We have located links that may give you full text access.
Failed individual and sequential instrumental vaginal delivery: contributing risk factors and maternal-neonatal complications.
BACKGROUND: To identify the risk factors for failed instrumental vaginal delivery, and to compare maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with failed individual and sequential instruments used.
DESIGN: A retrospective case-control study.
METHODS: From January 1995 to June 2001, there were 39 508 live births at >37 weeks' gestation of which 2628 (6.7%) instrumental vaginal deliveries were performed, 1723 (4.4%) were vacuum extractions and 905 (2.3%) were forceps. A total of 155/2628 (5.9%) patients who had failed instrumental delivery were matched with 204 patients who had successful instrumental delivery. The patients were divided into five groups. Group I (n = 129) had failed vacuum extraction, group II (n = 13) failed forceps, group III (n = 13) failed both (i.e. failed attempt at both instruments sequentially), group IV (n = 138) had successful vacuum extraction and group V (n = 66) successful forceps.
RESULTS: The failure rate for vacuum extractions 129/1723 (7.5%) was significantly higher than that for forceps 13/905 (1.4%) [odds ratio (OR) = 5.6, 95% CI 3-10.3]. There were no significant differences in all maternal complications (25.5% vs. 26.6%) between vacuum (groups I and IV) and forceps (groups II and V) assisted deliveries. There were more maternal complications in group III (46.2%) than in groups I (35.7%), II (23.1%) and V (27.3%) that did not reach statistical significance but were significantly higher than in group IV (15.9%, OR = 4.5, 95% CI 1.2-16.9). There was a significantly higher rate of all fetal complications in group III [11/13 (84.6%)] than in groups I [69/129 (53.5%)], II [7/13 (53.8%)], IV [35/138 (25.4%)] and V [22/66 (33.3%)] (OR = 4.8, 95% CI 0.9-19.9).
CONCLUSIONS: Applying the instrument at < or =0 fetal station, nulliparous women, history of previous cesarean section and fetal head other than occipitoanterior position were risk factors for failed instrumental delivery. Sequential use of instrumental delivery carries a significantly higher neonatal morbidity than when a single instrument is used.
DESIGN: A retrospective case-control study.
METHODS: From January 1995 to June 2001, there were 39 508 live births at >37 weeks' gestation of which 2628 (6.7%) instrumental vaginal deliveries were performed, 1723 (4.4%) were vacuum extractions and 905 (2.3%) were forceps. A total of 155/2628 (5.9%) patients who had failed instrumental delivery were matched with 204 patients who had successful instrumental delivery. The patients were divided into five groups. Group I (n = 129) had failed vacuum extraction, group II (n = 13) failed forceps, group III (n = 13) failed both (i.e. failed attempt at both instruments sequentially), group IV (n = 138) had successful vacuum extraction and group V (n = 66) successful forceps.
RESULTS: The failure rate for vacuum extractions 129/1723 (7.5%) was significantly higher than that for forceps 13/905 (1.4%) [odds ratio (OR) = 5.6, 95% CI 3-10.3]. There were no significant differences in all maternal complications (25.5% vs. 26.6%) between vacuum (groups I and IV) and forceps (groups II and V) assisted deliveries. There were more maternal complications in group III (46.2%) than in groups I (35.7%), II (23.1%) and V (27.3%) that did not reach statistical significance but were significantly higher than in group IV (15.9%, OR = 4.5, 95% CI 1.2-16.9). There was a significantly higher rate of all fetal complications in group III [11/13 (84.6%)] than in groups I [69/129 (53.5%)], II [7/13 (53.8%)], IV [35/138 (25.4%)] and V [22/66 (33.3%)] (OR = 4.8, 95% CI 0.9-19.9).
CONCLUSIONS: Applying the instrument at < or =0 fetal station, nulliparous women, history of previous cesarean section and fetal head other than occipitoanterior position were risk factors for failed instrumental delivery. Sequential use of instrumental delivery carries a significantly higher neonatal morbidity than when a single instrument is used.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app