Literature DB >> 20168101

Failed operative vaginal delivery.

James M Alexander1, Kenneth J Leveno, John C Hauth, Mark B Landon, Sharon Gilbert, Catherine Y Spong, Michael W Varner, Steve N Caritis, Paul Meis, Ronald J Wapner, Yoram Sorokin, Menachem Miodovnik, Mary J O'Sullivan, Baha M Sibai, Oded Langer, Steven G Gabbe.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare maternal and neonatal outcomes in women undergoing second-stage cesarean delivery after a trial of operative vaginal delivery with those in women undergoing second-stage cesarean delivery without such an attempt.
METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of the women who underwent second-stage cesarean delivery. The maternal outcomes examined included blood transfusion, endometritis, wound complication, anesthesia use, and maternal death. Neonatal outcomes examined included umbilical artery pH less than 7.0, Apgar score of 3 or less at 5 minutes, seizures within 24 hours of birth, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, stillbirth, skull fracture, and neonatal death.
RESULTS: Of 3,189 women who underwent second-stage cesarean delivery, operative vaginal delivery was attempted in 640. Labor characteristics were similar in the two groups, with the exception of the admission-to-delivery time and cesarean indication. Those with an attempted operative vaginal delivery were more likely to undergo cesarean delivery for a nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing (18.0% compared with 13.9%, P=.01), have a wound complication (2.7% compared with 1.0%, odds ratio [OR] 2.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-4.91), and require general anesthesia (8.0% compared with 4.1%, OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.44-2.91). Neonatal outcomes, including umbilical artery pH less than 7.0, Apgar score of 3 or less at 5 minutes, and hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, were more common for those with an attempted operative vaginal delivery. This was not significant when cases with a nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing were removed.
CONCLUSION: Cesarean delivery after an attempt at operative vaginal delivery was not associated with adverse neonatal outcomes in the absence of a nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20168101      PMCID: PMC3075422          DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181bbf3be

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


  10 in total

1.  "Failed forceps": a review of 37 cases.

Authors:  R G LAW
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1953-10-31

2.  Trial forceps.

Authors:  L H DOUGLASS; D F KALTREIDER
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1953-04       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 3.  Forceps delivery in modern obstetric practice.

Authors:  Roshni R Patel; Deirdre J Murphy
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-05-29

4.  Caesarean delivery in the second stage of labour.

Authors:  Chris Spencer; Deirdre Murphy; Susan Bewley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-09-23

5.  The cause and management of failed forceps cases.

Authors:  H D FREETH
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1950-07-01

Review 6.  Failed trial of vacuum or forceps--maternal and fetal outcome.

Authors:  A Revah; Y Ezra; D Farine; K Ritchie
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Mark B Landon; John C Hauth; Kenneth J Leveno; Catherine Y Spong; Sharon Leindecker; Michael W Varner; Atef H Moawad; Steve N Caritis; Margaret Harper; Ronald J Wapner; Yoram Sorokin; Menachem Miodovnik; Marshall Carpenter; Alan M Peaceman; Mary Jo O'Sullivan; Baha Sibai; Oded Langer; John M Thorp; Susan M Ramin; Brian M Mercer; Steven G Gabbe
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-12-14       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury.

Authors:  D Towner; M A Castro; E Eby-Wilkens; W M Gilbert
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-12-02       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Comparison of maternal and infant outcomes from primary cesarean delivery during the second compared with first stage of labor.

Authors:  James M Alexander; Kenneth J Leveno; Dwight J Rouse; Mark B Landon; Sharon Gilbert; Catherine Y Spong; Michael W Varner; Atef H Moawad; Steve N Caritis; Margaret Harper; Ronald J Wapner; Yoram Sorokin; Menachem Miodovnik; Mary J O'Sullivan; Baha M Sibai; Oded Langer; Steven G Gabbe
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Failed forceps.

Authors:  M E Boyd; R H Usher; F H McLean; B E Norman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 7.661

  10 in total
  5 in total

1.  Operative delivery.

Authors:  Athol Kent
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010

2.  Factors influencing the likelihood of instrumental delivery success.

Authors:  Catherine E Aiken; Abigail R Aiken; Jeremy C Brockelsby; James G Scott
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Factors associated with adverse clinical outcomes among obstetrics trainees.

Authors:  Catherine E Aiken; Abigail R Aiken; Hannah Park; Jeremy C Brockelsby; Andrew Prentice
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 6.251

4.  Mode of anaesthesia for preterm Caesarean delivery: secondary analysis from the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network Caesarean Registry.

Authors:  A J Butwick; Y Y El-Sayed; Y J Blumenfeld; S S Osmundson; C F Weiniger
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 9.166

5.  Risk factors for C-section delivery and population attributable risk for C-section risk factors in Southwest of Iran: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Abdolhalim Rajabi; Najmeh Maharlouei; Abbas Rezaianzadeh; Abdolreza Rajaeefard; Ali Gholami
Journal:  Med J Islam Repub Iran       Date:  2015-11-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.