Our practice must be in great measure guided by the circumstances of the case: where the os uteri is not fully dilated, where the head is still high and not much engaged in the pelvis, the liquor drained away, and the cord beginning to suffer pressure during the pains, we dare not wait until the case be sufficiently advanced to admit the application of the forceps, but must proceed as soon as possible to turn the child. The operation should be performed with the greatest possible caution; the cord should be guided to one of the sacro-iliac symphyses; the expulsion of the trunk must be very gradual; a dose of secale should be given to ensure the requisite activity of the uterus when the head enters the pelvis, and the forceps kept in readiness to apply the instant that its advance is not sufficiently rapid. On the other hand, where the labour has made considerable progress before the membranes give way, and the head has fairly engaged in the cavity of the pelvis, if the os uteri is fully dilated, it will be no longer advisable to attempt turning; the head is within reach of the forceps, which should be immediately applied, taking care that the cord does not get squeezed between the blades and the head. Where the arm or shoulder presents, this will of itself require that the child should be turned.
Reposition of the cord. Although the reposition of the cord has been recommended from the time of Mauriceau, and by the majority of authors since, it has nevertheless met with so little success as to have fallen into complete disuse until the last few years; one of its strongest opposers was the celebrated La Motte. “The delivery ought to be attempted as soon as we find that the string presents before the head, it being to no purpose to try to reduce it behind the head, which at that time fills up the whole passage, and can only admit you to push it back into the vagina, and it will fall down again at every pain; and if you have done so much as to reduce it into the uterus, what hinders you from finishing the delivery at once, by seeking for the feet? the chief difficulty is then over.” (La Motte, English translation, p. 304.) This mode of delivery (turning) has been more adopted by practitioners in such cases than any other, especially in former times, when the forceps was either not at all or imperfectly known; by none has it been so with more success than by Mauriceau himself, having saved every living child in which he attempted the operation. Still, however, he recommended that the attempt should be made to return the cord wherever it was possible, and has recorded four cases of this mode of treatment, all of which proved successful, although one of the children was born so feeble as to die shortly afterwards. Giffard seems to have attempted the reposition of the cord only once, and failed, apparently from the unusual size of the child. In later years Sir R. Croft, “has related two cases in which he succeeded, by carrying the prolapsed funis through the os uteri, and suspending it over one of the legs of the child. In both these cases the children were born alive.” (Merriman’s Synopsis, p. 99.) It is to Dr. Michaelis of Kiel that we are indebted for much recent and valuable information on the subject of replacing the prolapsed cord. Having pointed out the fact that it is the uterus alone which prevents the cord from prolapsing, he shows that, in order to replace the cord, we must carry it “above that circular portion of the uterus which is contracted over the presenting part.” The reposition of the cord may be effected by the hand, or by means of an elastic catheter and ligature. In replacing the cord by means of the hand alone, Dr. Michaelis remarks that we shall effect this more readily by merely insinuating the hand between the head and the uterus, and gradually passing it farther round the head, pushing the cord before it. In this manner we do not require to rupture the membranes when we have felt the cord before the liquor amnii has escaped; a point of considerable importance.
The reposition, by means of the catheter, is effected by passing a silk ligature, doubled, along a stout thick elastic catheter, from twelve to sixteen inches in length, so that the loop comes out at the upper extremity; the catheter is introduced into the vagina, and the ligature is passed through the coil of the umbilical cord, and again brought down to the os externum. A stilet with a wooden handle is introduced into the catheter, the point passed out at its upper orifice, and the loop of the ligature hung upon it; it is then drawn back into the catheter and pushed up to the end. The operator has now only to pull the ends of the ligature, so as to tighten it slightly, passing the catheter up to the cord, which now becomes securely fixed to its extremity. When the reposition has been effected, he has merely to withdraw the stilet; the cord is instantly disengaged.[139] To prevent any injury, the ligature should be brought away first, and then the catheter.
“Dr. Michaelis has recorded eleven cases of prolapsus of the cord, where it has been returned by the above means, in nine of which the child was born alive. In three cases the arm presented also, which was replaced, and the head brought down; in two of these the child was born alive.” (British and Foreign Med. Review, vol. i. p. 588.) A similar plan of replacing the cord by means of an elastic catheter has been tried by Dr. Collins, but he had not tried it sufficiently often at the time of publishing his Practical Treatise to be able to give a decided opinion about it.
The plan of introducing a piece of sponge after replacing the cord, in order to prevent its coming down again, is of no use whatever. Dr. Collins tried it in several instances, and considers that “it is quite impossible, however, in the great majority of cases, to succeed in this way in protecting the funis from pressure, as it is no sooner returned, than we find it forced down in another direction.” The plan has been recommended by several modern authors, but it is by no means a new invention, having been proposed by Mauriceau; it does not appear, however, that he ever put it in practice.
Where no pulsation can be felt in the prolapsed funis, which is flabby and evidently empty, no interference will be required; the child is dead, and therefore the labour may be permitted to take its course. We should, however, be cautious in examining the cord where it is without pulsation, and yet feels tolerably full and turgid, for a slight degree of circulation may go on nevertheless, sufficient to keep life enough in the fœtus, even for it to recover if the labour be hastened. We should especially examine the cord during the intervals of the pains, and after we have guided it into a more favourable part of the pelvis, where it will not be exposed to so much pressure, for then the pulsation will become more sensible to our touch, and prove that the child is still alive.
The following case by Dr. Evory Kennedy is an excellent illustration of what we have now stated:—“The midwife informed me that there was no pulsation in the funis, which had been protruding for an hour; on examination made during a pain, a fold of the funis was found protruding from the vagina, at its lateral part, and devoid of pulsation. As the pain subsided, I drew the funis backwards towards the sacro-iliac symphysis, and thought I could observe a very indistinct and irregular pulsation; I now applied the stethoscope, and distinguished a slight fœtal pulsation over the pubes. Fortunately on learning the nature of the case, I had brought the forceps, which were now instantly applied, and the patient delivered of a still-born child, which, with perseverance, was brought to breathe, and is now a living and healthy boy, four years of age. Had I not in this case ascertained by the means mentioned, that the child still lived, I should not have felt justified in interfering; but, supposing the child dead, would have left the case to nature, and five minutes, in all likelihood, would have decided the child’s fate.” (Dr. Evory Kennedy, on Pregnancy and Auscultation, p. 241.)