Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-05T01:00:21.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 15 - Intrapartum and Postpartum: Legal Commentary II

from Part II - INTRAPARTUM AND POSTPARTUM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2010

John Patrick O'Grady ,
Martin L. Gimovsky ,
Lucy A. Bayer-Zwirello  and
Kevin Giordano
John Patrick O'Grady
Affiliation:
Tufts University, Massachusetts
Get access

Summary

Pregnancy, labor, and delivery are associated with major physiologic changes that can decrease maternal reserves. Consequently, various techniques of analgesia and anesthesia can have profound effects on maternal physiology. Furthermore, obstetric pain management and operative obstetric anesthesia are recognized as secondary causes of neonatal respiratory depression. Improper management of labor is the common claim in obstetrical malpractice cases. Malpresentation and/or dystocia are some of the most fertile areas for medical negligence lawsuits. The clinician must be fully aware of the general predisposing factors to complications in the third stage of labor. Common postpartum complications include urinary tract problems, such as infections, urine retention, or incontinence. Obstetricians have long recognized the excessive perinatal morbidity and mortality associated with the breech-presenting fetus. Multiple gestations often pose intrapartum management problems. Emphasizing the shoulder dystocia was a true obstetric emergency, and greater emphasis was placed on team approach, including neonatal resuscitation.

Keywords

breech presentationcesarean deliveryintrapartum management problemspostpartum complicationsthird stage of laborshoulder dystociamultiple gestationsobstetric anesthesia
Type
Chapter
Information
Operative Obstetrics , pp. 370 - 392
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Physician's Insurers Association of America (PIAA): Closed Claims Study, 2005.
Gourley v. Nebraska Methodist Health System, 663 N. W.2d 43 (2003).
Wareing v. United States, 943 F. Supp 1504 (1996).
White, AA, Pichert, JW, Bledsoe, SH, Irwin, C, Entman, SS: Cause and effect analysis of closed claims in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105:1031–1038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Institute of Medicine: To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington DC: The National Academics Press, 2000.
American College of Obstetricians and Gyneco- logists: Surgery and patient choice. Committee Opinion No. 289. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2003.
Glazener, CMA, Abdalla, M, Stroud, P, Naji, S, Templeton, A, Russell, IT: Postnatal maternal morbidity: Extent, causes, prevention and treatment. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;102:282–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minkoff, H, Chervenak, FA: Elective primary ces- arean delivery. N Engl J Med 2003;348:946–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, JA, Baldwin, RM, Dickey, JC, Wiggins, KM: Red blood cell loss and changes in apparent blood volume during and following vaginal delivery, cesarean section, and cesarean section plus total abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1962;84:1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sultan, AH, Stanton, SL: Preserving the pelvic floor and perineum during childbirth – elective caesarean section?Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:731–734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemminki, E, Merilainen, J: Long-term effects of cesarean sections: Ectopic pregnancies and placental problems. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:1569–1574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, R, Gardeil, F, Turner, MJ: Long-term effects of cesarean sections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 176:254–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, JR: Putting elective cesarean into perspective. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:967–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, SL, Koonings, PP, Phelan, JP: Placenta previa/ accreta and prior cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:89–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Schreiber v. Physicians Ins., 579 N. W.2d 730 (1998).
The Boston Globe, Meador v. Stahler and Gheridian, Wednesday, June 16, 1993.
Varner, MW: Neuropsychiatric sequelae of midforceps deliveries. Clin Perinatol 1983;10:455–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennen, PC: Dennen's Forceps Deliveries, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: FA Davis, 1989.Google Scholar
O'Grady, JP: Modern Instrumental Delivery. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1988.Google Scholar
Laufe, , Berkus, MD: Assisted Vaginal Delivery: Obstetrical Forceps and Vacuum Extraction Techniques. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992.Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecolo- gists: Obstetric forceps. Committee Opionion No. 71. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1989.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Operative vaginal delivery. Technical Bulletin No. 152. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1991.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecolo- gists: Operative vaginal delivery. Technical Bulletin No. 196. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1994.
Healy, DL, Laufe, : Survey of obstetrical forceps training in North America in 1981. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;1:54–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, BK: ASA closed claims in obstetrics: Lessons learned. Anesthesiol Clin North Am 2003;21:183–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lanzet v. Greenberg, 594 A. 2d 309 (1991).
Oberzan v. Smith, 869 P. 2d 682 (1994).
Hawkins, JL, Gibbs, CP, Orleans, M, Martin-Salvaj, G, Beaty, B: Obstetric anesthesia work force survey, 1981 versus 1992. Anesthesiology 1997;87:135–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denton v. LaCroix, 947 S. W. 2d 941 (1997).
Forrestal v. Magendantz 848 F.2d 303 (1988); Kavanaugh v. Nussbaum 523 N. E. 2d 284 (1988).
Forrestal v. Magendantz 848 F.2d 303 (1988).
Carmen v. Dippold 379 N. E. 2d 1365 (1978).
Williams v. Lallie Kemp Charity Hospital., 428 So.2d 1000 (1994).
Mundaell v. La Pata No. 1-92-1 245, 1994 WL 202583 (Ill. Ct. App 1994).
Simpson v. Wilkinson No. 21265188 (Kings Cty Sup. Ct. Brooklyn, NY (1992).
Comstock C, Mathies H: X-ray pelvimetry. In Sciarra, JJ (ed): Gynecology and Obstetrics. Phila- delphia: JB Lippincott, 1994:1.Google Scholar
Jones v. Karraker 440 N. E. 2d (1982).
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecolo- gists: Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. Technical Bulletin No. 132. Washington DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1989.
Cunningham, FG, MacDonald, PC, Leveno, KJ, et al. (eds): Williams Obstetrics, 19th ed. Norwalk, CT: Appelton and Lange, 1993:487.Google Scholar
Cunningham, FG, MacDonald, PC, Gant, NF, et al. (eds): Williams Obstetrics, 20th ed. Stamford, CT: Appelton and Lange, 1997:427.Google Scholar
Mertsaris v. 73rd Corp 482 N. Y. S. 2d 792 (1984).
Atshuler, G: Placenta within the medicolegal imperative. Arch Pathol Lab Med 115:688–695, 1991.Google Scholar
Atshuler, G, Deppisch, LM: College of America Pathologists Conference XIX on the examination of placenta: Report of the working group on indications for placental examinations. Arch Pathol Lab Med 115:701–703, 1991.Google Scholar
Gabaldoni v. Bd. of Physicians 785 A.2d 771 (2001).
Pritchard, JA, Baldwin, RM, Dickney, JC, et al: Blood volume changes in pregnancy and the puerperium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 84:1271–1273, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackay, AP, Berg, CJ, Atrash, HK: Pregnancy-related mortality from preeclampsia and eclampsia. Obstet Gynecol 97:533–538, 2001.Google ScholarPubMed
Witlin, AG, Sibai, BM: Magnesium sulfate therapy in preeclampsia and eclampsia. Obstet Gynecol 92: 883–889, 1998.Google ScholarPubMed
Borders, N: After the afterbirth: A critical review of postpartum health relative to method of delivery. J Midwifery Women's Health 514:242–248, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lydon-Rochelle, M, Holt, VL, Martin, DP, Easterling, TR: Association between method of delivery and maternal rehospitalization. JAMA 283:2411–2416, 2000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecolo- gists: Diagnosis and management of postpartum hemorrhage, Technical Bulletin No. 143. Washington, DC: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1990.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecolo- gists: Committee Opinion No. 265. Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2001.
DeCrespinsy, LJC, Pepperell, RJ: Perinatal mortality and morbidity in breech presentation. Obstet Gynecol 1979;53:141–145.Google Scholar
Hall, J, Kohl, S: Breech presentation: A study of 1456 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1956;72:977–990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gimovsky, ML, Petrie, RH: Strategy for choosing the best delivery route for the breech baby. Contemporary OB/GYN 1983;21:201–215.Google Scholar
Brenner, WE, Bruce, RS, Hendricks, CH: The characteristics and perils of breech presentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1974;118:700–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruishank, DP, Pitkin, RM: Delivery of the premature breech. Obstet Gynecol 1977;50:367–369.Google Scholar
Draper v. Jasionowski, 858 A. 2d 1141 (2004).
Gregory, KD, Korst, LM, Krychman, M, Cane, P, Platt, LD: Variation in vaginal breech delivery rates by hospital type. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:385–390.Google ScholarPubMed
Healy, DL, Laufe, : Survey of obstetrical forceps training in North America in 1981. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;151:54–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mundell v. La Pata, 635 N. E. 2nd 933 (1994).
Morris, WIC: Shoulder dystocia. Br J Obstet Gyn- aecol 1955;62:302–306.Google Scholar
Stennis v. Rekkas, 599 N. E. 2d 1059 (1992).

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×