Talk:Back labor

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)