We welcome the letter by Maouris and Gupta which brings to attention the confusion between prediction on the one hand, and awarenesslanticipation on the other. Prediction requires a strong relationship between variables and a high level of statistical probability of an event, whereas awareness and anticipation rest simply on the recognition that there is increased risk, usually of a lesser order. For example, a combination of risk factors associated with a 10% risk will not allow reliable prediction of shoulder dystocia, but it would be foolish not to anticipate the possibility and to prepare accordingly. Most deliveries will prove uneventful, but much of the safe practice of obstetrics rests upon such precautionary measures, which are designed to ensure that if skilled help is needed, staff are alerted, and there is a plan of action.We do not "assume that it is possible to predict shoulder dystocia prospectively by employing a combination of risk factors, and accurately assess the risks involved . . ." On the contrary, we point out that "where shoulder dystocia may be seen as a potential, though small, risk, its possibility should be anticipated . . . There needs to be a graded response proportional to the perceived degree of risk . . .Thinking in a preventive, anticipatory way does not mean subjecting women to unnecessary elective caesarian sections." The measures we have advocated in the great majority of cases are simple conservative precautions. Only when macrosomia is demonstrable and there is maternal diabetes, previous shoulder dystocia, or adverse clinical features have we advised elective section.We are again misquoted as claiming "widespread support" for cephalic replacement. We disclaimed any experience of this manoeuvre and were cautious in describing the experience of others. We have equally no experience of fracturing fetal clavicles with our fingers. We do, however, agree that symphysiotomy deserves a mention.
SicWith reference to the Commentary, Shoulder dystocia, by Johnstone and Myerscough, I would like to raise a few minor points.There are two types of shoulder dystocia. One is from failure of engagement of the bisacromial diameter into the pelvic inlet (one shoulder or both shoulders may remain impacted above the pelvic inlet). The other is from failure of internal rotation of the already engaged bisacromial diameter. In the first case the turtle sign is present, in the second it is not.Placing the parturient in the McRobert's position increases the dimensions of the mid-pelvis and of the pelvic outlet, but actually decreases the antero-posterior dimensions of the pelvic inlet. On the contrary, the Walcher's position (buttocks protruding a few centimeters from the edge of the delivery table, both legs hanging down towards the floor) increases the antero-posterior diameter of the pelvic inlet while reducing the capacity of the mid-pelvis and of the pelvic outlet. Consequently, when shoulder dystocia from failed engagement is diagnosed, the woman should be placed into the Walcher's position f...