Literature DB >> 9024114

Failed trial of vacuum or forceps--maternal and fetal outcome.

A Revah1, Y Ezra, D Farine, K Ritchie.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compare the maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with a failed trial of instrumental delivery with that of proceeding directly to cesarean section during the second stage of labor. STUDY
DESIGN: All second-stage cesarean deliveries between January 1986 and December 1992 in a tertiary care teaching hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Specific maternal and neonatal outcome parameters were studied to compare the failed instrumental group with the direct-to-cesarean section group.
RESULTS: Of 29,457 live births at > 37 weeks' gestation, 401 women had a cesarean section performed in the second stage of labor. There were 326 cases in which cesarean section was performed directly during the second stage of labor and 75 women who had a failed attempt of instrumental delivery (forceps 33, vacuum 25, both 17) before cesarean delivery was done. The three instrumental groups and the direct-to-cesarean section group did not differ in any of the outcome variables for either mother or newborn.
CONCLUSIONS: Failed instrumental delivery performed as a trial of forceps and/or vacuum in a setting where a cesarean section can follow promptly is not associated with increased morbidity of either mother or baby.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9024114     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(97)80036-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  8 in total

Review 1.  Forceps delivery in modern obstetric practice.

Authors:  Roshni R Patel; Deirdre J Murphy
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-05-29

2.  Outcomes after vacuum-assisted deliveries. Births attended by community family practitioners.

Authors:  Colin Yarrow; Glenn Benoit; Michael C Klein
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery.

Authors:  Unzila A Ali; Errol R Norwitz
Journal:  Rev Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009

4.  An international assessment of trainee experience, confidence, and comfort in operative vaginal delivery.

Authors:  D A Crosby; A Sarangapani; A Simpson; R Windrim; A Satkunaratnam; M F Higgins
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 1.568

5.  Management of fetal malposition in the second stage of labor: a propensity score analysis.

Authors:  Abigail R Aiken; Catherine E Aiken; Medhat S Alberry; Jeremy C Brockelsby; James G Scott
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality after attempted operative vaginal delivery at midpelvic station.

Authors:  Giulia M Muraca; Yasser Sabr; Sarka Lisonkova; Amanda Skoll; Rollin Brant; Geoffrey W Cundiff; K S Joseph
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 7.  Trial of instrumental delivery in theatre versus immediate caesarean section for anticipated difficult assisted births.

Authors:  Franz Majoko; Glenn Gardener
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-10-17

8.  Failed operative vaginal delivery.

Authors:  James M Alexander; Kenneth J Leveno; John C Hauth; Mark B Landon; Sharon Gilbert; Catherine Y Spong; Michael W Varner; Steve N Caritis; Paul Meis; Ronald J Wapner; Yoram Sorokin; Menachem Miodovnik; Mary J O'Sullivan; Baha M Sibai; Oded Langer; Steven G Gabbe
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 7.661

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.