Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 280, Issue 5, pp 781–786 | Cite as

Use of uterine fundal pressure maneuver at vaginal delivery and risk of severe perineal laceration

  • Koji Matsuo
  • Yasuhiko Shiki
  • Masato Yamasaki
  • Koichiro Shimoya
Original Article



Owing to the lack of evidence supporting the use of uterine fundal pressure maneuver in vaginal delivery, the role of the maneuver is undetermined and remains controversial. The aim of this study was to identify the prone factor of the use of uterine fundal pressure maneuver and to evaluate its obstetrical outcomes.


All vaginal delivery records between 1 January 2005 and 30 April 2006 were evaluated. Maternal and neonatal variables and obstetrical complications were analyzed for subjects underwent uterine fundal pressure maneuver.


Six hundred sixty-one vaginal deliveries were evaluated. Fundal pressure maneuver was performed in 39 cases (5.9%, 95% CI 4.4–7.1). Primiparity (76.9 vs. 53.3%; odds ratio 2.92, 95% CI 1.36–6.25, P = 0.004), larger maternal body weight gain during pregnancy (11.16 ± 0.4 kg vs. 10.05 ± 0.16 kg, P = 0.013), and longer duration of labor (922.3 ± 111.7 vs. 566.6 ± 18.3 min, P = 0.003) were prone risk factors for the use of uterine fundal pressure maneuver at vaginal delivery. One case of shoulder dystocia following uterine fundal pressure maneuver was reported (2.5 vs. 0%). Episiotomy (76.9 vs. 44.9%, P < 0.001) and vacuum extraction (41.0 vs. 3.8%, P < 0.001) were frequently performed with uterine fundal pressure maneuver. Uterine fundal pressure maneuver increased the risk of severe perineal laceration (28.1 vs. 4.8%; odds ratio 2.71, 95% CI 1.03–7.15, P = 0.045). The risk of severe perineal laceration was synergistically increased with the concurrent use of uterine fundal pressure maneuver with vacuum extraction and episiotomy.


Uterine fundal pressure maneuver during the second stage of labor increased the risk of severe perineal laceration. The use of the maneuver must be cautioned and careful attention must be paid to its application.


Uterine fundal pressure Kristeller maneuver Second stage of labor Perineal laceration Obstetrical outcome 


Conflict of interest statement



  1. 1.
    Merhi ZO, Awonuga AO (2005) The role of uterine fundal pressure in the management of the second stage of labor: a reappraisal. Obstet Gynecol Surv 60:599–603. doi: 10.1097/ PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buhimschi CS, Buhimschi IA, Malinow AM, Kopelman JN, Weiner CP (2002) The effect of fundal pressure manoeuvre on intrauterine pressure in the second stage of labour. Br J Obstet Gynecol 109:520–526. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01399.x Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kline-Kaye V, Miller-Slade D (1990) The use of fundal pressure during the second stage of labor. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 19:511–517. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.1990.tb01670.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pan HS, Huang LW, Hwang JL, Lee CY, Tsai YL, Cheng WC (2002) Uterine rupture in an unscarred uterus after application of fundal pressure. A case report. J Reprod Med 47:1044–1046PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zetterstrom J, Lopez A, Anzen B, Norman M, Holmstrom B, Mellgren A (1999) Anal sphincter tears at vaginal delivery: risk factors and clinical outcome of primary repair. Obstet Gynecol 94:21–28. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(99)00248-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hogberg U, Joelsson I (1985) Amniotic fluid embolism in Sweden, 1951–1980. Gynecol Obstet Invest 20:130–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amiel-Tison C, Sureau C, Shnider SM (1988) Cerebral handicap in full-term neonates related to the mechanical forces of labour. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2:145–165. doi: 10.1016/S0950-3552(88)80069-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gross SJ, Shime J, Farine D (1987) Shoulder dystocia: predictors and outcome. A five-year review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 156:334–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mollberg M, Hagberg H, Bager B, Lilja H, Ladfors L (2005) Risk factors for obstetric brachial plexus palsy among neonates delivered by vacuum extraction. Obstet Gynecol 106:913–918PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cunningham FG, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LCIII, Hauth JC, Wenstrom KD et al (2001) Williams obstetrics, 21st edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 309–329Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hartmann K, Viswanathan M, Palmieri R, Gartlehner G, Thorp J Jr, Lohr KN (2005) Outcomes of routine episiotomy: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc 293:2141–2148. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.17.2141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dandolu V, Chatwani A, Harmanli O, Floro C, Gaughan JP, Hernandez E (2005) Risk factors for obstetrical anal sphincter lacerations. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:304–307. doi: 10.1007/s00192-005-1297-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bloom SL, Casey BM, Schaffer JI, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ (2006) A randomized trial of coached versus uncoached maternal pushing during the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:10–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.06.022 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nakai A, Yoshida A, Yamaguchi S, Kawabata I, Hayashi M, Yokota A, Isozaki T, Takeshita T (2006) Incidence and risk factors for severe perineal laceration after vaginal delivery in Japanese patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 274:222–226. doi: 10.1007/s00404-006-0168-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koji Matsuo
    • 1
  • Yasuhiko Shiki
    • 2
  • Masato Yamasaki
    • 2
  • Koichiro Shimoya
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive SciencesUniversity of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyOsaka Rosai HospitalOsakaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyKawasaki Medical SchoolOkayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations