• Kristina Dahlqvist and Maria Jonsson.
• Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. kristina.dahlqvist@gmail.com.
• Bmc Pregnancy Childb. 2017 Nov 14; 17 (1): 377.

BackgroundTo examine the impact of occiput posterior position, compared to occiput anterior position, on neonatal outcomes in a setting where delayed pushing is practiced. The specific aim was to estimate the risk of acidaemia.MethodsCohort study from a university hospital in Sweden between 2004 and 2012. Information was collected from a local database of 35,546 births. Umbilical artery sampling was routine. Outcomes were: umbilical artery pH < 7.00 and <7.10 and short-term neonatal morbidity. The association between occiput posterior position and neonatal outcomes was examined using logistic regression analysis, presented as adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsOf 27,648 attempted vaginal births, 1292 (4.7%) had occiput posterior position. Compared with occiput anterior, there was no difference in pH < 7.00 (0.4% vs. 0.5%) but a higher rate of pH < 7.10 in occiput posterior births (3.8 vs. 5.5%). Logistic regression analysis showed no increased risk of pH < 7.10 (AOR 1.28 95% CI 0.93-1.74) when occiput posterior was compared with occiput anterior births but, an increased risk of Apgar score < 7 at 5 min (AOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.11-3.05); neonatal care admission (AOR 1.68, 95% CI 1.17-2.42) and composite morbidity (AOR 1.66, 95% CI 1.19-2.31).ConclusionsWith delayed pushing, birth in occiput posterior compared with anterior position is not associated with acidaemia. The higher risk of neonatal morbidity is of concern and any long-term consequences need to be investigated in future studies.

34 keywords...

hide…