Talk:Back labor

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

DYK?

This isn't too far away from a DYK length. Do you have any ideas about expanding it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure I could. I actually thought about DYK, I rarely do that because their process is a pain to me. In my head, I was going to suggest "....that Wikipedia didn't have an article on back labor, though 30% of all mothers experience it during childbirth, until this week?". Don't worry, I have non-trolling options as well.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "see also" to Presentation (obstetrics) as that is connected but as yet unlinked. I've also added a couple of diagrams, although sadly the occiput posterior position doesn't have an image that I could find on commons. If we had an ICD code, then there would be perhaps enough info for an infobox - I'm guessing that List of ICD-9 codes 630–679: complications of pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium might have a relevant code. --RexxS (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything that looked very likely (someone else should probably have a look), although I wonder whether o64.0 for "obstructed labor" might be related. "Obstructed labour due to persistent (position): occipitosacral" sounds like what this article is talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't trail in the 2010 edition of ICD-10 used in the UK. However, if it's due to fetal malposition, a code from either O32.- or O64.- could be appropriate - depending on whether the malpresentation was noted before or during labour. If it's a normal, occiput anterior presentation, then O75.8 is the code I'd use. In addition to the Chapter XV code, I'd also be tempted to add a code from M54.--. But that might be a quirk of UK coding ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Little pob (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]