Your cart is currently empty!
This is your go-to place for mastering obstetric case discussions, made just for your exams. This page breaks down the most common and important pregnancy-related scenarios into easy-to-understand questions and answers. We focus on what examiners truly want you to know. You need to learn how to figure out what’s going on with both mom and baby. Understand what tests to order and why. Learn how to manage the situation safely. Be aware of what problems might arise. Start learning, and feel ready to ace your clinical exams with confidence!
A 33-year-old primigravida, diagnosed with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) at 28 weeks, presents at 34+0 weeks of gestation with painless vaginal bleeding. An anomaly scan at 20 weeks revealed a low-lying placenta. She has no other significant medical history. Her GDM has been well-controlled with diet and Metformin. Fetal movements have been normal. She has no history of previous uterine surgery. The fetus is currently in breech presentation. This is her first episode of bleeding.
Given the presentation of painless vaginal bleeding in the third trimester with a known low-lying placenta, placenta previa is the most likely diagnosis. My history taking would focus on confirming this, differentiating it from other causes of antepartum hemorrhage (APH), assessing the severity of bleeding, and identifying potential complications for both mother and fetus.
The examination aims to assess the severity of bleeding, evaluate maternal hemodynamic stability, confirm the placental location (if possible clinically), and assess fetal well-being, while strictly avoiding internal vaginal examination if placenta previa is suspected.
The type of placenta previa is determined by the relationship of the placental edge to the internal cervical os, typically diagnosed by transvaginal ultrasound at around 32-34 weeks gestation. The severity is assessed by the degree of bleeding and its impact on maternal and fetal well-being.
At 20 weeks, a “low-lying placenta” is diagnosed if the placental edge is within 20mm of the internal os. Most of these “migrate” upwards as the lower uterine segment forms and stretches. Reassessment at 32-34 weeks is crucial to confirm the definitive type:
Given her presentation at 34+0 weeks with bleeding, her low-lying placenta previously identified at 20 weeks is now considered a potential placenta previa. The definitive type needs to be confirmed by a current ultrasound scan.
The severity of placenta previa is primarily determined by the amount and nature of vaginal bleeding and its impact on maternal and fetal stability, rather than solely by the ultrasound classification.
Her current presentation with “painless vaginal bleeding” needs quantification to assess severity. Even “mild” bleeding can escalate rapidly in placenta previa.
The investigations are crucial for confirming placenta previa, assessing the current bleeding episode’s severity, evaluating maternal and fetal well-being, and preparing for potential urgent delivery.
My management plan prioritizes immediate maternal and fetal safety, management of the current bleeding episode, planning for future management, and safe delivery, all while avoiding digital vaginal examination.
Placenta previa, especially with bleeding, carries significant risks for both the mother and the fetus. Her GDM and breech presentation add to the complexity.
A 42-year-old G5P3 presents at 36+1 weeks of gestation with a complicated pregnancy. She has a history of chronic hypertension, for which she is on Nifedipine, and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) managed with Metformin. Her past obstetric history includes three previous preterm labours with neonatal jaundice and NICU admissions, and two prior Caesarean sections. Her pre-pregnancy BMI was high. She is currently admitted with severe pre-eclampsia, complaining of a persistent headache and blurring of vision. Her current BP is 180/110 mmHg. She also has known anemia and a recent UTI. Her last pregnancy was complicated by polyhydramnios and macrosomia. She is scheduled for a Caesarean section tomorrow due to a history of two previous sections.
In a patient with pre-existing chronic hypertension and multiple comorbidities, a new presentation of severe hypertension requires immediate differentiation between worsening chronic hypertension, superimposed pre-eclampsia, or an acute hypertensive crisis from another cause. My history taking would focus on these distinctions, assessing severity, and identifying complications.
The examination aims to assess the patient’s overall clinical status, confirm the severity of hypertension, and identify signs of maternal end-organ damage and fetal compromise, especially in the context of severe pre-eclampsia.
Her condition can be classified as Severe Pre-eclampsia.
The combination of severe hypertension and symptoms of impending eclampsia in a patient with multiple high-risk factors firmly places her in the category of Severe Pre-eclampsia, requiring urgent and intensive management.
Given the diagnosis of severe pre-eclampsia, the investigations are critical for confirming end-organ involvement, assessing severity, guiding management, and continuously monitoring both maternal and fetal well-being.
My management plan is to prioritize immediate maternal stabilization and fetal well-being assessment, followed by timely delivery. Given her severe pre-eclampsia, multiple comorbidities, and scheduled Caesarean section, this is a high-acuity case requiring a multidisciplinary approach.
Her Caesarean section is scheduled for tomorrow. This needs to be reassessed for immediate delivery once she is stabilized. Given her severe condition, delivery should not be delayed once stable, even if it means delivering today.
Given her severe pre-eclampsia, chronic conditions, and complex obstetric history, she is at a significantly high risk for numerous severe maternal and fetal complications.
A 27-year-old primigravida presents at 39+2 weeks of gestation with new-onset hypertension (BP 150/100 mmHg). Her pregnancy has otherwise been uncomplicated. She denies any pre-existing medical conditions. She occasionally reports mild headaches but no other symptoms of severe pre-eclampsia. Her booking blood pressure was normal, and a routine OGTT at 28 weeks was negative for GDM. Fetal movements have been normal. Her last full blood count at 28 weeks was within normal limits. She has no known allergies, is a non-smoker and non-drinker. Family history is unremarkable. She is awaiting induction of labour.
My history taking would be crucial to build a picture suggestive of either Gestational Hypertension or Pre-eclampsia, and to assess the severity and identify potential complications.
The examination aims to assess the patient’s general health, evaluate the severity of hypertension, and look for signs of maternal organ involvement and fetal compromise.
Based on the initial presentation, her condition can be classified as follows:
Based on the new-onset hypertension (BP 150/100 mmHg) in the third trimester in a previously normotensive primigravida, the initial diagnosis is Gestational Hypertension.
If investigations reveal significant proteinuria or features of maternal organ dysfunction (e.g., thrombocytopenia, elevated liver enzymes, renal insufficiency) or uteroplacental dysfunction (e.g., FGR), the diagnosis would be Pre-eclampsia.
Given her reported mild headaches, it is crucial to perform full investigations to rule out pre-eclampsia and its severe features. Her blood pressure (150/100 mmHg) is in the moderate hypertension range.
The investigations aim to confirm or rule out pre-eclampsia, assess its severity, evaluate maternal organ function, and assess fetal well-being.
1. Maternal Laboratory Investigations (STAT on admission):
2. Fetal Assessment:
3. Other Investigations (as indicated):
My management plan would be systematic, prioritizing maternal and fetal safety, given her gestation near term. The goals are to confirm the diagnosis, monitor for progression, prevent complications, and plan for timely delivery.
Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, especially pre-eclampsia, can lead to a range of complications for both the mother and the fetus.
A 28-year-old primigravida presents at 34 weeks of gestation. Her dating scan at 12 weeks confirmed dates. She is a non-smoker with no significant past medical history. Routine antenatal visits have been uneventful until now. Her community midwife noted her symphysis-fundal height (SFH) to be 28 cm, prompting a referral for an ultrasound scan due to suspected small for gestational age (SGA). The scan revealed fetal biometry measurements below the 10th centile, with a reduced amniotic fluid index. Fetal movements are reported as normal. She has no complaints of pain, bleeding, or reduced fetal movements. Her BMI at booking was 22 kg/m2.
My history taking would focus on differentiating between constitutional smallness and pathological Fetal Growth Restriction (FGR), identifying risk factors for FGR, and assessing for associated complications.
The examination aims to confirm the suspicion of SGA, assess fetal well-being, and identify any maternal signs suggestive of underlying causes or complications.
Classification of a small fetus involves distinguishing between a constitutionally small but healthy baby and a pathologically growth-restricted fetus, and then classifying the type of FGR.
Severity is typically assessed by the degree of deviation from the norm, onset, and presence of signs of compromise:
Given her SFH of 28cm at 34 weeks (suggesting an approximate 6cm discrepancy) and reduced amniotic fluid, her SGA is likely to be **moderate FGR**. The definitive severity will depend on detailed ultrasound biometry and Doppler findings.
Given her presentation at 34 weeks and reduced amniotic fluid, her FGR is most likely **asymmetrical**, suggesting uteroplacental insufficiency. Further Doppler studies would confirm the presence of brain-sparing.
The investigations aim to confirm the diagnosis of FGR, identify its underlying cause, assess its severity, and monitor fetal well-being to guide the timing and mode of delivery.
My management plan focuses on continuous surveillance, optimizing maternal health, and timely delivery to prevent adverse fetal outcomes, given her FGR and reduced amniotic fluid volume at 34 weeks.
The decision on TOD/MOD for FGR balances the risks of intrauterine death (if left in utero) versus morbidities of prematurity (if delivered early)[cite: 141, 14636]. Her gestation is 34 weeks.
An SGA fetus, especially if due to FGR, carries significant risks for both the mother and the fetus, both during pregnancy and into later life.
A 30-year-old G2P1 presents at 38 weeks of gestation. Her first pregnancy, 2.5 years ago, resulted in a Caesarean section at 39 weeks due to “failure to progress” at 5 cm cervical dilatation. The previous Caesarean section was an uncomplicated lower segment incision, and her baby was born healthy. She denies any intra-operative or post-operative complications from the previous surgery. She is otherwise healthy and this current pregnancy has been uncomplicated so far. Her dates were confirmed by an early ultrasound scan. She is aware of the option of a vaginal birth after Caesarean section (VBAC) and is attending for a decision on her mode of delivery.
My history taking would focus on gathering specific details about the previous Caesarean section, the current pregnancy, and her preferences to assess suitability for VBAC and anticipate potential complications, particularly uterine rupture.
The examination aims to assess her general fitness for labour, confirm fetal presentation and size, and identify any clinical signs that might contraindicate VBAC or suggest potential complications related to the previous scar.
Assessing suitability for VBAC involves a comprehensive review of past and present obstetric factors, weighing the benefits and risks of both VBAC and Elective Repeat Caesarean Section (ERCS). The primary concern is the risk of uterine rupture.
She is a good candidate for VBAC based on several favorable factors, but some considerations remain:
The risk of uterine rupture is the most serious complication of VBAC, though overall it remains low. For a woman with one previous lower segment Caesarean section scar, the risk of rupture is approximately 0.5% (1 in 200) during a trial of labour, compared to 0.05% (1 in 2000) for an ERCS.
Overall, she is a reasonable candidate for VBAC, but careful monitoring during labour is paramount due to the inherent, albeit low, risk of uterine rupture.
The investigations would focus on confirming current fetal and maternal well-being, assessing the favourability of the cervix, and ensuring no new contraindications for VBAC have developed.
My management plan involves shared decision-making with the patient regarding her mode of delivery, thorough preparation if VBAC is chosen, and meticulous intrapartum monitoring.
At 38 weeks, a detailed discussion would take place, outlining the risks and benefits of both options. Since she is aware of VBAC, this is an opportune time to finalize her birth plan.
Based on her favorable factors (single previous LSCS, good IDI, non-recurrent indication, confirmed dates), she is a good candidate for a trial of labour. I would support her decision after a comprehensive discussion.
Antenatal Preparation:
Intrapartum Management:
Despite being a healthy primigravida with a favorable previous CS history, a pregnancy following a previous Caesarean section carries specific risks for both mother and fetus, particularly during a trial of labour (VBAC).
A 26-year-old G3P2, mother of two healthy children (aged 4 and 2 years, both term vaginal deliveries with normal birth weights), presents at 34 weeks of gestation. She reports increasing fatigue, lethargy, and occasional shortness of breath on exertion over the past month. Her booking full blood count at 10 weeks was normal. She recalls being told her haemoglobin (Hb) was slightly low at her 28-week visit but did not start the iron supplements prescribed due to nausea. She has no significant past medical or surgical history. She is a vegetarian and admits to irregular dietary iron intake. Her BMI at booking was 23 kg/m2.
My history taking would aim to differentiate between common causes of anaemia in pregnancy, confirm the severity of her symptoms, and identify any predisposing factors or complications. [cite_start]The commonest cause of anaemia in pregnancy is iron deficiency[cite: 9676].
The examination aims to confirm the clinical signs of anaemia, assess its severity, look for signs of complications, and identify any features suggesting underlying causes (e.g., other nutritional deficiencies, bleeding disorders, or chronic diseases).
Classification of anaemia in pregnancy is based on haemoglobin levels, and the type is determined by red cell indices and potential causes. The severity of symptoms also plays a crucial role.
According to WHO guidelines, anaemia in pregnancy is defined as follows[cite: 9673, 14544]:
For this patient, her Hb at 28 weeks was “slightly low” and her current symptoms (fatigue, lethargy, dyspnoea on exertion) suggest her anaemia has worsened. Without her exact Hb level, I cannot definitively classify it. However, given her symptoms and non-compliance with iron, it is likely at least moderate, potentially severe. [cite_start]The accepted level of Hb throughout pregnancy is 11 g/dL; however, 10.5 g/dL can be taken as the cut-off point to diagnose anaemia in the second and third trimesters[cite: 9673, 14544].
Her reported dyspnoea on exertion indicates a symptomatic anaemia, suggesting that the degree of anaemia is significant enough to affect her daily life and oxygen-carrying capacity.
The investigations aim to confirm the type of anaemia (most likely iron deficiency), assess its severity, rule out other causes, and ensure fetal well-being, especially given her non-compliance with iron supplements and worsening symptoms.
My management plan focuses on confirming iron deficiency, initiating effective iron replacement, optimizing dietary intake, and preparing for a safe delivery, given her symptomatic anaemia at 34 weeks of gestation.
Untreated or inadequately treated anaemia in pregnancy, especially severe iron deficiency, can lead to significant maternal and fetal complications.
A 28-year-old primigravida presents at 37 weeks of gestation. Her pregnancy has been uncomplicated until now. During a routine antenatal visit, her midwife noted a firm, irregular fetal pole in the lower abdomen and a hard, ballotable head in the upper pole, clinically suspecting a breech presentation. An ultrasound scan confirmed a frank breech presentation. She has no significant past medical or surgical history. Her dates were confirmed by an early ultrasound scan. Fetal movements are normal. She has no complaints of pain or bleeding. She is keen to explore all options for delivery.
My history taking would focus on identifying potential causes of breech presentation, assessing her suitability for External Cephalic Version (ECV), and gathering information crucial for deciding the mode of delivery (vaginal breech vs. Caesarean section).
The examination aims to confirm the breech presentation, identify the type of breech, assess fetal size, and identify any factors influencing the success of ECV or the mode of delivery.
Breech presentation refers to the fetal buttocks or feet presenting first. Its significance lies in the potential for increased risk during labour and delivery compared to a cephalic presentation.
Breech presentations are classified based on the attitude of the fetal legs and hips:
Her case states an “frank breech presentation” was confirmed by ultrasound. This is generally considered the safest type of breech for a *potential* vaginal delivery, as the buttocks provide a better dilating wedge and there’s a lower risk of cord prolapse compared to footling breech.
The significance of breech presentation at term primarily stems from the increased risks during labour and delivery, regardless of the type, compared to a cephalic presentation.
The decision on the mode of delivery will depend on balancing these risks against patient preference and specific clinical circumstances.
The investigations aim to confirm the breech presentation, identify its specific type, assess fetal well-being, rule out underlying causes, and gather information crucial for planning the mode of delivery.
My management plan at 37 weeks gestation would involve discussing the three main management options for breech presentation: External Cephalic Version (ECV), planned Elective Caesarean Section (ERCS), and planned Vaginal Breech Delivery. The decision would be made through shared decision-making with the patient.
This would be the first option discussed, as it aims to convert the breech to cephalic, allowing for a vaginal delivery and avoiding the risks of breech presentation and Caesarean section.
This is the recommended option by current guidelines (e.g., Term Breech Trial) due to reduced perinatal morbidity and mortality compared to planned vaginal breech delivery.
While less common, it remains an option for selected patients who choose it after informed counselling.
Breech presentation carries specific risks for both mother and fetus, regardless of the chosen mode of delivery. These risks are generally higher with planned vaginal breech delivery compared to elective Caesarean section.
A 30-year-old primigravida presents to the emergency department at 32 weeks of gestation with acute onset, severe right lower quadrant abdominal pain for the past 6 hours. The pain started suddenly, is constant, sharp, and radiates slightly towards her back. She also complains of anorexia and a single episode of vomiting. She denies any vaginal bleeding, leakage of fluid, or painful contractions. Fetal movements have been normal. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated. She has no significant past medical or surgical history, except for a remote history of mild dysmenorrhoea.
Abdominal pain in pregnancy can be due to obstetric or non-obstetric causes, ranging from benign to life-threatening. My history taking would be systematic to cover both categories and assess the urgency.
The examination aims to assess maternal stability, locate and characterize the pain, assess fetal well-being, and identify signs of inflammation, infection, or obstetric emergencies. The gravid uterus can alter physical signs, making diagnosis challenging.
Classifying abdominal pain in pregnancy involves considering its origin (obstetric vs. non-obstetric), character, and severity, which then guides the assessment of urgency.
Her presentation (acute onset, severe, constant, sharp RLQ pain with anorexia and vomiting) points strongly towards an **acute surgical emergency**, such as **appendicitis**, which remains the most common non-obstetric surgical emergency in pregnancy. Given her lack of vaginal bleeding/fluid leakage/contractions, severe obstetric emergencies like placental abruption or preterm labour are less likely as primary diagnoses, though they must always be considered in the differential.
The severity of her symptoms mandates immediate and urgent assessment and management. This is a **medical and surgical emergency** scenario, not a benign physiological pain.
Given her presentation, immediate investigation and surgical consultation are paramount.
The investigations aim to rapidly differentiate between the various causes of abdominal pain, particularly ruling out life-threatening obstetric and non-obstetric emergencies, and assessing maternal and fetal well-being.
My management plan would be structured based on the most likely differential diagnoses, with an immediate focus on stabilization, definitive diagnosis, and intervention to prevent maternal and fetal morbidity/mortality.
The complications of abdominal pain in pregnancy are diverse and depend heavily on the underlying cause, ranging from relatively benign to life-threatening for both mother and fetus.
A 29-year-old primigravida presents at 39+6 weeks of gestation. She has a known history of hypothyroidism diagnosed 5 years ago and has been on a stable dose of Levothyroxine 100 mcg daily since then. Her thyroid function tests (TFTs) at booking (10 weeks) were within normal limits for pregnancy (TSH 2.0 mIU/L). Subsequent TFTs at 16 and 28 weeks also showed well-controlled levels. She reports good compliance with her medication. Her pregnancy has otherwise been uncomplicated, with normal fetal growth and movements. She presents for routine assessment as she is nearing her Estimated Date of Delivery (EDD).
My history taking would aim to ascertain the adequacy of her thyroid hormone replacement throughout pregnancy, identify any symptoms of hypo- or hyperthyroidism, and screen for potential complications associated with thyroid dysfunction.
The examination aims to assess for clinical signs of hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism, identify any associated complications of thyroid dysfunction, and assess general maternal and fetal well-being as she is at term.
Her thyroid status needs to be classified based on pre-existing condition and current control, with severity assessed by TSH levels and clinical symptoms.
The severity of hypothyroidism is primarily based on **TSH (Thyroid Stimulating Hormone) levels**, as TSH is the most sensitive marker of thyroid function and reflects whether the replacement dose is adequate. Free T4 is also important.
Her TSH of 2.0 mIU/L at booking (10 weeks) and subsequent normal levels at 16 and 28 weeks confirm that her hypothyroidism has been **well-controlled** throughout the pregnancy. This is an optimal outcome, indicating that her Levothyroxine dose has been appropriately adjusted (or was sufficient) to meet the increased demands of pregnancy.
The absence of symptoms of hypo- or hyperthyroidism further supports her well-controlled status. This is important as uncontrolled hypothyroidism, even if subclinical, is associated with increased risks.
Given her well-controlled hypothyroidism and uncomplicated pregnancy at 39+6 weeks, extensive further investigations are likely not needed. The focus would be on confirming continued good control and ensuring readiness for labour and delivery.
If her TSH were elevated or free T4 low (indicating uncontrolled hypothyroidism), or if she developed new symptoms, then the following would be relevant:
My management plan focuses on maintaining her euthyroid state, ensuring safe labour and delivery, and providing appropriate postnatal care, given her well-controlled hypothyroidism at 39+6 weeks.
While her hypothyroidism is well-controlled, it’s crucial to understand the risks of *poorly controlled* or *undiagnosed* hypothyroidism in pregnancy, as this highlights the importance of her excellent management.
A 25-year-old primigravida presents at 28 weeks of gestation complaining of an increase in whitish vaginal discharge for the past two weeks. She describes the discharge as thick, curdy, and associated with intense vulvar itching and burning, particularly after urination. She also notes some dyspareunia. She denies any foul odor, lower abdominal pain, fever, or painful urination. Her pregnancy has been otherwise uncomplicated, and she has no known medical conditions. Her booking vaginal swabs were normal. She denies any new sexual partners. Her partner has no symptoms.
Vaginal discharge is a common complaint in pregnancy, often physiological. However, abnormal discharge can indicate infection. My history taking would aim to differentiate physiological from pathological discharge, identify the type of infection, assess severity, and screen for potential complications.
The examination aims to confirm the nature of the discharge, identify signs of inflammation or infection, and rule out other causes of symptoms. A speculum examination is essential.
Classifying vaginal discharge in pregnancy involves distinguishing physiological changes from pathological conditions based on its characteristics and associated symptoms. The severity is assessed by the degree of symptoms and potential impact on pregnancy.
Based on her description (“whitish, thick, curdy, associated with intense vulvar itching and burning, dyspareunia”), her discharge is highly characteristic of **Vulvovaginal Candidiasis**.
The severity is primarily based on the **intensity of her symptoms** and their impact on her quality of life.
While discomfort is the primary manifestation of Candidiasis, some other infections (like BV or Trichomoniasis) carry more significant pregnancy-related risks, regardless of symptom severity.
Investigations aim to confirm the specific cause of the vaginal discharge, differentiate it from other infections, and guide appropriate treatment, especially given her pregnancy status.
My management plan would focus on providing symptomatic relief, eradicating the infection, and preventing potential complications, considering her gestation and the strong likelihood of Vulvovaginal Candidiasis.
While physiological discharge and uncomplicated candidiasis are largely benign, other vaginal infections can lead to significant maternal and fetal complications in pregnancy.
Leave a Reply