“COMPARISON OF PULL BREECH OUT AND PUSH IMPACTED HEAD UP TECHNIQUES USED TO DELIVER A DEEPLY IMPACTED FOETAL HEAD AT FULL DILATATION IN EMERGENCY CAESAREAN SECTION”

Main Article Content

Sobia Nawaz
Saima Bibi
Sarah Ejaz
Toheeda Shaheen
Rabia Noor
Nabeela Waheed

Keywords

pull breech extraction, caesarean section, impacted foetal head, uterine incision, push impacted head up

Abstract

Background: Caesarean section (CS) is among the most common significant procedures in obstetrics. A range of techniques is employed to assist in the extraction of an impacted fetal head (IFH) during emergency CS. This study aimed to compare pull breech extraction and push strategies for delivering a profoundly engaged infant at full dilation during emergency cesarean sections.


Materials and Methods: This randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted in the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi. Sixty-two women, aged 18-40 years, having obstructive labour requiring CS were included in the study. Women with a prior uterine scar were eliminated. Women in group A (n = 31) underwent delivery with reverse breech extraction, whilst those in group B (n = 31) were delivered using the head push approach. Outcome measures comprised surgical duration, uterine incision extension, and hemorrhage volume.


Results: Women who participated in this study were aged 30.16 ± 4.95 years in group A and 30.48 ± 4.65 years in group B. Average period of gestational age was 39.34 ± 1.62 weeks. Operative duration for group A (reverse breech extraction group) and group B (head push method group) was 57.52 ± 6.69 minutes and 69.90 ± 9.32 minutes respectively (p-value = 0.0001). Blood loss measured as the 593.58 ± 92.12 ml in group A while group B experienced 996.01 ± 105.98 ml hemorrhage (p-value = 0.0001). The rate of extended uterine incision reached 6.45% in group A while group B experienced 25.81% (p-value = 0.035).


Conclusion: Pull breech out method is superior push technique for delivering a deeply IFH at full dilatation in emergency CS.

Abstract 63 | pdf Downloads 12

References

. Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6):e005671.
. Angolile CM, Max BL, Mushemba J, Mashauri HL. Global increased cesarean section rates and public health implications: A call to action. Health Sci Rep. 2023;6(5):e1274.
. Idris IM, Menghisteab S. Cesarean section delivery rates, determinants, and indications: a retrospective study in Dekemhare Hospital. Glob Reprod Health. 2022;7(1):e56.
. Chen I, Opiyo N, Tavender E, Mortazhejri S, Rader T, Petkovic J, et al. Non‐clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2018(9):CD005528.
. Keag OE, Norman JE, Stock SJ. Long-term risks and benefits associated with cesarean delivery for mother, baby, and subsequent pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2018;15(1):e1002494.
. Cornthwaite K, Bahl R, Winter C, Wright A, Kingdom J, Walker KF, et al. Management of impacted fetal head at caesarean birth: scientific impact paper no. 73. BJOG. 2023;130(12):e40-64.
. Elshamy E, Sharaf A, Shaheen A. Reverse breech extraction versus vaginal push before uterine incision during cesarean section with fully dilated cervix and impacted fetal head. Clin J Obstet Gynecol. 2023;6(4):160-4.
. Cornthwaite KR, Bahl R, Lattey K, Draycott T. Management of impacted fetal head at cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;230(3):S980-7.
. Peak AG, Barwise E, Walker KF. Techniques for managing an impacted fetal head at caesarean section: A systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023;281:12-22.
. Lenz F, Kimmich N, Zimmermann R, Kreft M. Maternal and neonatal outcome of reverse breech extraction of an impacted fetal head during caesarean section in advanced stage of labour: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19:1-8.
. Ragbourne SC, Charles E, Herincs M, Desai N. Anaesthetic considerations for impacted fetal head at caesarean delivery: a focused review. Int J Obstet Anesth. 2025;61:104268.
. Safdar F, Majeed N, Nisa K, Nasir H, Mushtaq I, Tariq S. Feto-maternal Outcome of Reverse Breech Extraction versus Dis-impaction of Fetal Head in Caesarean Section for Obstructed Labour. J Rawalpindi Med Coll. 2022;26(4):548-52.
. Saleh H, Kassem G, Mohamed M, Ibrahiem M, El Behery M. Pull breech out versus push impacted head up in emergency cesarean section: a comparative study. Open J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;4:260-5.
. 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.
. 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.
. Tahir N, Shahid G, Adil M, Fatima S. Reverse breech extraction vs head pushing for delivery of deeply impacted fetal head in emergency caesarean section. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2020;32(4):497-501.
. Baloch S, Khaskheli M, Khushk IA, Sheeba A. Frequency of second stage intervention and its outcome in relation with instrumental vaginal delivery versus caesarean section. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2008;20:87-90.
. Kaima AF, Abdulhakim AE, Abdelrahman HAH. Reverse breech extraction versus head pushing in cesarean section for obstructed labor. Saudi Med J. 2011;32:1261-6.
. Fasubaa OB, Ezechi OC, Orji EO. Delivery of the impacted head of the fetus at caesarean section after prolonged obstructed labor: a randomised comparative study of two methods. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;22:375-8.