Download PDF
Hebamme 2012; 25(1): 41-46
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1286165
Geburt
Hintere Hinterhauptshaltung
Hippokrates Verlag in MVS Medizinverlage Stuttgart GmbH & Co. KG Stuttgart

Die hintere Hinterhauptshaltung – eine diagnostische Herausforderung

Christiana Ernst
Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Zentrum für Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
19 March 2012 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Die hintere Hinterhauptshaltung ist eine klinische Herausforderung in Bezug auf Prävention, Diagnose, Korrektur, unterstützende Hilfe und Geburtsmanagement. Obwohl sich das Kind in der Regel doch noch in die vordere Hinterhauptshaltung dreht, kommt es häufig erst nach einem schmerzhaften, anstrengenden und protrahierten Verlauf zur Geburt. Eine späte und fehlende Diagnose kann zu zahlreichen Komplikationen führen.

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Gardberg M, Laakkonen E, Salevaara M. Intrapartum sonography and persistent occiput posterior position: A study of 408 deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91 (5 part 1) 746-749
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Sizer A, Nirmal D. Occiput posterior position: Associated factors and obstetric outcomes in nulliparas. Obstet Gyne col 2000; 96 (5 part 1) 749-752
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sherer D, Miodovnik M, Bradley K, Langer O. Intrapartum fetal head position I: Comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the active stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19 (3) 258-263
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Lieberman E, Davidson K, Lee-Parritz A, Shearer E. Changes infetal position during labor and their association with epiduralanalgesia. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105 (5 part 1) 974-982
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Cheng Y, Shaffer B, Caughey A. The association between persistent occiput posterior position and neonatal outcomes. ObstetGynecol 2006; 107 (4) 837-844
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Ponkey S, Cohen A, Heffner L et al. Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: Obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101 (5 part 1) 915-920
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Fitzpatrick M, McQuillan K, O’Herlihy C. Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98: 1027-1031
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Senecal J, Xiong X, Fraser W. Effect of fetal position on secondstage duration and labor outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105: 763-772
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hart J, Walker A. Management of occiput posterior position. J Midwifery 2007; 52: 508-513
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Cunningham FG, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC III, Hauth JC, Wenstrom KD. Williams obstetrics. (22nd ed.) NewYork: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2005
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Ponkey S, Cohen A, Heffner L, Lieber-man E. Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: Obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 915-920
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Schneider H, Husslein P, Schneider KT M. Geburtshilfe. Springer 2002;
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Cheng Y, Shaffer B, Caughey A. Associated factors and outcomes of persistent occiput posterior position: A retrospective cohort study from 1976 to 2001. J maternal fetal med 2006; 19: 563-568
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Oxorn H, Foote W. Human labor and birth (5 ed). Norwalk (CT): Appleton-Centrury-Crofts; 1986
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Lydon-Rochelle M, Alber L, Gorwoda J, Craig E, Qualls C. Accuracy of Leopold maneuvers in screening for malpresentation: A prospective study. Birth 1993; 20: 132-135
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Souka AP, Haritos T, Basayiannis K, Noikokyri N, Antsaklis A. Intrapartum ultrasound for the examination of the fetal head position in normal and obstructed labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2003; 13: 59-63
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Akmal S, Kametas NT E, Hargreaves C, Nicolaides KH. Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 437-440
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Sherer DM, Abulafia O. UOG. 2003; 21: 430-436
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Eggebo TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, Smedvig E, Økland I, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 387-391
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Eggebo TM, Heien C, Okland I, Gjessing LK, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head–perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32: 199-204
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Henrich W, Dudenhausen J, Fuchs I, Kamena A, Tutschek B. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound (ITU): sonographic landmarks and correlation with successful vacuum extraction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 28: 753-760
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Kalache KD, Dückelmann AM, Michae-lis SA M, Lange J, Cichon G, Duden-hausen JW. Transperineal ultrasound imaging in prolonged second stage of labor with occipitoanterior presenting fetuses: how well does the „angle of progression“ predict the mode of delivery?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 326-330
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Molina FS, Nicolaides KH. Ultrsound in Labor and delivery. Fetal Diagn Ther 2010; 27: 61-67
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Sizer AR, Nirmal DM. Occipitoposterior position: associated factors and obstetric outcome in nullipara. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: 749-752
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Dückelmann AM, Bamberg C, Michae-lis SA, Lange J, Nonnenmacher A, Dudenhausen JW et al. Measurement of fetal head descent using the „angle of progression“ on transperineal ultrasound imaging is reliable regardless of fetal head station or ultrasound expertise. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35: 216-22
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Sherer DM, Miodovnik M, Bradley KS, Langer O. Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparsion between transvaginal digital examination and transabdomina ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 264-268
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Geist C, Harder U, Stiefel A. Hebammenkunde. 4. Aufl.. 2007. Hippokrates Verlag;
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intra­cranial injury. N Engl J Med 02.12.1999; 341 (23) 1709-1714
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Wong GY, Mok YM, Wong SF. Transabdominal ultrasound assessment of the fetal head and the accuracy of vacuum cup application. nt J Gynaecol Obstet 08/2007; 98 (2) 120-123
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 Sharma JB. Evaluation of Sharma’s modified Leopold‘s maneuvers: a new method for fetal palpation in late pregnancy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2009; 279: 481-487
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar