OBJECTIVE: To document operative vaginal delivery rates of ACOG Fellows and to stratify practice patterns with regard to mid-pelvic delivery and deep transverse arrest by the time elapsed since residency. METHODS: A survey was mailed to a random sample of 1600 ACOG Fellows. Of the 597 respondents (37%), 558 who still practice obstetrics formed the study group. Selection bias regarding recipients of the survey was reduced by randomization by an uninvolved third party. The length of time since residency was categorized as 10 years or fewer ("recent," 31%), 11-20 years ("intermediate," 43%), and more than 20 years ("remote," 26%). RESULTS: The majority of respondents (338 of 558, 61%) reported an operative vaginal delivery rate of 15% or less. One hundred forty-two (25%) use only forceps, whereas 78 (14%) use vacuum extraction exclusively. More than half have abandoned mid-pelvic operative vaginal deliveries, and of the 41% who still perform these operations, about half use forceps. In cases of deep transverse arrest, about 25% perform cesarean delivery, whereas 26% and 42% use forceps or vacuum, respectively. Resident training and practice in vacuum delivery were more common in the recently trained groups (recent > intermediate > remote; P < .001). There were no differences among the groups with respect to attempting mid-pelvic operative vaginal delivery (P = .29), but the remote group was more likely to use forceps, whereas the recent group was more likely to use vacuum (P = .039). A large disparity existed among the groups regarding the management of deep transverse arrest, with vacuum use associated with group assignment (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents have an operative vaginal delivery rate of no more than 15%. Most respondents have abandoned mid-pelvic operative vaginal delivery. Practice patterns reflect differences in residency training; the more recently trained Fellows more often were taught and use vacuum for delivery.
OBJECTIVE: To document operative vaginal delivery rates of ACOG Fellows and to stratify practice patterns with regard to mid-pelvic delivery and deep transverse arrest by the time elapsed since residency. METHODS: A survey was mailed to a random sample of 1600 ACOG Fellows. Of the 597 respondents (37%), 558 who still practice obstetrics formed the study group. Selection bias regarding recipients of the survey was reduced by randomization by an uninvolved third party. The length of time since residency was categorized as 10 years or fewer ("recent," 31%), 11-20 years ("intermediate," 43%), and more than 20 years ("remote," 26%). RESULTS: The majority of respondents (338 of 558, 61%) reported an operative vaginal delivery rate of 15% or less. One hundred forty-two (25%) use only forceps, whereas 78 (14%) use vacuum extraction exclusively. More than half have abandoned mid-pelvic operative vaginal deliveries, and of the 41% who still perform these operations, about half use forceps. In cases of deep transverse arrest, about 25% perform cesarean delivery, whereas 26% and 42% use forceps or vacuum, respectively. Resident training and practice in vacuum delivery were more common in the recently trained groups (recent > intermediate > remote; P < .001). There were no differences among the groups with respect to attempting mid-pelvic operative vaginal delivery (P = .29), but the remote group was more likely to use forceps, whereas the recent group was more likely to use vacuum (P = .039). A large disparity existed among the groups regarding the management of deep transverse arrest, with vacuum use associated with group assignment (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents have an operative vaginal delivery rate of no more than 15%. Most respondents have abandoned mid-pelvic operative vaginal delivery. Practice patterns reflect differences in residency training; the more recently trained Fellows more often were taught and use vacuum for delivery.
Authors: Claire Feeley; Nicola Crossland; Ana Pila Betran; Andrew Weeks; Soo Downe; Carol Kingdon Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 3.223
Authors: Jasmine M Hitt; Angela S Martin; Jordan E Dietrich; Natasha Ahmed; Gene T Lee Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 3.007