Home| Journals | About Us|Contact Us|www.statperson.com

• Thesis to Book with ISBN
• Thesis Writer
• Subscription
• Article in Press
• Editorial Board
• Current Issue
• Publication Charges
• Archives
• Authors Information
• Contact Us
• Indexing

[Abstract] [PDF] [HTML] [Linked References]

MedPulse - International Medical Journal, ISSN 2348-2516 E-ISSN: 2348-1897

Volume 1, Issue 6, June 2014 pp 252-258

Research Article

A study of maternal and perinatal outcome of breech presentation in vaginal and operative deliveries in a university hospital

Sonali Gaikwad¹, Rahul Rokade², Geeta Banerjee³

¹Specialist Medical Officer, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, District hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA.

²Demonstrator, Community Medicine, MGM Medical College, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, INDIA.

Academic Editor : Dr. Bhanap P. L.

1. Pritchard JA, MacDonald PC. Dystocia caused by abnormalities in presentation, position, or development of the fetus. In: Williams Obstetrics. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts;1980. p.787–96.
2. Cheng M, Hannah M. Breech delivery at term: a critical review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:605–18.
3. Ghosh MK. Breech presentation: evolution of management. J Reprod Med 2005;50:108–16
4. Gilbert WM et al. Vaginal versus cesarean delivery for breech 1. presentation in California: a population-based study. Obstetrics and gynecology, 2003, 102:911–7.
5. Sanchez-Ramos L et al. Route of breech delivery and maternal 2. and neonatal outcomes. International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics, 2001, 73:7–14.
6. Irion O et al. Planned vaginal delivery versus elective caesarean 3. section: a study of 705 singleton term breech presentations. British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 1998, 105:710–7.
7. Thorpe-Beeston JG, Banfield PJ, Saunders NJ. Outcome 4. of breech delivery at term. British medical journal, 1992, 305:746–7.
8. Roman J, Bakos O, Cnattingius S. Pregnancy outcomes by 5. mode of delivery among term breech births: Swedish experience 1987–1993. Obstetrics and gynecology, 1998, 92:945–50.
9. Confino E et al. The breech dilemma: a review. 6. Obstetrics and gynecology, 1985, 40:330–7.
10. World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet 1985;ii:436-7.
11. Anderson GM. Making sense of rising cesarean section rates – Time to change our goals. BMJ 2004;329:696-7
12. Khawaja M, Kabakian. Khasholian T, Jurdi R. Determinants of cesarean section in Egypt. Evidence from demographic and health survey. Health Policy 2004;69:273-81.
13. Harper MA, Byington RP, Espeland MA et al. Pregnancy related death and health care services. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102:273-8.
14. Thomas J, Parenajothy S. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. The National Sentinel Cesarean Section Audit Report. London. RCOG Press. 2001.
15. Bergholt T, Stenderup JK, Vedsted-Jacobsen A et al. Intraoperative surgical complication during cesarean section: an observational study of the incidence and risk factors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003;82:251-6.

16. Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Saigal S,Willan AB. Planned Caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 2000; 356(9239):1369.