Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Ginekologia Polskaarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Ginekologia Polska
Article . 2013 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Ginekologia Polska
Article
License: CC BY NC ND
Data sources: UnpayWall
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Methods of evaluating labor progress in contemporary obstetrics

Authors: Michał, Głuszak; Stanisław, Fracki; Mirosław, Wielgoś; Piotr, Wegrzyn;

Methods of evaluating labor progress in contemporary obstetrics

Abstract

Assessment of progress in labor is one of the foremost problems in obstetrics. Obstructed labor increases danger to maternal and fetal life and health, and may be caused by birth canal pathologies, as well as inefficient uterine contractions or failure of cervical dilation. Such obstructions require the use of vacuum extraction, forceps, or a Caesarean section. Operative delivery should be performed only when specifically indicated. Conversely postponing an operative delivery when the procedure is necessary is detrimental to the neonatal outcome. Therefore, it is advisable to make the decision on the basis of objective, measurable parameters. Methods of evaluating the risk of labor disorders have evolved over the years. Currently ultrasonography is used for fetal biometric measurements and weight estimation. It helps to evaluate the risk of labor disorders. This method, however is limited by a relatively large measurement error At present, vaginal examination is still the primary method of evaluating labor progress, although the technique is known to be operator-dependent and poorly reproducible. Recent publications suggest that intrapartum translabial ultrasonography is more accurate and allows for an objective assessment of labor progress. Recent studies have evaluated fetal head engagement based on the following parameters: angle between the pubic symphysis and fetal head, distance between the presenting point and the interspinous line and fetal head direction in the birth canal. Each of the described parameters allowed for an objective assessment of head engagement but no advantage of any particular parameter has been revealed so far.

Keywords

Infant, Newborn, Parturition, Pregnancy Outcome, Delivery, Obstetric, Labor Presentation, Obstetrics, Perinatal Care, Labor Stage, Second, Pregnancy, Humans, Labor Onset, Female, Labor Stage, First, Cervical Ripening, Monitoring, Physiologic

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    6
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
6
Average
Average
Average
gold