Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36525940›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology2023

Techniques for managing an impacted fetal head at caesarean section: A systematic review.

Amelia Gq Peak, Elena Barwise, Kate F Walker

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Difficult fetal extraction in cesarean section: Number 8 - 2024.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amelia Gq PeakCentre for Perinatal Research, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. Electronic address: agqpeak1@gmail.com.
Elena BarwiseCentre for Perinatal Research, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. Electronic address: elenakbarwise@gmail.com.
Kate F WalkerCentre for Perinatal Research, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. Electronic address: kate.walker@nottingham.ac.uk.
University of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A complication arising at caesarean birth when the baby's head is deeply engaged in the pelvis and may be difficult to deliver, is known as an 'impacted fetal head'. This obstetric emergency occurs in 16% of second stage caesarean sections. Multiple techniques are described in the literature to manage the complication but there is no consensus regarding which technique results in the best maternal and neonatal outcomes. The objective of this review is to determine which technique for managing impacted fetal head at caesarean section has the best maternal and neonatal outcomes. A literature search of three electronic databases was conducted in November 2021. Studies directly comparing two methods for the management of impacted fetal head at caesarean section in the second stage were included. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case-control studies, and studies not fitting the search criteria were excluded. Data was extracted in Covidence and meta-analysis of the six most commonly reported outcomes was conducted using RevMan 5.4. In total, 16 studies (3344women) were included. 13 studies (2506women) compared the push method with reverse breech extraction. meta-analysis showed that risk of extension of the uterine incision, blood transfusion, bladder injury, postpartum haemorrhage, NICU admission and Apgar score <7 at 5 min were significantly higher with the push method compared with reverse breech extraction. Three studies (838women) compared the push method with Patwardhan's technique. meta-analysis of studies comparing the push method with Patwardhan's technique found no significant differences between the two groups in any of the six maternal or neonatal outcomes. Evidence derived from small, inadequately powered studies suggests reverse breech extraction is associated with better outcomes than the push method. The method which produces the best outcomes is still unknown as not all methods have been tested. Further high quality, adequately powered RCTs are warranted for definitive conclusions to be drawn and to ameliorate the paucity of evidence on how best to manage this complication.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionCase-Control StudiesFemaleFetusHumansPregnancyCaesareanComplicationImpacted fetal headPatwardhan’s techniquePush methodReverse breech extractionSecond stage

Identifiers

PMID36525940
OpenAlexW4311457605

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.