Literature DB >> 1923198

A randomized comparison of assisted vaginal delivery by obstetric forceps and polyethylene vacuum cup.

M C Williams1, R A Knuppel, W F O'Brien, A Weiss, K S Kanarek.   

Abstract

The assisted vaginal delivery methods of rigid obstetric forceps and polyethylene vacuum cup extraction were compared in a prospective, randomized study. The 99 women studied had all completed 35 full weeks' gestation, required attempted assisted vaginal delivery, and were randomly assigned to either attempted forceps or vacuum-assisted delivery. All presentations were cephalic, with stations ranging from +1 to +4. Neonates were evaluated at 24 hours by neonatal staff. The infants underwent intracranial ultrasound screening during the first 24 hours of life and ophthalmologic examination within 48 hours. Vaginal delivery was successful with the intended method in 83% of vacuum-assisted deliveries and in 78% of forceps deliveries (not statistically significant). Neonatal retinal hemorrhage was found in 17 and 38% (P less than .043) of the randomized forceps and vacuum deliveries, respectively. No intraventricular hemorrhage was found. Apart from associations between vacuum-assisted delivery and mild hyperbilirubinemia and neonatal retinal hemorrhage (of uncertain clinical significance), and between assisted forceps delivery and an increased potential for facial injury, neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly. Maternal outcomes also did not differ significantly. No significant differences in safety or efficacy were found between polyethylene cup vacuum extraction and rigid obstetric forceps-assisted vaginal delivery in this population of predominantly low-pelvic assisted deliveries. Patients delivered by sequential use of forceps after vacuum or by vacuum after failed forceps application did not suffer significantly increased morbidity relative to those delivered by forceps or vacuum alone. Use of alternate or sequential methods allowed an overall cesarean rate of 3% in this population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1923198

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  6 in total

Review 1.  Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery.

Authors:  Tippawan Liabsuetrakul; Thanapan Choobun; Krantarat Peeyananjarassri; Q Monir Islam
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-08-05

Review 2.  Instruments for assisted vaginal birth.

Authors:  Ganga L Verma; Jessica J Spalding; Marc D Wilkinson; G Justus Hofmeyr; Valerie Vannevel; Fidelma O'Mahony
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-09-24

3.  Evaluation of delivery options for second-stage events.

Authors:  Jennifer L Bailit; William A Grobman; Madeline Murguia Rice; Ronald J Wapner; Uma M Reddy; Michael W Varner; John M Thorp; Steve N Caritis; Jay D Iams; George Saade; Dwight J Rouse; Jorge E Tolosa
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  The use of propensity scores and observational data to estimate randomized controlled trial generalizability bias.

Authors:  Taylor R Pressler; Eloise E Kaizar
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-04-01       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  A randomized comparison of video demonstration versus hands-on training of medical students for vacuum delivery using Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS).

Authors:  Ziad Hilal; Anne K Kumpernatz; Günther A Rezniczek; Cem Cetin; Eva-Katrin Tempfer-Bentz; Clemens B Tempfer
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.889

Review 6.  Exploring the reporting standards of RCTs involving invasive procedures for assisted vaginal birth: A systematic review.

Authors:  Emily J Hotton; Sophie Renwick; Erik Lenguerrand; Julia Wade; Tim J Draycott; Joanna F Crofts; Natalie S Blencowe
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 2.435

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.