Literature DB >> 26967343

Predictors for failure of vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery: a case-control study.

Corine J Verhoeven1, Chelly Nuij2, Christel R M Janssen-Rolf3, Ewoud Schuit4, Joke M J Bais2, S Guid Oei3, Ben Willem J Mol5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify potential predictors for failed vacuum-assisted delivery. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study conducted in two perinatal centers in the Netherlands. Cases were women who underwent a failed vacuum-assisted delivery between 1997 and 2011. A failed vacuum extraction was defined as a delivery that was started as vacuum extraction but was converted to a cesarean section because of failure to progress. As controls we studied two successful vacuum extractions that were performed before the failed one. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the risk for failed vacuum extraction.
RESULTS: Between 1997 and 2011, 6734 trials of vacuum extraction were performed of which 309 failed (4.6%). These 309 cases were compared to the data of 618 women who underwent a successful vacuum extraction. Predictors for failed vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery were increasing gestational age (OR 1.2 per week), maternal height (OR 0.97 per cm), previous vaginal birth as compared to nulliparae (OR 0.32), estimated fetal weight ≥3750g as compared to <3250g (OR 5.7), epidural analgesia (OR 3.0), augmentation (OR 1.4), failure to progress as indication for trial of vacuum delivery (OR 1.7), station of descent of the fetal head (OR 0.31 per station more descended), and occiput posterior position (OR 2.6). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of a prediction model integrating these indicators was 0.83.
CONCLUSION: Failed vacuum extraction can be predicted accurately using both ante- and intrapartum characteristics. There is a strong need for prospective studies on the subject.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cesarean section; Operative vaginal delivery; Prediction; Vacuum extraction

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26967343     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.02.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol        ISSN: 0301-2115            Impact factor:   2.435


  4 in total

1.  Can pelvic floor dysfunction after vaginal birth be prevented?

Authors:  Denise Howard; Michel Makhlouf
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-08-15       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Prospective assessment of vacuum deliveries from midpelvic station in a tertiary care university hospital: Frequency, failure rates, labor characteristics and maternal and neonatal complications.

Authors:  Meryam Sugulle; Erna Halldórsdóttir; Janne Kvile; Line Sissel Dahlgaard Berntzen; Anne Flem Jacobsen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-16       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Can the cervical length in mid-trimester predict the use of vacuum in vaginal delivery?

Authors:  Jee Yoon Park; Sun Min Kim; Jeenah Sohn; Sejin Kim; Eunjin Song; Byoung Jae Kim; Hye Won Jeon
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Sci       Date:  2019-12-26

4.  Comparison of a practice-based versus theory-based training program for conducting vacuum-assisted deliveries: a randomized-controlled trial.

Authors:  Julian Marschalek; Lorenz Kuessel; Maria Stammler-Safar; Herbert Kiss; Johannes Ott; Heinrich Husslein
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-08-07       Impact factor: 2.344

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.