Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/132453
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Persistent occiput posterior position outcomes following manual rotation: a randomized controlled trial
Author: Phipps, H.
Hyett, J.A.
Kuah, S.
Pardey, J.
Matthews, G.
Ludlow, J.
Narayan, R.
Santiagu, S.
Earl, R.
Wilkinson, C.
Bisits, A.
Carseldine, W.
Tooher, J.
McGeechan, K.
de Vries, B.
Citation: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology MFM, 2021; 3(2):100306-1-100306-14
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Issue Date: 2021
ISSN: 2589-9333
2589-9333
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Hala Phipps, Jon A. Hyett, Sabrina Kuah, John Pardey, Geoff Matthews, Joanne Ludlow, Rajit Narayan, Stanley Santiagu, Rachel Earl, Chris Wilkinson, Andrew Bisits, Wendy Carseldine, Jane Tooher, Kevin McGeechan, Bradley de Vries
Abstract: Background: Persistent occiput posterior position in labor is associated with adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Prophylactic manual rotation from the occiput posterior position to the occiput anterior position in the second stage of labor is considered a safe and easy to perform procedure that in observational studies has shown promise as a method for preventing operative deliveries. Objective: This study aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic manual rotation in the management of occiput posterior position for preventing operative delivery. The hypothesis was that among women who are at least 37 weeks pregnant and whose baby is in the occiput posterior position early in the second stage of labor, manual rotation will reduce the rate of operative delivery compared with the “sham” rotation. Study Design: A double-blinded, parallel, superiority, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial in 4 tertiary hospitals was conducted in Australia. A total of 254 nulliparous and parous women with a term pregnancy and a baby in the occiput posterior position in the second stage of labor were randomly assigned to receive either a prophylactic manual rotation (n=127) or a sham rotation (n=127). The primary outcome was operative delivery (cesarean, forceps, or vacuum delivery). Secondary outcomes were cesarean delivery, combined maternal mortality and serious morbidity, and combined perinatal mortality and serious morbidity. Analysis was by intention to treat. Proportions were compared using chi-square tests adjusted for stratification variables using the Mantel-Haenszel method or the Fisher exact test. Planned subgroup analyses by operator experience and by manual rotation technique (digital or whole-hand rotation) were performed. Results: Operative delivery occurred in 79 of 127 women (62%) assigned to prophylactic manual rotation and 90 of 127 women (71%) assigned to sham rotation (common risk difference, 12; 95% confidence interval, −1.7 to 26; P=.09). Among more experienced operators or investigators, operative delivery occurred in 46 of 74 women (62%) assigned to manual rotation and 52 of 71 women (73%) assigned to a sham rotation (common risk difference, 18; 95% confidence interval, −0.5 to 36; P=.07). Cesarean delivery occurred in 22 of 127 women (17%) in both groups. Instrumental delivery (forceps or vacuum) occurred in 57 of 127 women (45%) assigned to prophylactic manual rotation and 68 of 127 women (54%) assigned to sham rotation (common risk difference, 10; 95% confidence interval, −3.1 to 22; P=.14). There was no significant difference in the combined maternal and perinatal outcomes. Conclusion: Prophylactic manual rotation did not result in a reduction in the rate of operative delivery. Given manual rotation was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in operative delivery, more randomized trials are needed, as our trial might have been underpowered. In addition, further research is required to further explore the potential impact of operator or investigator experience.
Keywords: Cesarean delivery; fetal position; instrumental delivery; manual rotation; operative delivery; posterior position; prolonged labor; second stage of labor
Rights: Crown Copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2021.100306
Grant ID: NHMRC
Appears in Collections:Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.