Transverse position. Using rotation to aid normal birth-OUTcomes following manual rotation (the TURN-OUT trial): a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The fetal occiput transverse position in the second stage of labor is associated with adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Prophylactic manual rotation in the second stage of labor is considered a safe and easy to perform procedure that has been used to prevent operative deliveries. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic manual rotation in the management of the occiput transverse position for preventing operative delivery. We hypothesized that among women who are at ≥37 weeks' gestation with a baby in the occiput transverse position early in the second stage of labor, manual rotation compared with a "sham" rotation will reduce the rate of operative delivery. STUDY DESIGN: A double-blinded, parallel, superiority, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial in 3 tertiary hospitals was conducted in Australia. The primary outcome was operative (cesarean, forceps, or vacuum) delivery. Secondary outcomes were cesarean delivery, serious maternal morbidity and mortality, and serious perinatal morbidity and mortality. Outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat. Proportions were compared using χ2 tests adjusted for stratification variables using the Mantel-Haenszel method or Fisher exact test. Planned subgroup analyses by operator experience and technique of manual rotation (digital or whole hand rotation) were performed. The planned sample size was 416 participants (trial registration: ACTRN12613000005752). RESULTS: Here, 160 women with a term pregnancy and a baby in the occiput transverse position in the second stage of labor, confirmed by ultrasound, were randomly assigned to receive either a prophylactic manual rotation (n=80) or a sham procedure (n=80), which was less than our original intended sample size. Operative delivery occurred in 41 of 80 women (51%) assigned to prophylactic manual rotation and 40 of 80 women (50%) assigned to a sham rotation (common risk difference, -4.2% [favors sham rotation]; 95% confidence interval, -21 to 13; P=.63). Among more experienced proceduralists, operative delivery occurred in 24 of 47 women (51%) assigned to manual rotation and 29 of 46 women (63%) assigned to a sham rotation (common risk difference, 11%; 95% confidence interval, -11 to 33; P=.33). Cesarean delivery occurred in 6 of 80 women (7.5%) in the manual rotation group and 7 of 80 women (8.7%) in the sham group. Instrumental (forceps or vacuum) delivery occurred in 35 of 80 women (44%) in the manual rotation group and 33 of 80 women (41%) in the sham group. There was no significant difference in the combined maternal and perinatal outcomes. The trial was terminated early because of limited resources. CONCLUSION: Planned prophylactic manual rotation did not result in fewer operative deliveries. More research is needed in the use of manual rotation from the occiput transverse position for preventing operative deliveries.

Persistent occiput posterior position outcomes following manual rotation: a randomized controlled trial.

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.

Is sonographically measured cervical length at 37 weeks of gestation associated with intrapartum cesarean section? A prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Cesarean section rates continue to increase globally. Prediction of intrapartum cesarean section could lead to preventive measures. Our aim was to assess the association between sonographically measured cervical length at 37 weeks of gestation and cesarean section among women planning a vaginal birth. The population was women with a low-risk pregnancy or with gestational diabetes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia. In all, 212 women with a low-risk pregnancy or with gestational diabetes were recruited including 158 nulliparous and 54 parous women. Maternal demographic, clinical and ultrasound characteristics were collected at 37 weeks of gestation. Semi-Bayesian logistic regression and Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation were used to assess the relation between cervical length and cesarean section in labor. RESULTS: Rates of cesarean section were 5% (2/55) for cervical length ≤20 mm, 17% (17/101) for cervical length 20-32 mm, and 27% (13/56) for cervical length >32 mm. These rates were 4, 22 and 33%, respectively, in nulliparous women. In the semi-Bayesian analysis, the odds ratio for cesarean section was 6.2 (95% confidence interval 2.2-43) for cervical length 20-32 mm and 10 (95% confidence interval 4.8-74) for cervical length >32 mm compared with the lowest quartile of cervical length, after adjusting for maternal age, parity, height, prepregnancy body mass index, gestational diabetes, induction of labor, neonatal sex and birthweight centile. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical length at 37 weeks of gestation is associated with intrapartum cesarean section.

Urinary incontinence-pathophysiology and management outline.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is common in the community and may impact significantly on quality of life; yet only one-third of sufferers seek medical attention. There are many treatment options for patients suffering with urinary incontinence. OBJECTIVE: This article aims to aid general practitioners in the management urinary incontinence. We outline the pathophysiology of urinary incontinence in women and provide a primary care treatment paradigm. Suggestions for when specialist referral would be of benefit are also discussed. DISCUSSION: Most urinary incontinence can be evaluated and treated in the primary care setting after careful history and simple clinical assessment. Initial treatment, for both urge urinary incontinence and stress urinary incontinence, is lifestyle modification and pelvic floor muscle treatment. Urinary urgency responds to bladder training and pharmacotherapy with anticholinergic medication. Pharmacotherapy has a limited place in stress incontinence. If there is complex symptomatology or primary management fails, then referral to a specialist is suggested.