A A Merriam1, C V Ananth1,2, J D Wright1, Z Siddiq1, M E D'Alton1, A M Friedman1. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to determine temporal trends in forceps and vacuum delivery and factors associated with operative vaginal delivery. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Population-based study of US birth records. POPULATION: US births from 2005 to 2013. METHODS: This study evaluated forceps and vacuum extraction during vaginal delivery in live-born, non-anomalous singleton gestations from ≥ 36 to < 42 weeks of gestation. The primary outcomes were vacuum, forceps and overall operative delivery. Obstetric, medical and demographic characteristics associated with operative vaginal delivery were analysed. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed to determine factors associated with forceps/vacuum use. RESULTS: A total of 22 598 971 vaginal deliveries between 2005 and 2013 were included in the analysis. In all, 1 083 318 (4.8%) were vacuum-assisted and 237 792 (1.1%) were by forceps. Both vacuum and forceps deliveries decreased over the study period; vacuum deliveries decreased from 5.8% in 2005 to 4.1% in 2013, and forceps deliveries decreased from 1.4% to 0.9% during the same period. The adjusted odds ratio for forceps delivery was 0.70 (95% CI 0.69-0.72) in 2013 with 2005 as a reference. For vacuum delivery the odds ratio was 0.68 (95% CI 0.67-0.69) comparing the same years. CONCLUSION: Forceps and vacuum deliveries decreased during the study period. Low rates of operative delivery pose a challenge for resident education and may limit the degree to which women have access to alternatives to caesarean delivery. Initiatives that allow future generations of obstetricians to develop expertise in performing operative deliveries in the setting of decreased volume are an urgent resident education priority. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Forceps and vacuum delivery decreased significantly in the USA from 2005 to 2013.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to determine temporal trends in forceps and vacuum delivery and factors associated with operative vaginal delivery. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Population-based study of US birth records. POPULATION: US births from 2005 to 2013. METHODS: This study evaluated forceps and vacuum extraction during vaginal delivery in live-born, non-anomalous singleton gestations from ≥ 36 to < 42 weeks of gestation. The primary outcomes were vacuum, forceps and overall operative delivery. Obstetric, medical and demographic characteristics associated with operative vaginal delivery were analysed. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed to determine factors associated with forceps/vacuum use. RESULTS: A total of 22 598 971 vaginal deliveries between 2005 and 2013 were included in the analysis. In all, 1 083 318 (4.8%) were vacuum-assisted and 237 792 (1.1%) were by forceps. Both vacuum and forceps deliveries decreased over the study period; vacuum deliveries decreased from 5.8% in 2005 to 4.1% in 2013, and forceps deliveries decreased from 1.4% to 0.9% during the same period. The adjusted odds ratio for forceps delivery was 0.70 (95% CI 0.69-0.72) in 2013 with 2005 as a reference. For vacuum delivery the odds ratio was 0.68 (95% CI 0.67-0.69) comparing the same years. CONCLUSION: Forceps and vacuum deliveries decreased during the study period. Low rates of operative delivery pose a challenge for resident education and may limit the degree to which women have access to alternatives to caesarean delivery. Initiatives that allow future generations of obstetricians to develop expertise in performing operative deliveries in the setting of decreased volume are an urgent resident education priority. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Forceps and vacuum delivery decreased significantly in the USA from 2005 to 2013.
Authors: Laurens Holmes; Leah O'Neill; Hikma Elmi; Chinaka Chinacherem; Camillia Comeaux; Lavisha Pelaez; Kirk W Dabney; Olumuyiwa Akinola; Michael Enwere Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Marian Knight; Virginia Chiocchia; Christopher Partlett; Oliver Rivero-Arias; Xinyang Hua; Kim Hinshaw; Derek Tuffnell; Louise Linsell; Edmund Juszczak Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-05-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Giulia M Muraca; Amélie Boutin; Neda Razaz; Sarka Lisonkova; Sid John; Joseph Y Ting; Heather Scott; Michael S Kramer; K S Joseph Journal: CMAJ Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 8.262