Difficulty in the Delivery of a Baby During LSCS

  • Parul J. Kotdawala
  • Munjal J. Pandya


Over the last three decades, there is a steady rise in cesarean sections globally [1]. This has mainly happened due to expanding indications for primary cesarean section. We now perform elective CS in almost all breech pregnancies; preterm labor; various pregnancy situations such as associated medical problems, e.g., diabetes, hypertension, and immune problems; IVF pregnancies; advanced age pregnancies; and morbidly obese mothers. These higher rates of primary cesarean sections have led to very high repeat cesarean section rates! In almost all recent surveys for indications for CS, “previous cesarean section” has become the number one indication, contributing to almost 40–50 % of CS. The US data also shows a rise from 21 % to 32 % in 15 years [2]. These factors like previous cesarean section, morbidly obese woman, and preterm elective cesarean section have brought in their wake peculiar situations for the delivery of the baby during CS. We have tried to discuss various difficulties encountered in delivering the baby during CS and various means to minimize trauma to the baby as well as to the mother. We have also outlined current concepts and have enlisted suggestions to ease the delivery of the baby with the evidence base. Difficult fetal extraction occurs in approximately one in ten cesarean deliveries, more commonly seen with preterm, elective, and late intrapartum cesarean sections.


Cesarean Section Obese Woman Cesarean Delivery Lower Segment Placenta Previa 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates WHO/RHR/15.02 ( & Ghosh S, James K. Levels and trends in caesarean births: cause for concern? Economics and Political Weekly. 2010;45(5).
  2. 2.
    Barber EL, Lundsberg L, Belanger K, Pettker C, Funai E, Illuzzi J. Contributing indications to the rising cesarean delivery rate. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(1):29–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    WHO Media Centre Obesity and Overweight Fact sheet No. 311, Jan 2015.
  4. 4.
    Obesity in Pregnancy, Committee Opinion, No. 549, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121: 213–7.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perlow JH, Morgan MA. Massive maternal obesity and perioperative cesarean morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170(2):560–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Machado LS. Cesarean section in morbidly obese parturients: practical implications and complications. N Am J Med Sci. 2012;4(1):13–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alanis MC, Villers MS, Law TL, Steadman EM, Robinson CJ. Complications of cesarean delivery in the massively obese parturient. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kingdom JC, Baud D, Grabowska K, Thomas J, Windrim R, Maxwell C. Delivery by caesarean section in super-obese women: beyond pfannenstiel. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34(5):472–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tixier H, Thouvenot S, Coulange L, Peyronel C, Filipuzzi L, Sagot P, Douvier S. Cesarean section in morbidly obese women: supra or subumbilical transverse incision? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(9):1049–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wall PD, Deucy EE, Glantz JC, Pressman EK. Vertical skin incisions and wound complications in the obese parturient. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(5 Pt 1):952–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chao A. Safe delivery of the fetal head during cesarean section. OBG Manag. 2003;15(1):16–28.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Landesman R, Graber EA. Abdominovaginal delivery: modification of the cesarean section operation to facilitate delivery of the impacted head. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984;148(6):707–10.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    David M, Nierhaus M, Schauss B, Vetter K. Preventive intravenous nitroglycerin administration in cesarean section to facilitate fetal extraction of infants between 500 and 1500 g – are there negative effects on the newborn infant? Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol. 2001;205(4):137–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mohamad O, Abd-Manaf M, Soliman M, Rashwan A. The correlation between the duration of fetal extraction during elective cesarean section and low apgar score. Med J Cairo Univ. 2012;80(1):175–80.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patwardhan BD, Motashaw ND. Cesarean section. J Obstet Gynecol India. 1957;8:1–15.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saleh HS, et al. Pull breech out versus push impacted head up in emergency cesarean section: a comparative study. Open J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;4:260–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chopra S, Bagga R, Keepanasseril A, Jain V, Kalra J, Suri V. Disengagement of the deeply engaged fetal head during cesarean section in advanced labor: conventional method versus reverse breech extraction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(10):1163–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bastani P, Pourabolghasem S, Abbasalizadeh F, Motvalli L. Comparison of neonatal and maternal outcomes associated with head-pushing and head-pulling methods for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;118(1):1–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levy R, Chernomoretz T, Appelman Z, Levin D, Or Y, Hagay ZJ. Head pushing versus reverse breech extraction in cases of impacted fetal head during Cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;121(1):24–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Frass KA, Al Eryani A, Al-Harazi AH. Reverse breech extraction versus head pushing in cesarean section for obstructed labor. Saudi Med J. 2011;32(12):1261–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Murless BC. Lower-segment caesarean section; a new head extractor. BMJ. 1948 June 26;1(4564):1234–35.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Singh M, Varma R. Reducing complications associated with a deeply engaged head at caesarean section: a simple instrument. Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;10:38–41. Head disengaging device.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shahzarul F, Aqmar S, Nor-Azlin MI, Nirmala K, Rahman RA, Jamil MA. Disengagement of impacted fetal head during caesarean section in advanced labour using C-snorkel device versus the conventional method: a randomised control trial. J Surg Acad. 2014;4(1):80.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sethuram R, Jamjute P. Kevelighan delivery of the deeply engaged head: a lacuna in training. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30(6):545–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Larsen JW Jr, Brunner M, Obican SG. Barton’s forceps: an effective aid in cesarean deliveries. Contemp Obstet Gynecol. 2011;56(9):40–42.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McQuivey RW, LaPorte V, Vacca A. Vacuum-assisted delivery of the fetal head at cesarean section. 1st Beijing international conference on Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beijing; 7–10 Oct 2005.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hogle KL, Hutton EK, McBrien KA, Barrett JF, Hannah ME. Cesarean delivery for twins: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(1):220–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyV. S. General Hospital, & Smt. N.H.L. Municipal Medical CollegeAhmedabadIndia
  2. 2.Kotdawala Women’s ClinicAhmedabadIndia
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyAMC MET Medical College, Sheth L. G. HospitalAhmedabadIndia

Personalised recommendations