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.

Impact of COVID-19 on gestational diabetes pregnancy outcomes in the UK: A multicentre retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of implementing emergency care pathway(s) for screening, diagnosing and managing women with gestational diabetes (GDM) during COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective multicentre cohort. SETTING: Nine National Health Service (NHS) Hospital Trusts/Health boards in England and Scotland. POPULATION: 4915 women with GDM pre-pandemic (1 April 2018 to 31 March 2020), and 3467 women with GDM during the pandemic (1 May 2020 to 31 March 2021). METHODS: We examined clinical outcomes for women with GDM prior to and during the pandemic following changes in screening methods, diagnostic testing, glucose thresholds and introduction of virtual care for monitoring of antenatal glycaemia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intervention at birth, perinatal mortality, large-for-gestational-age infants and neonatal unit admission. RESULTS: The new diagnostic criteria more often identified GDM women who were multiparous, had higher body mass index (BMI) and greater deprivation, and less frequently had previous GDM (all p < 0.05). During COVID, these women had no differences in the key outcome measures. Of the women, 3% were identified with pre-existing diabetes at antenatal booking. Where OGTT continued during COVID, but virtual care was introduced, outcomes were also similar pre- and during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Using HbA1c and fasting glucose identified a higher risk GDM population during the pandemic but this had minimal impact on pregnancy outcomes. The high prevalence of undiagnosed pre-existing diabetes suggests that women with GDM risk factors should be offered HbA1c screening in early pregnancy.

A case-control study of the interaction of fetal heart rate abnormalities, fetal growth restriction, meconium in the amniotic fluid and tachysystole, in relation to the outcome of labour.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the incidence of intrapartum risk factors in labours with an adverse outcome, and compare them with the incidence of the same indicators in a series of consecutive labours without adverse outcome. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: Twenty-six maternity units in the UK. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Sixty-nine labours with an adverse outcome and 198 labours without adverse outcome. METHODS: Observational study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of risk factors in hourly assessments for 7 hours before birth in the two groups. RESULTS: A risk score combining suspected fetal growth restriction, tachysystole, meconium in the amniotic fluid and fetal heart rate abnormalities (baseline rate and variability, presence of decelerations) gave the best indication of likely outcome group. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate risk assessment in labour requires fetal heart rate abnormalities to be considered in context with additional intrapartum risk factors.

Over-the-counter antacids linked to severe hypokalaemia in the context of threatened preterm labour.

A healthy multiparous woman presented at 35 weeks and 4 days' gestation with threatened preterm labour on multiple occasions. An incidental finding of severe hypokalaemia (2.4 mmol/L) was detected on routine blood tests. The cause of this hypokalaemia was not initially obvious. It was eventually linked to overuse of over-the-counter antacids for pregnancy-associated heartburn. The patient was managed with parenteral and then oral electrolyte replacement which corrected a pH of 7.55, bicarbonate of 36.7 mEq/L and a base excess 13.1. In this case report we consider whether hypokalaemia could be linked to uterine irritability and threatened preterm labour, whether antacids were being abused in the context of an eating disorder and the importance of taking a full drug history.

Nitric oxide donors for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

BACKGROUND: Sometimes it is necessary to bring on labour artificially because of safety concerns for the mother or baby. This review is one of a series of reviews of methods of labour induction using a standardised protocol. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of NO donors (isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN), isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN), nitroglycerin and sodium nitroprusside) for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour, in comparison with placebo or no treatment or other treatments from a predefined hierarchy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (15 August 2016) and the reference lists of trial reports. SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical trials comparing NO donors for cervical ripening or labour induction with other methods listed above it on a predefined list of methods of labour induction. Interventions include NO donors (isosorbide mononitrate, isosorbide dinitrate, nitroglycerin and sodium nitroprusside) compared with other methods listed above it on a predefined list of methods of labour induction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This review is part of a series of reviews focusing on methods of induction of labour, based on a generic protocol. Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. In this update, the quality of the evidence for the main comparison was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 trials (including a total of 4777 women). Included studies compared NO donors with placebo, vaginal prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), intracervical PGE2, vaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter. The majority of the included studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias. Nitric oxide versus placebo There was no evidence of a difference for any of the primary outcomes analysed: vaginal delivery not achieved in 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.15; one trial, 238 women; low-quality evidence), uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.62; two trials, 300 women; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; nine trials, 2624 women; moderate-quality evidence) or serious neonatal morbidity/perinatal death (average RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.08 to 33.26; two trials, 1712 women; low-quality evidence). There were no instances of serious maternal morbidity or death (one study reported this outcome).There was a reduction in an unfavourable cervix at 12 to 24 hours in women treated with NO donors (average RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.90; four trials, 762 women), and this difference was observed in both subgroups of standard release and slow release formulation. Women who received NO donors were less likely to experience uterine hyperstimulation without FHR rate changes (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.80; one trial, 200 women), and more likely to experience side effects, including nausea, headache and vomiting. Nitric oxide donors versus vaginal prostaglandins There was no evidence of any difference between groups for uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes or caesarean section (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.21; three trials, 571 women). Serious neonatal morbidity and serious maternal morbidity were not reported. There were fewer women in the NO donor group who did not achieve a vaginal delivery within 24 hours (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.86; one trial, 400 primiparae women). Nitric oxide donors versus intracervical prostaglandins One study reported a reduction in the number of women who had not achieved a vaginal delivery within 24 hours with NO donors (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.86; one trial, 400 women). This result should be interpreted with caution as the information was extracted from an abstract only and a full report of the study is awaited. No differences were observed between groups for uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.74; one trial, 42 women) or serious neonatal morbidity/perinatal death (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.74; one trial, 42 women). Fewer women in the NO donor group underwent a caesarean section in comparison to women who received intracervical prostaglandins (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90; two trials, 442 women). No study reported on the outcome serious maternal morbidity or death. Nitric oxide donors versus vaginal misoprostol There was a reduction in the rate of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes with NO donors (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.37; three trials, 281 women). There were no differences in caesarean section rates (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.21; 761 women; six trials) and no cases of serious neonatal morbidity/perinatal death were reported. One study found that women in the NO donor group were more likely to not deliver within 24 hours (RR 5.33, 95% CI 1.62 to 17.55; one trial, 150 women). Serious maternal morbidity or death was not reported.In terms of secondary outcomes, there was an increase in cervix unchanged/unfavourable with NO (RR 3.43, 95% CI 2.07 to 5.66; two trials, 151 women) and an increase in the need for oxytocin augmentation with NO induction (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.31 to 5.45; 7 trials; 767 women), although there was evidence of significant heterogeneity which could not be fully explained. Uterine hyperstimulation without FHR was lower in the NO group, as was meconium-stained liquor, Apgar score less than seven at five minutes and analgesia requirements. Nitric oxide donors versus intracervical catheter There was no evidence on any difference between the effects of NO and the use of a Foley catheter for induction of labour for caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.59; one trial, 80 women). No other primary outcomes were reported. One study of 75 participants did not contribute any data to the review.For all comparisons, women who received NO donors were more likely to experience side effects such as headache, nausea or vomiting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available data suggests that NO donors can be a useful tool in the process of induction of labour causing the cervix to be more favourable in comparison to placebo. However, additional data are needed to assess the true impact of NO donors on all important labour process and delivery outcomes.

Potential benefits of student- and junior doctor-led textbooks.

INTRODUCTION: Medical textbooks are an important teaching supplement. Few have junior doctors or medical students ('juniors') as primary contributors. However, the strengths of junior-led face-to-face teaching are now well-established, and we hypothesized that similar advantages would be transferrable to a textbook setting. METHODS: Juniors were approached to contribute to an independently published medical textbook, with senior clinicians recruited in parallel to ensure factual accuracy. Juniors directed every aspect of textbook writing and the production process. The published book stressed that it was an open collaboration with readers, inviting them to get in touch to evaluate the text and suggest ideas for new titles. RESULTS: Of 75 respondents, 93 % awarded the first textbook in the series 4 or 5 out of 5 for overall quality. Five other titles have been released, with seven more in development. Over 100 juniors are currently involved, with two students progressing from reviewers to editors after less than a year of mentorship. CONCLUSION: Juniors can be a motivated, dynamic, innovative group, capable of significant contributions to the medical textbook literature. This initiative has generated a sustainable infrastructure to facilitate junior-led publishing, and has the capacity for expansion to accommodate new initiatives and ideas.