Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2006; 23(7): 439-444
DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-951304
Copyright © 2006 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Shoulder Dystocia at Noninstrumental Vaginal Delivery

Vani Dandolu1 , Neetu J. Jain2 , Enrique Hernandez3 , Lakota Kruse2
  • 1Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • 2Division of Family Health Services, New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Trenton, New Jersey
  • 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 September 2006 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

This study examines the relationship between episiotomy and the occurrence of shoulder dystocia among noninstrumental vaginal deliveries. Analysis of data from a retrospective database was used to study noninstrumental vaginal deliveries in New Jersey during the years 1996 to 2001. The episiotomy group and nonepisiotomy group were analyzed separately using univariate and multivariate analysis. Among 358,664 deliveries, rate of shoulder dystocia was 1.0% (n = 3596). Thirty-five percent of deliveries were assisted by episiotomy. Rate of dystocia was 1.42% with the use of episiotomy, and 0.81% when episiotomy was not used. This increased rate with episiotomy was noted across all of the racial groups, all birthweight categories, and all of the risk factor subgroups analyzed. There was a gradual decrease in the use of episiotomy from 37.30 to 26.03% without a corresponding increase in the rate of dystocia. Among noninstrumental deliveries, the rate of shoulder dystocia is higher in the episiotomy group. Decrease in the use of episiotomy has not resulted in an increase in the occurrence of dystocia.

KEYWORDS

Shoulder dystocia - episiotomy - dystocia

REFERENCES

  • 1 Kozak L J, Weeks J D. Trends in obstetric procedures, 1990-2000.  Birth. 2002;  29 157-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Weeks J D, Kozak L J. Trends in the use of episiotomy in the United States: 1980-1998.  Birth. 2001;  28 152-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 East C, Webster J. Episiotomy at the Royal Women's Hospital, Brisbane: a comparison of practices in 1986 and 1992.  Midwifery. 1995;  11 195-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Graham I D, Graham D F. Episiotomy counts: trends and prevalence in Canada, 1981/1982 to 1993/1994.  Birth. 1997;  24 141-147
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gurewitsch E D, Allen R H. Management of shoulder dystocia.  Lancet. 2005;  365 1228-1229
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gurewitsch E D, Donithan M, Stallings S P et al.. Episiotomy versus fetal manipulation in managing severe shoulder dystocia: a comparison of outcomes.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  191 911-916
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Youssef R, Ramalingam U, Macleod M, Murphy D J. Cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of episiotomy at instrumental vaginal delivery.  BJOG. 2005;  112 941-945
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gherman R B. Shoulder dystocia: an evidence-based evaluation of the obstetric nightmare.  Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;  45 345-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sokol R J, Blackwell S C. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Practice B. ACOG practice bulletin: shoulder dystocia, number 40, November 2002.  Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;  80 87-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gross S J, Shine J, Farine D. Shoulder dystocia: predictors and outcome. A five-year review.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;  156 334-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Nocon J J, McKenzie D K, Thomas L J, Hansell R S. Shoulder dystocia: an analysis of risks and obstetric maneuvers.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;  168 1732-1739
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Blickstein I, Ben-Arie A, Hagay Z J. Antepartum risks of shoulder dystocia and brachial plexus injury for infants weighing 4200 g or more.  Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1998;  45 77-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Nesbitt T S, Gilbert W M, Herrchen B. Shoulder dystocia and associated risk factors with macrosomic infants born in California.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;  179 476-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Langer O, Berkus M D, Huff R W, Samueloff A. Shoulder dystocia: should the fetus weighing greater than or equal to 4000 grams be delivered by cesarean section?.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;  165 831-837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cleary-Goldman J, Robinson J N. The role of episiotomy in current obstetric practice.  Semin Perinatol. 2003;  27 3-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hartmann K, Viswanathan M, Palmieri R, Gartlehner G, Thorp Jr J, Lohr K N. Outcomes of routine episiotomy: a systematic review.  JAMA. 2005;  293 2141-2148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Benedetti T J, Gabbe S G. Shoulder dystocia. A complication of fetal macrosomia and prolonged second stage of labor with midpelvic delivery.  Obstet Gynecol. 1978;  52 526-529
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Baskett T F, Allen A C. Perinatal implications of shoulder dystocia.  Obstet Gynecol. 1995;  86 14-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ananth C V. Perinatal epidemiologic research with vital statistics data: Validity is the essential quality.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;  195 5-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kirby R S. Using vital statistics databases for perinatal epidemiology: does the quality go in before the name goes on?.  Am J Epidemiol. 2001;  154 889-890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Vani DandoluM.D. 

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Out Patient Building

7th Floor, 3401 North Broad Street, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 19140

      >