Shoulder dystocia: A comparison of patients with and without diabetes mellitus

Amalia Levy, Eyal Sheiner, Rachel D. Hammel, Reli Hershkovitz, Mordechai Hallak, Miriam Katz, Moshe Mazor

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

16 Scopus citations


Background: The study was aimed to compare pregnancies complicated with shoulder dystocia, of patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Methods: A comparison of all singleton, vertex, term deliveries between the years 1988-1999, complicated with shoulder dystocia with and without diabetes mellitus was performed. Statistical analysis was done using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results: Using a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the area under the curve for birth weight was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.93). However, for birth weight of 4,000 g the sensitivity was only 56% with specificity of 95%. While comparing shoulder dystocia between patients with (n = 38) and without diabetes mellitus (n = 207), neonates of the diabetic patients were significantly heavier (mean birth weight 4,244.2 ± 515.1 vs. 4,051.6 ± 389.5; P = 0.008) and had higher rate of Apgar scores lower than 7 at 1 min (50.0% vs. 25.9%; P = 0.030), but not at 5 min (2.6% vs. 2.0%; P = 0.083) when compared to the non-diabetic group. No significant differences were noted regarding perinatal mortality between the groups (0% vs. 4.3%; P = 0.362). Conclusions: The newborn of the diabetic mother complicated with shoulder dystocia does not appear to be at an increased risk for perinatal morbidity compared with the newborn of the non-diabetic mother.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)203-206
Number of pages4
JournalArchives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2006


  • Fetal macrosomia
  • Gestational diabetes
  • Perinatal mortality
  • Receiver operating characteristic curve
  • Shoulder dystocia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology


Dive into the research topics of 'Shoulder dystocia: A comparison of patients with and without diabetes mellitus'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this