Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Cesarean Section pp 23–42Cite as

Dystocia and “Failure to Progress” in Labor

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Clinical Perspectives in Obstetrics and Gynecology ((CPOG))

Abstract

Too often invoked as the rationale for cesarean section, dystocia is a major (if not the principal) contributor to the phenomenal growth in the cesarean section rate during the past several decades in the United States and, to a greater or lesser extent, in every other industrialized nation in the world. There is no denying that our current cesarean section rate is excessively and unacceptably high, and there is no longer any logical argument to support it. Based on the most recent available national data (1991), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that the national cesarean rate has apparently leveled off at 23.5%.1The United States and Canada previously led the world in the frequency of cesarean deliveries,2 and we can take little solace in the news that our current rates are exceeded only by Brazil and Puerto Rico.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. U.S. says 349,000 cesareans in 1991 were not necessary. New York Times, April 23, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Notzon FC, Placek PJ, Taffei SM. Comparison of national cesarean section rates. N Engl J Med 1987;316:386–389.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson GM, Lomas J. Recent trends in cesarean section in Ontario. Can Med Assoc J 1989;141:1049–1053.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gleicher N. Cesarean section rates in the United States: the short-term failure of the National Consensus Development Conference in 1980. JAMA 1984;252:3273–3276.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Quilligan EJ. Cesarean section, 1988: To have or have not! West J Med 1988;149:700–703.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Marieskind HI. An evaluation of cesarean section in the United States: final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation/ Health, 1979:16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hibbard LT. Changing trends in cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1976;125:798–804.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mann LI, Gallant J. Modern indications for cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 135:437–441.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. National Center for Health Statistics. Detailed diagnosis and procedures, National Hospital Discharge Survey, 1987. Washington, DC: Vital Health Statistics 1989;13: 1–304.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sokol RJ, Rosen MG, Bottoms SF, et al. Risks preceding increased primary cesarean birth rates. Obstet Gynecol 1982;59:340–346.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Boylan PC, Frankowski R. Dystocia, parity and the cesarean problem. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;155:455–456.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Iglesias S, Burn R, Saunders LD. Reducing the cesarean section rate in a rural community hospital. Can Med Assoc J 1991; 145: 1459–1461.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. NIH Consensus Development, 1980: statement on cesarean childbirth. NIH Publication No. 82–2067. Bethesda, Maryland: National Institutes of Health, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  14. NIH Consensus Development statement on cesarean childbirth: the Cesarean Birth Task Force. Obstet Gynecol 1981;57:537–545.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Indications for cesarean section: final statement of the panel of the National Consensus Conference on Aspects of Cesarean Birth. Can Med Assoc J 1986;134:1348–1352.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rosen MG, Alper MH, Bloomfield R, et al. NIH Consensus Development Task Force statement on cesarean childbirth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;248:1082–1084.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dillon WP, Choate JW, Nussbaum ML, et al. Obstetrical care and cesarean birth rates: a program to monitor quality of care. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:731–737.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Porreco RP. Meeting the challenge of the rising cesarean birth rate. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:133–136.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Friedman EA. Failure of labor progression. In: Queenan JT, ed. Management of high risk pregnancy, 2nd Ed. Oradell, New Jersey: Medical Economics, 1985:584–594.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Friedman EA. Failure to progress. In: Friedman EA, Acker DB, Sachs BP, eds. Obstetrical decision making, 2nd Ed. Toronto: BC Decker/St Louis: CV Mosby, 1987:242–243.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Friedman EA. Failure to progress during labor. Contemp Ob/Gyn 1989;34(6):42–47.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Friedman EA. Labor: clinical evaluation and management, 2nd Ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1978:61–135.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Krapohl AJ, Myers GG, Caldeyro-Barcia R. Uterine contractions in spontaneous labor: a quantitative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1970;106:378–389.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Seitchik J, Chatkoff ML. Intrauterine pres- sure wave form characteristics in hypo-contractile labor before and after oxytocinadministration. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1975; 123:426–432.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Chelmow D, Kilpatrick SJ, Laros RK. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after prolonged latent phase. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 81:486–491.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosen MG, Debanne SM, Thompson K. Arrest disorders and infant brain damage. Obstet Gynecol 1989;74:321–324.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Dystocia. ACOG Technical Bulletin 137. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hauth JC, Hankins GDV, Gilstrap LC, et al. Uterine contraction pressures with oxytocin induction/augmentation. Obstet Gynecol 1986;68:305–309.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hillis DS. Diagnosis of contracted pelvis. Ill Med J 1938;74:131–134.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Thorp JM. Study raises serious doubt about value of Mueller-Hillis method. Ob-Gyn News, April 1, 1993; Thorp JM, Pahel-Short L, Bowes WA. The Mueller-Hillis maneuver:can it be used to predict dystocia? Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:519–522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Greenhill JP, Friedman EA. Biological principles and modern practice of obstetrics. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1974:651.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Friedman EA. Effects of labor and delivery on the fetus. In: Cohen MR, Acker DB, Friedman EA, eds. Management of labor, 2nd Ed. Rockville, Maryland: Aspen, 1989: 461–477.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Friedman EA, Neff RK. Labor and delivery: impact on offspring. Littleton, Massa-chusetts: PSG Publishing, 1987:130–145.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cohen WR. The pelvic division of labor. In: Cohen WR, Acker DB, Friedman EA, eds. Management of labor, 2nd Ed. Rockville,Maryland: Aspen, 1989:19–60.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hellman LM, Prystowsky H. The duration of the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1952;63:1223–1233.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Jacobson L, Rooth G. Interpretative aspects on the acid-base composition and its variation in fetal scalp blood and maternal blood during labor. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1971;78:971–980.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Cohen MR. Influence of the duration of second stage labor on perinatal outcome and puerperal morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 1977; 49:266–269.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Kadar N. The second stage. In: Studd J, ed. The management of labour. Oxford: Black-well, 1985:271.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Saunders NSG, Paterson CM, Wadsworth J. Neonatal and maternal morbidity in relation to the length of second stage in labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:381–385.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Paterson CM, Saunders NSG, Wadsworth J. The characteristics of the second stage of labour in 25,069 singleton deliveries in North WTest Thames Health Region, 1988. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:377–380.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Kadar N, Cruddas M, Campbell S. Estimating the probability of spontaneous delivery conditional on time spent in the second stage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;93: 568–576.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Katz M, Lunenfeld E, Meizner I, et al. The effect of the duration of the second stage of labour on the acid-base state of the fetus. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94:425–430.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Nickelsen C, Thomsen SG, Keber T. Continuous acid-base assessment of the human fetus during labour by tissue pH and transient carbon dioxide monitoring. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1985;92:220–225.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Moir JC, ed. Munro Kerr’s operative obstetrics, 7th Ed. London: Balliere Tindall and Cox, 1964:3.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Seiler JS. The demise of vaginal operative obstetrics: a suggested plan for its revival. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:710–715.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Friedman EA. Midforceps? No. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1987; 30:93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. O’Driscoll K, Meagher D. Active management of labor. London: WB Saunders, 1980: 23–31, 130–138.

    Google Scholar 

  48. O’Driscoll K, Foley M, MacDonald D. Active management of labor as an alternative to cesarean section for dystocia. Obstet Gynecol 1984;63:485–490.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Boylan P, Frankowski R, Rountree R, et al. Effect of active management of labor on the incidence of cesarean section for dystocia in nulliparas. Am J Perinatol 1991;8:373–379.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Goyert GL, Bottoms SF, Treadwell MC, et al. The physician factor in cesarean birth rates. N Engl J Med 1989;320:706–709.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Gould JB, Davey B, Stafford RS. Socioeconomic differences in rates of cesarean section. N Engl J Med 198;321:233–239.

    Google Scholar 

  52. DeMott RG, Sandmire HF. The Green Bay cesarean section study: II. The physician factor as a determinant of cesarean birth for failed labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166: 1799–1804.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Guillemette J, Fraser WD. Differences between obstetricians in cesarean section rates and the management of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:105–108.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Fraser W, Usher RH, McLean FH, et al. Temporal variation in rates of cesarean section for dystocia: does “convenience” play a role? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156: 300–304.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Phillips RN, Thornton J, Gleicher N. Physician bias in cesarean sections. JAMA 1982; 248:1082–1084.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Evans MI, Richardson DA, Sholl JS, et al. Cesarean section assessment of the convenience factor. J Reprod Med 1984;29:670–675.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Taylor ES. Editorial comment. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1990;45:55–56.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Taylor ES. Editorial comment. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1990;45:379–380.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Seitchik J, Holden AEC, Castillo M. Amniotomy and oxytocin treatment of functional dystocia and route of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;155:585–592.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Seitchik J, Holden AEC, Castillo M. Spontaneous rupture of membranes, functional dystocia, oytocin treatment, and route of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156: 125–130.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Satin AJ, Leveno KJ, Sherman ML, et al. High- versus low-dose oxytocin for labor stimulation. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80: 111–116.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Emanuel A. Friedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Kaiser Permanente, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 92505, Riverside, CA, USA

    Bruce L. Flamm M.D. (Research Chairman) (Research Chairman)

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California-Irvine Medical Center, 92668, Orange, CA, USA

    Edward J. Quilligan M.D. (Professor Emeritus) (Professor Emeritus)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Friedman, E.A. (1995). Dystocia and “Failure to Progress” in Labor. In: Flamm, B.L., Quilligan, E.J. (eds) Cesarean Section. Clinical Perspectives in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2482-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2482-2_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-7556-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-2482-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation