Download PDF
Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2020; 224(05): 257-261
DOI: 10.1055/a-1192-7254
Review

A Forensic Aspect of Fetal Shoulder Dystocia

Dubravko Habek 
1   Ob/Gyn, University Hospital “Sveti Duh”, Zagreb, Croatia and Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb
,
Anis Cerovac
2   Department for Gynecology and Obstetrics, General Hospital Tešanj and University of Tuzla, Faculty of Medicine, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Fetal shoulder dystocia (FSD) is an unpredictable and critical obstetric intrapartum emergency, where an objective problem is the relationship between the mother's pelvis and the child, i. e., an anthropometric disorder of delivery mechanics and dynamics. It is evident that the need to perform other maneuvers indicates the severity of FSD, which in turn correlates with the consequent iatrogenic injury of the fetus and/or mother. FSD is certainly the most controversial forensic obstetric problem, with the most disputes, compensation for damages due to peripartum injury to the child and/or mother, pain suffered, the need for someone else's care, and permanent disability. Suboptimal procedures and inadequate documentation are factors of forensic risk and subsequent litigations. Prevention of FSD is generally not possible, although good antenatal care can sometimes exclude risky cases of FSD, and some rare, chronic intrauterine disorders can result in orthopedic and neurological sequelae, which is especially important in forensic analysis. Because FSD is largely impossible to predict, it must be viewed as an intrapartum acceptable risk. During childbirth, FSD may compromise the safety of the mother and unborn child, therefore education and skills acquisition are necessary for obstetric work. Risk control, proper procedures, and proper documentation, along with good communication with the pregnant women and their families, significantly reduce litigation procedures.

Key words

shoulder dystocia - forensic - clinical risk


Publication History

Received: 30 March 2020

Accepted: 16 May 2020

Article published online:
23 June 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Menticoglou S. Shoulder dystocia: incidence, mechanisms, and management strategies. Int J Womens Health 2018; 10: 723-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Habek D. Fetal shoulder dystocia. Acta Med Croat 2002; 56: 57-63
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Habek D. Assisted delivery of the shoulder dystocia. Gynaecol Perinatol 2005; 14: 166-170
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Habek D. Severe refractory bilateral shoulder dystocia released with digital hooking (Bourgeois–Siegemundin) manoeuvre. J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 39: 581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Habek D. (ed) Forensic Gynecology and Perinatology. Zagreb: Medicinska naklada and Catholic University of Croatia; 2018: 10-25
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Baskett TF, Allen AC. Perinatal implications of shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86: 14-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Spong CY, Beall M, Rodrigues D. et al. An objective definition of shoulder dystocia: prolonged head-to-body delivery intervals and/or the use of ancillary obstetric maneuvers. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86: 433-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Dudenhausen JW. Die Schulterdystokie – Folgen und Vorgehen. Zbl Gynäkol 2001; 123: 369-374
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 McEwan A, Johnson IR. The problem of shoulder dystocia. Curr Obstet Gynecol 2001; II: 45-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Skolbekken JA. Shoulder dystocia – malpractice or acceptable risk?. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000; 79: 750-756
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gilstrop M. An update on the acute management of shoulder dystocia. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2016; 109: 813-819
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sancetta R, Khanzada H, Leante R. Shoulder shrug maneuver to facilitate delivery during shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133: 1178-1181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Schwenzer T, Bahm J. Schulterdystokie und Plexusparese. Klinik, Prävention, Gutachten und Dokumentation. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; 2016: 129-142
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Schwenzer T, Bahm J, Hitschold T. Schulterdystokie und konnatale Armplexusparese. Frauenarzt 2013; 54: 1175-1177
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Torki M, Barton L, Miller DA. et al. Severe brachial plexus palsy in women without shoulder dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 539-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Zaami S, Busardò FP, Signore F. et al. Obstetric brachial plexus palsy: a population-based retrospective case-control study and medicolegal considerations. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 31: 1412-1417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Okby R, Sheiner E. Risk factors for neonatal brachial plexus paralysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012; 286: 333-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Leigh TH, James CE. Medicolegal commentary: shoulder dystocia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 815-817
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Domingues AP, Moura P, Vieira DN. Obstetric litigation: the importance of the quality of clinical files and its influence on expertise conclusions. J Obstet Gynaecol 2015; 35: 146-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fieux G. De la pathogene des paralysis brachiales chez le nouveaune. Paralysis obstetriciales. Ann Gynecol Obstet 1897; 47: 52-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Taghizadeh Z, Pourbakhtiar M, Azimi K. et al. Claims about medical malpractices resulting in neonatal and maternal impairment in Iran. J Forensic Leg Med 2019; 66: 44-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Habek D. Medical forensic expertise in obstetrics. Lijec Vjesn 2008; 130: 297-302
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Habek D, Herman R, Đuran T. et al. Forensic aspect of fetal shoulder dystocia. Gynaecol Perinatol 2005; 14: 24-28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hidža Čohar M, Čohar B, Habek D. Peripartum injuries: clavicular fracture and brachioparesis. Acta Medicorum 2001; 27: 59-62
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Habek D. Intrapartal humerus fracture in severe refractory transverse shoulder dystocia. Gynaecol Perinatol 2018; 27: 42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Habek D. Transient recurrent laryngeal nerve paresis after shoulder dystocia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 130: 87-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hamida N, Hakim A, Fourati H. et al. Neonatal cervical artery dissection secondary to birth trauma. Arch Pediatr 2014; 21: 201-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Shao Ern Tan T, Mohamad A, Dharmaraj S. Bilateral fractures in a shoulder dystocia delivery. BMJ Case Reports 2016; DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2016-217762.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Rozenberg P. In case of fetal macrosomia, the best strategy is the induction of labor at 38 weeks of gestation. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2016; 45: 1037-1044
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Chauhan SP, Laye MR, Lutgendorf M. et al. A multicenter assessment of 1,177 cases of shoulder dystocia: lessons learned. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31: 401-406
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Rahman J, Bhattee G, Rahman MS. Shoulder dystocia in a 16-year experience in a teaching hospital. J Reprod Med 2009; 54: 378-384
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Enekwe A, Rothmund R, Uhl B. Abdominal access for shoulder dystocia as a last resort – a case report. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2012; 72: 634-638
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Draycott TJ, Crofts JF, Ash JP. et al. Improving neonatal outcome through practical shoulder dystocia training. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 14-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gerstner GJ. Forensische Geburtshilfe. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter Gmbh & Co. KG; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Symon A. Obstetric Litigation from A–Z. Dinton–Salisbury:. Quay Books Mark Allen Publishing Ltd; 2001
    Google Scholar