 %): p = 0.03, sleeve (0.0 %) vs bypass: p = 0.06). Perinatal: Infants born to mothers after gastric banding had a higher birthweight than those born to mothers after gastric bypass (mean difference = 260 g (125-395), p < 0.001). Infants were more likely to be LGA if their mothers had gastric banding compared with gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy (banding (21 %) vs bypass (5 %): p = 0.006; banding vs sleeve (3 %): p = 0.03). Risk of preterm birth was higher in women with gastric banding compared with gastric bypass (13 % vs 8 %, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Women planning bariatric surgery should be counselled regarding the differing impacts of different types of procedure on any future pregnancy. Pre-existing gastric bypass is associated with higher rates of potentially serious surgical complications during pregnancy.

Rotational forceps versus manual rotation and direct forceps: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Rotational forceps and manual rotation followed by direct forceps are techniques used in the management of malposition of the fetal head in the second stage of labor. However, there is widespread debate regarding their relative safety and utility. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of rotational forceps with manual rotation followed by direct forceps, for management of fetal malposition at full dilation. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study in a single tertiary obstetric unit with >6000 births per year. We recorded and analysed outcomes of 104 sequential rotational forceps births over 21 months (Jan 2010-Sept 2012) and 208 matched chronologically sequential attempted manual rotations and direct forceps births (1:2 by number). Univariable and multivariable approaches used for statistical analysis. The main outcome measure was vaginal birth. RESULTS: The rate of vaginal birth was significantly higher with rotational forceps than with manual rotation followed by direct forceps (88.5% vs 82.2%, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.31, p=0.017). Births by rotational forceps were associated with a significantly higher rate of shoulder dystocia (19.2% vs 10.6%, RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.23-4.47, p=0.012), but not of neonatal injury. There were no significant differences in all other maternal and neonatal outcomes between the two modes of birth. CONCLUSIONS: The use of rotational forceps was associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of vaginal birth, but also of shoulder dystocia, compared to manual rotation followed by direct forceps. This is the first study to demonstrate a statistically significant increase in the rate of shoulder dystocia following rotational forceps birth.

Deflation versus maintained inflation of gastric band in pregnancy: A national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: With no evidence to guide management of the gastric band in pregnancy, we aim to compare outcomes according to band management. METHODS: Data were collected on all women pregnant (November 2011-October 2012) following gastric banding, using the UK Obstetric Surveillance System surveillance system. We compared outcomes between band management groups and with national data. RESULTS: Band management was variable; deflation 43.4%, inflation maintained 56.6%. The deflation group had lower risk of small for gestational age infants (no cases vs. 11.3%; risk ratio = 0.14, p = 0.05). There was greater gestational weight gain (deflation 15.4 kg, inflation 7.6 kg; adjusted p = 0.05), and perhaps higher risk of gestational hypertension (deflation 10.5%, inflation no cases; p = 0.08) in the deflation group. Other maternal outcomes were similar between management groups but overall worse than national data. CONCLUSIONS: Deflation is associated with better outcomes for babies but worse outcomes for mothers than maintained inflation.

Team training for safer birth.

Effective and coordinated teamworking is key to achieving safe birth for mothers and babies. Confidential enquiries have repeatedly identified deficiencies in teamwork as factors contributing to poor maternal and neonatal outcomes. The ingredients of a successful multi-professional team are varied, but research has identified some fundamental teamwork behaviours, with good communication, proficient leadership and situational awareness at the heart. Simple, evidence-based methods in teamwork training can be seamlessly integrated into a core, mandatory obstetric emergency training. Training should be an enjoyable, inclusive and beneficial experience for members of staff. Training in teamwork can lead to improved clinical outcomes and better birth experience for women.

Reducing risk in maternity by optimising teamwork and leadership: an evidence-based approach to save mothers and babies.

Poor teamwork results in preventable morbidity and mortality for mothers and babies. Suboptimal communication and lack of leadership cost not only lives but also money that is diverted from clinical care to insurance and litigation. Avoidable harm is usually not the result of staff failing their duty of care, it is the result of poor training failing hard-worked staff. A few simple teamwork and leadership behaviours can make a huge difference to outcome and experience for women and their companions, yet they are often missing from maternity care. Recent research has identified the problems and solutions, including the best way to train maternity teams to make a palpable difference. We describe simple yet evidence-based methods to improve teams and leaders.