Literature DB >> 21585643

Rapid versus stepwise application of negative pressure in vacuum extraction-assisted vaginal delivery: a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

B Suwannachat1, M Laopaiboon, S Tonmat, T Siriwachirachai, S Teerapong, N Winiyakul, J Thinkhamrop, P Lumbiganon.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the application of rapid negative pressure for vacuum-assisted delivery is as effective and safe as the stepwise method.
DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: Six centres, including university, secondary and tertiary hospitals, in Thailand. SAMPLE: In total, 662 women were randomised to rapid and stepwise groups, with 331 women in each group.
METHODS: Vacuum extraction was performed by applying a metal cup (Malmstrom) connected to an electric pump to the fetal head. The stepwise method consisted of four incremental steps of 0.2 kg/cm² every 2 minutes to obtain a final negative pressure of 0.8 kg/cm². In the rapid method the negative pressure of 0.8 kg/cm² was applied in one step in < 2 minutes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Success rate of vacuum extraction, vacuum cup detachment rate, duration of vacuum extraction, and maternal and neonatal complications.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in detachment rates (RD 0.3%, 95% CI -3.1 to 2.4). The overall success rates were identical, at 98.2%. There were significant reductions in the time between applying the vacuum cup and attaining maximum negative pressure (MD -4.6 minutes; 95% CI -4.4 to -4.8 minutes), and in the time between applying the cup and delivery (MD -4.4 minutes; 95% CI -4.8 to -4.0 minutes). There was a significantly higher rate of perineal suture in the rapid method group (RD 4.5%; 95% CI 1.1-8.2). There were no significant differences in maternal and fetal morbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: Rapid negative pressure vacuum extraction could be performed as effectively and safely as the stepwise method, in a shorter period of time.
© 2011 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2011 RCOG.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21585643     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02992.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  4 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Impact of increasing capacity for generating and using research on maternal and perinatal health practices in South East Asia (SEA-ORCHID Project).

Authors:  P Lumbiganon; S J McDonald; M Laopaiboon; T Turner; S Green; C A Crowther
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-09-07       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Investigating the Effects of Different Sizes of Silicone Rubber Vacuum Extractors during the Course of Delivery on the Fetal Head: A Finite Element Analysis Study.

Authors:  Chuang-Yen Huang; Kuo-Min Su; Hsueh-Hsing Pan; Fung-Wei Chang; Yu-Ju Lai; Hung-Chih Chang; Yu-Chi Chen; Chi-Kang Lin; Kuo-Chih Su
Journal:  Polymers (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 4.329

Review 4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.