Talk:Shoulder dystocia

Medicine High‑importance

	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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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 HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Shoulder dystocia.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Strange quote on recurrence

"Recurrence rates are relatively high and low most of the short time.[11]" Can anyone tell me what this means? Are recurrence rates high or low? Lcwilsie (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Can an expert clarify this? — Wdfarmer (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely need a an expert here. This line makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.86.52 (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note at the article head to get some expert help. – Wdfarmer (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expert review donejsfouche (talk) 05:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle vandalism?

Was this edit a subtle vandalism? The editor was an IP address. — Wdfarmer (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nerve Damage does not make sense

"The ventral roots (motor pathway) are most prone to injury, as they are in the plane of greatest tension (anterior, sensory nerves are somewhat protected due to the usual inward movement of the shoulder)."

ventral and anterior mean the same thing, so you cannot contrast them against each other. motor pathway is always ventral (anterior) while sensory pathway is dorsal (posterior). I am not sure how to correct this paragraph because I don't know which is supposed to be more prone to damage, but as it stands the information is confused and doesn't make sense - it essentially says the front roots are most prone to injury while the front nerves are somewhat protected. One of them needs to be changed. THEMlCK (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the 2009 version of the sentence doesn't make sense (plane of force is also dubious). Nevertheless, it made its way, verbatim, into a 2016 textbook: Oxford Textbook of Obstetric Anaesthesia, p. 189, at Google Books. The 2008 version differs in that it routes the motor pathway through the dorsal roots. While this is in line with the stated mechanism (inward movement), it is just wrong (yes, the motor pathway is always ventral). Since none of the books I visited stated sensory losses to be dominating, just to the contrary The Netter Collection of Medical Illustrations: Nervous System, Volume 7, p. 113, at Google Books, the mechanism must be wrong, too, and should be deleted. --Rainald62 (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mnemonic

Another mnemonic used here in Australia is "HELPERR" which may be more intuitive 182.255.99.214 (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complications

[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]