Die hintere Hinterhauptshaltung – eine diagnostische Herausforderung

Die hintere Hinterhauptshaltung ist eine klinische Herausforderung in Bezug auf Prävention, Diagnose, Korrektur, unterstützende Hilfe und Geburtsmanagement. Obwohl sich das Kind in der Regel doch noch in die vordere Hinterhauptshaltung dreht, kommt es häufig erst nach einem schmerzhaften, anstrengenden und protrahierten Verlauf zur Geburt. Eine späte und fehlende Diagnose kann zu zahlreichen Komplikationen führen.

• Literatur

• 1 Gardberg M, Laakkonen E, Salevaara M. Intrapartum sonography and persistent occiput posterior position: A study of 408 deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91 (5 part 1) 746-749
• 2 Sizer A, Nirmal D. Occiput posterior position: Associated factors and obstetric outcomes in nulliparas. Obstet Gyne col 2000; 96 (5 part 1) 749-752
• 3 Sherer D, Miodovnik M, Bradley K, Langer O. Intrapartum fetal head position I: Comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19 (3) 258-263
• 4 Lieberman E, Davidson K, Lee-Parritz A, Shearer E. Changes infetal position during labor and their association with epiduralanalgesia. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105 (5 part 1) 974-982
• 5 Cheng Y, Shaffer B, Caughey A. The association between persistent occiput posterior position and neonatal outcomes. ObstetGynecol 2006; 107 (4) 837-844
• 6 Ponkey S, Cohen A, Heffner L et al. Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: Obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101 (5 part 1) 915-920
• 7 Fitzpatrick M, McQuillan K, O’Herlihy C. Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98: 1027-1031
• 8 Senecal J, Xiong X, Fraser W. Effect of fetal position on secondstage duration and labor outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105: 763-772
• 9 Hart J, Walker A. Management of occiput posterior position. J Midwifery 2007; 52: 508-513
• 10 Cunningham FG, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC III, Hauth JC, Wenstrom KD. Williams obstetrics. (22nd ed.) NewYork: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2005
• 11 Ponkey S, Cohen A, Heffner L, Lieber-man E. Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: Obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 915-920
• 12 Schneider H, Husslein P, Schneider KT M. Geburtshilfe. Springer 2002;
• 13 Cheng Y, Shaffer B, Caughey A. Associated factors and outcomes of persistent occiput posterior position: A retrospective cohort study from 1976 to 2001. J maternal fetal med 2006; 19: 563-568
• 14 Oxorn H, Foote W. Human labor and birth (5 ed). Norwalk (CT): Appleton-Centrury-Crofts; 1986
• 15 Lydon-Rochelle M, Alber L, Gorwoda J, Craig E, Qualls C. Accuracy of Leopold maneuvers in screening for malpresentation: A prospective study. Birth 1993; 20: 132-135
• 16 Souka AP, Haritos T, Basayiannis K, Noikokyri N, Antsaklis A. Intrapartum ultrasound for the examination of the fetal head position in normal and obstructed labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2003; 13: 59-63
• 17 Akmal S, Kametas NT E, Hargreaves C, Nicolaides KH. Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 437-440
• 18 Sherer DM, Abulafia O. UOG. 2003; 21: 430-436
• 19 Eggebo TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, Smedvig E, Økland I, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 387-391
• 20 Eggebo TM, Heien C, Okland I, Gjessing LK, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head–perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 199-204
• 21 Henrich W, Dudenhausen J, Fuchs I, Kamena A, Tutschek B. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound (ITU): sonographic landmarks and correlation with successful vacuum extraction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 753-760
• 22 Kalache KD, Dückelmann AM, Michae-lis SA M, Lange J, Cichon G, Duden-hausen JW. Transperineal ultrasound imaging in prolonged second stage of labor with occipitoanterior presenting fetuses: how well does the „angle of progression“ predict the mode of delivery?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 326-330
• 23 Molina FS, Nicolaides KH. Ultrsound in Labor and delivery. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010; 27: 61-67
• 24 Sizer AR, Nirmal DM. Occipitoposterior position: associated factors and obstetric outcome in nullipara. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: 749-752
• 25 Dückelmann AM, Bamberg C, Michae-lis SA, Lange J, Nonnenmacher A, Dudenhausen JW et al. Measurement of fetal head descent using the „angle of progression“ on transperineal ultrasound imaging is reliable regardless of fetal head station or ultrasound expertise. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 216-22
• 26 Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O. Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparsion between transvaginal digital examination and transabdomina ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 264-268
• 27 Geist C, Harder U, Stiefel A. Hebammenkunde. 4. Aufl.. 2007. Hippokrates Verlag;
• 28 Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intra­cranial injury. N Engl J Med 02.12.1999; 341 (23) 1709-1714
• 29 Wong GY, Mok YM, Wong SF. Transabdominal ultrasound assessment of the fetal head and the accuracy of vacuum cup application. nt J Gynaecol Obstet 08/2007; 98 (2) 120-123
• 30 Sharma JB. Evaluation of Sharma’s modified Leopold‘s maneuvers: a new method for fetal palpation in late pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2009; 279: 481-487