| Literature DB >> 23822879 |
Javier A Schvartzman, Hugo Krupitzki, Ana Pilar Betran, Jennifer Requejo, Eduardo Bergel, Angel E Fiorillo, Enrique C Gadow, Francisco M Vizcaino, Felicitas von Petery, Fernando Althabe, Jose Belizan, Franco Borruto, Michel Boulvain, Gian Carlo Di Renzo, Metin Gülmezoglu, Justus Hofmeyr, Kevin Judge, Tak Yeung Leung, My Huong Nguyen, Ola Didrik Saugstad, Marleen Temmerman, Alain Treisser, Effy Vayena, Mario Merialdi.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intrapartum complications are responsible for approximately half of all maternal deaths, and two million stillbirth and neonatal deaths per year. Prolonged second stage of labour is associated with potentially fatal maternal complications such as haemorrhage and infection and it is a major cause of stillbirth and newborn morbidity and mortality. Currently, the three main options for managing prolonged second stage of labour are forceps, vacuum extractor and caesarean section. All three clinical practices require relatively expensive equipment (e.g., a surgical theatre for caesarean section) and/or highly trained staff which are often not available in low resource settings. The specific aim of the proposed study is to test the safety and feasibility of a new device (Odón device) to effectively deliver the fetus during prolonged second stage of labour. The Odón device is a low-cost technological innovation to facilitate operative vaginal delivery and designed to minimize trauma to the mother and baby. These features combined make it a potentially revolutionary development in obstetrics, particularly for improving intrapartum care and reducing maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in low resource settings. METHODS/Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23822879 PMCID: PMC3707820 DOI: 10.1186/1742-4755-10-33
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Figure 1The Odón device: a new, simple instrument for assisted vaginal deliveries.
Figure 2Visualization of the use of the Odón device.
Study outcomes
| • Time from application of device to delivery of the cephalic pole | |
| • Failure rate of device application (only one attempt will be made) | |
| • Incidence of: | |
| ○ Operative delivery with forceps or vacuum | |
| ○ Caesarean section | |
| We anticipate that there may be some cases in which the device will present the following: it cannot be applied, it is difficult to apply, it slips off, or it is ineffective. To determine the clinical circumstances under which such problems occur, the following clinical data will be collected: | |
| • Position of head | |
| • Station of head | |
| • Degree of caput succedaneum and moulding | |
| • Time taken to apply the device (in seconds; from the start to the removal of the inserter) | |
| • Successful application and inflation | |
| • Any slipping of the device | |
| • Number of contractions after application | |
| • Integrity of the air chamber after expulsion | |
| • Any other failure of the mechanical failure of the device | |
| Incidence of: | |
| • Episiotomy | |
| • Lacerations of the low genital tract (vulvar, vaginal or cervical trauma) | |
| • Perineal lacerations including cervical laceration | |
| • Third or fourth degree perineal tear | |
| • Uterine rupture | |
| • Pelvic hematoma | |
| • Perineal or vaginal hematoma | |
| • Postpartum haemorrhage as routinely monitored at the centers | |
| • Postpartum endometritis or infection | |
| • Maternal blood transfusion | |
| • Maternal pain during insertion of the device | |
| • Maternal satisfaction | |
| Incidence of: | |
| | • Respiratory rate at 2 hours |
| | • Birth trauma or injuries (skull fracture, caput succedaneum, cephalohematoma, cutaneous facial lesions and facial palsy, scalp, extracranial haemorrhages, subgaleal haemorrhage, subaponeurotic haemorrhage, intracranial injuries) |
| | • Low Apgar Scores (less than 7 at 1st minute and less than 7 at 5th minute) |
| | • Admission to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit |
| | • Length of stay (> 7 days) in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit |
| | • Retinal haemorrhage |
| | • Anaemia |
| | • Jaundice |
| | • Evidence of infection by local standards |
| | • Phototherapy |
| • Fetal or neonatal death | |
Estimated incidence rates of outcomes
| 2.0 | 5.8 | 0.4 – 6.1 |
| 4.0 | 7.6 | 1.3 – 9.0 |
| 6.0 | 9.0 | 2.6 – 11.6 |
| 8.0 | 10.1 | 4.0 – 14.1 |
| 10.0 | 11.1 | 5.4 – 16.5 |
| 12.0 | 11.9 | 7.0 – 18.9 |
| 14.0 | 12.6 | 8.5 – 21.2 |
| 16.0 | 13.3 | 10.2 – 23.5 |
| 18.0 | 13.9 | 11.8 – 25.7 |
| 20.0 | 14.4 | 13.5 – 27.9 |