ArticleCase reports in obstetrics and gynecology2026
Vaginal Birth at 8 cm Because of Severe Cervical Oedema: A Case Report.
Article in Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Vaginal Birth at 8 cm Because of Severe Cervical Oedema: A Case Report.Case reports in obstetrics and gynecology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Cervical oedema during labour is relatively common, but severe circumferential oedema persisting at advanced dilation is rare, particularly in multiparous women. In such cases, the swollen cervix may mimic an obstructive mass and raise concern for labour obstruction, cervical laceration or avulsion if pushing is initiated. Case Presentation: We report the case of a 41-year-old Gravida 5, Para 4 woman who underwent induction of labour at 39 weeks' gestation for diet-controlled gestational diabetes. Labour progressed to 8 cm dilation, at which point a tense, circumferential, purple-hued cervical swelling developed. The clinical presentation raised concern for obstructed labour and potential cervical trauma, although maternal and fetal parameters remained reassuring. The main diagnostic challenge was to distinguish severe reactive cervical oedema from cervical prolapse, haematoma or other cervical pathology. After interdisciplinary discussion and detailed counselling, the patient chose to proceed with a cautious trial of pushing. This decision was based on multiparity, a deeply engaged fetal head, reassuring fetal status, the absence of clinical obstruction to descent and the immediate availability of senior obstetric support and emergency resources. She achieved spontaneous vaginal delivery of a healthy infant within two pushes, without instrumentation, cervical trauma, postpartum haemorrhage or neonatal complication. The cervix remained oedematous but intact. Partial resolution was observed by postpartum Day 3, and follow-up colposcopy at 2 months showed no suspicious cervical lesion. Written informed consent for publication was obtained from the patient. Discussion: This case illustrates that, in carefully selected multiparous women, severe reactive cervical oedema at advanced dilation may not necessarily preclude vaginal birth. However, this observation is hypothesis generating and should not be generalised to nulliparous women, cases with high fetal station, suspected obstruction, fetal compromise or limited access to emergency obstetric care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.