COMPARISON OF FETOMATERNAL OUTCOMES OF PUSH VS PULL TECHNIQUE IN SECOND STAGE CESAREAN SECTION

S AWAIS; SS HUSSAIN

doi:10.54112/pjicm.v5i02.154

Authors

S AWAIS Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan
SS HUSSAIN Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/pjicm.v5i02.154

Keywords:

Cesarean Section, Reverse Breech Extraction, Second Stage Labor, Pull Technique

Abstract

Background: Management of an impacted fetal head during second-stage cesarean section presents significant fetomaternal challenges. Different delivery techniques, such as push and pull, may influence maternal and neonatal outcomes. Objective: To compare fetomaternal outcomes using the push versus pull technique for delivery of the impacted fetal head during second-stage cesarean section. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Conducted at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics at Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan. Duration of Study: 11 February 2025 to 11 May 2025. Methods: A total of 224 pregnant women aged 15–45 years, with gestational age ≥37 weeks, cephalic presentation, singleton pregnancy, and a fully dilated cervix were enrolled. Patients were equally divided into two groups: Group A (n = 112) underwent the push technique, and Group B (n = 112) underwent the pull technique. Fetomaternal outcomes evaluated included uterine incision extension, need for blood transfusion, and neonatal APGAR score <7 at five minutes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS, with P < 0.05 considered significant. Results: Mean maternal age was 28.57 ± 7.87 years in Group A and 27.79 ± 8.44 years in Group B. Uterine incision extension occurred in 25.9% of the push group versus 8.9% in the pull group (P = 0.001). Blood transfusion was required in 10.7% of neonates versus 3.6% (P = 0.03), and low APGAR scores (<7) were noted in 16.1% versus 7.1% of neonates in the push and pull groups, respectively (P = 0.03). Conclusion: The pull technique demonstrated superior fetomaternal outcomes compared to the push technique for delivery of impacted fetal heads during second-stage cesarean sections, with lower rates of uterine incision extension, blood transfusion, and neonatal compromise.

References

Betran AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Souza JP, Zhang J. Trends and projections of caesarean section rates: global and regional estimates. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6):e005671. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005671

Antoine C, Young BK. Cesarean section one hundred years 1920–2020: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. J Perinat Med. 2021;49(1):5–16. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2020-0345

World Health Organization. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. Geneva: WHO; 2015.

Ye J, Zhang J, Mikolajczyk R, Torloni MR, Gülmezoglu AM, Betran AP. Association between rates of caesarean section and maternal and neonatal mortality in the 21st century: a worldwide population-based ecological study with longitudinal data. BJOG. 2016;123(5):745–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13592

Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. What is the optimal rate of cesarean sections at the population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health. 2015;12(1):57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6

Larsson C, Djuvfelt E, Lindam A, Tunón K, Nordin P. Surgical complications after caesarean section: a population-based cohort study. PLoS One. 2021;16(10):e0258222. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258222

World Health Organization. Caesarean section rates continue to rise, amid growing inequalities in access. Geneva: WHO; 2021.

Chien P. Global rising rates of caesarean sections. BJOG. 2021;128(5):781–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16666

Patel BS, Kedia N, Shah SR, Agrawal SP, Patel VB, Patel AB. Changing Trends in Cesarean Sections: From 1950 to 2020. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2020;9(5):2222–6. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20201842

Jeve YB, Navti OB, Konje JC. Comparison of techniques used to deliver a deeply impacted fetal head at full dilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2016;123(3):337–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13593

Vousden N, Cargill Z, Briley A, Tydeman G, Shennan AH. Caesarean section at full dilatation: incidence, impact and current management. Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;16(3):199–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/tog.12112

Waterfall H, Grivell RM, Dodd JM. Techniques for assisting difficult deliveries at cesarean sections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016(1):CD004944. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004944.pub3

Nooh AM, Abdeldayem HM, Ben-Affan O. Reverse breech extraction versus the standard approach of pushing the impacted fetal head up through the vagina in caesarean section for obstructed labour: A randomised controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;37(4):459–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2016.1256958

Fasubaa OB, Ezechi OC, Orji EO, Ogunniyi SO, Akindele ST, Loto OM, et al. Delivery of the impacted head of the fetus at caesarean section after prolonged obstructed labour: a randomised comparative study of two methods. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;22(4):375–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610220141290

Veisi F, Zangeneh M, Malekkhosravi S, Rezavand N. Comparison of "push" and "pull" methods for impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;118(1):4–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.12.027

Nawaz S, Bibi S, Ejaz S, Shaheen T, Noor R, Waheed N. Comparison of pull breech out and push impacted head up techniques used to deliver a deeply impacted fetal head at full dilatation in emergency caesarean section. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2025;32(3):793–8. https://doi.org/10.53555/zew47515

Arsh, Fatima SS, Hayat N, Liaqat N. Comparison of maternal infectious morbidity of two methods of fetal delivery during cesarean section at full cervical dilatation. J Saidu Med Coll Swat. 2024;14(3):205–9.