Human Evolution

, 8:167 | Cite as

Adjustment of the fetal head and adult pelvis in modern humans

  • M. M. Abitbol
Article

Abstract

In nonhuman anthropoids, the anteroposterior (AP) diameters of the fetus are greater than the transverse (TR) diameters and the AP diameters of the pelvic planes are greater than the TR diameters: during labor, therefore, the fetus moves through the birth canal without changing position or orientation. In modern humans, the fetal head at term is encephalized and the fetal chest is flattened. The maternal pelvic inlet is flattened in an AP direction, the sacral promontory and the ischial spines are prominent. As a result, AP<TR at the inlet, but AP>TR at the midpelvis and outlet. In addition, the birth canal presents a marked sacral curvature in the AP direction. The human fetus successfully negotiates the birth canal because the three crucial fetal adaptations: (1) spheroidicity of the presenting part of the fetal head, which allows it to “roll” in the pelvis; (2) mobility of the head and chest in all directions; and (3) a capacity for cranial molding, which adapts fetal head dimensions to pelvic dimensions. The result is that the human fetal head and chest can perform multiple rotational movements in order to always present the greatest fetal diameters to the greatest pelvic diameters. Monkeys show a limited degree of encephalization and suffer from narrow TR pelvic diameters without any possibility of fetal adaptations as shown by humans. Apes also show some encephalization but, because of wider TR diameters in the pelvis, they achieve an easy delivery with no need of fetal adaptations.

Key words

Pelvic diameters Fetal head mobility and molding Dystocia 

References

  1. Abitbol M.M., 1987a.Obstetrics and posture in pelvic anatomy. J. Hum. Evol. 16: 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abitbol M.M., 1988.Evolution of the ischial spine and of the pelvic floor in the Hominoidea. Amer. J. Phys. Anthropol. 75: 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abitbol M.M., Taylor U.B., Castillo I. and Rochelson B.L., 1991.The CPD index: Combined fetal sonography and x-ray pelvimetry for early detection of cephalo-pelvic disproportion. J. Reprod. Med. 36: 369–373.Google Scholar
  4. Aurantius J.C., 1587.De Humanis Foetri Liber. Venice.Google Scholar
  5. Assali N.S., 1968.Biology of gestation. Vol. II. The fetus and neonate. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Bailey R.C. and J. Byrnes, 1990.A new, old method for assessing measurement error in both univariate and multivariate morphometric studies. Systematic Zoology 39: 124–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnes A.C., 1957.An obstetric record. Obstet. Gynecol. 9: 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berge C., Orban-Segebarth R. and Schmid P., 1984.Obstetrical interpretation of the australopithecine pelvic cavity. J. Hum. Evol. 13, 575–587.Google Scholar
  9. Borell U. and Fernstrom I., 1957.The movements at the sacro-iliac joints and the importance to changes in the pelvic dimensions during parturition. Acat Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 36: 42–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowden D., Winter P. and Ploog D., 1967.Pregnancy and delivery behavior in the squirrel monkey (Saimiri sciureus) and other primates. Fol. Primatol. 5: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caldwell W.E., and Molloy H.C., 1933.Anatomical variations in the female pelvis and their effect in labor with a suggested classification. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 26: 479–486.Google Scholar
  12. Cibils L.A. and Hendricks C.H., 1965.Normal labor in vertex presentation. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 91: 385–394.Google Scholar
  13. Colcher A.E. and Susman M., 1945.Practical x-ray pelvimetry in Obstetrics, Penn. M. J. 48: 1158.Google Scholar
  14. Friedman E.A., Sachtleben M.R. and Bresky P.A., 1977.Dysfunctional labor, long-term effects on infant. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 127: 779–788.Google Scholar
  15. Joulin D., 1864.Anatomie et physiologie comparée du bassin des Mammiferes. Archives generales de Medicine. 29–46.Google Scholar
  16. Leutenegger W., 1972b.Functional aspects of pelvic morphology in Simian primates. J. Hum. Evol., 3, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leutenegger W., 1982.Encephalization and obstetrics in primates with particular reference to human evolution. In Armstrong Este and Dean Falk (eds.) Primate Brain Evolution: Methods and Concepts. Plenum Press, New York. pp. 85–95.Google Scholar
  18. Lovejoy C.O., 1975.Biomechanical perspectives on the lower limb in early hominids. In Primate Functional Morphology and Evolution, ed. by RH Tuttle, Mouton Publishers, Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  19. Lovejoy C.O., Heiple K.G. and Burstein A.H., 1973.The gait of australopithecus. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 38: 757–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lubchenco L.O., 1970.Assessment of gestational age and development of birth. Pediatr. Clin. North Am. 17: 125–45.Google Scholar
  21. Lubchenco L.O., Delivoria-Papadopoulos M. and Searls D., 1972.Long-term follow-up study of prematurely born infants. J. Pediatr. 80: 509–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Malinas Y., and Favier M., 1979.ABC de mechanique obstetricale. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
  23. Ohlsen H., 1973.Molding of the pelvis during labor. Acta Radiol. Diagn. 14: 417–434Google Scholar
  24. Oxorn H., 1980.Human labor and Birth. East Norwalk, Ct: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  25. Pritchard J.A., MacDonald P.C., and Gant N.F., 1985. William Obstetrics (16th ed) East Norwalk, Ct: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  26. Reynolds E., 1931.The evolution of the human pelvis in relation to the mechanics of the erect posture. Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  27. Schultz A.H., 1930.The skeleton of the trunk and limbs of higher primates. Hum Biol. II 3: 304–438.Google Scholar
  28. Schultz A.H., 1969.The Life of Primates, New York: Universe Books.Google Scholar
  29. Sisson S. and Grossman J.D., 1953.The Anatomy of Domestic Animals, 4th ed. Philadelphia: BW Saunders and Co.Google Scholar
  30. Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf F.J., 1981.Biometry. Second edition. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  31. Tague R.G. and Lovejoy C.O., 1986.The obstetrics pelvis of A.L. 288-1 (Lucy). J. Hum. Evol. 15: 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trevathan W.R., 1987.Human Birth: An Evolutionary Perspective. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  33. Trevathan W.R., 1988.Fetal emergence patterns in evolutionary perspective. American Anthropologist: 90: 674–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trinkaus E., 1984.Neandertal pubic morphology and gestation length. Curr. Anthrop. 25, 509–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Warwick R. and Williams P.L., 1973.Gray's Anatomy, 35th British edition. WB Saunders & Co. Washburn, S.L.Google Scholar
  36. Warwick R. and Williams P.L., 1968.The Study of Human Evolution. Condon Lectures. Eugene: Oregon State System of Higher Education.Google Scholar
  37. Yerkes R.M. and Elder J.H., 1937.Concerning reproduction in the chimpanzee. Yale J. Biol. Med. 10, 41–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Institute for the Study of Man 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. M. Abitbol
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity Hospital State University of New York at Stony BrookStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations