Journals / İstanbul Medical Journal / 2017 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Operative Vaginal Deliveries: Vacuum vs. Forceps

Operatif Vajinal Doğumların Maternal ve Neonatal Sonuçlarının Karşılaştırılması: Vakuma Karşı Forseps

Pages
196–199
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The choice of instrument depends on theoperator’s skills and training.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:A vaginal delivery accomplished using either forceps or vacuumis termed as operative vaginal delivery.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study isto compare indications of maternal and neonatal outcomes betweenoperative vaginal deliveries using forceps (the forceps group) and vacuum(the vacuum group) at our tertiary institute.Methods: This is a retrospective observational study on operative vaginaldeliveries performed between January 2016 and December 2016 ata tertiary hospital in Istanbul.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The choice of instrument depends on theoperator’s skills and training.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

A vaginal delivery accomplished using either forceps or vacuumis termed as operative vaginal delivery. The aim of this study isto compare indications of maternal and neonatal outcomes betweenoperative vaginal deliveries using forceps (the forceps group) and vacuum(the vacuum group) at our tertiary institute.Methods: This is a retrospective observational study on operative vaginaldeliveries performed between January 2016 and December 2016 ata tertiary hospital in Istanbul. All patients who underwent instrumentalvaginal delivery were compared in terms of demographic data, indications,and maternal and neonatal outcomes.Results: The incidence of operative vaginal delivery was 1.4% of all deliveries.Most patients were primigravida. The most common indicationwas fetal distress in the vacuum group and prolonged second-stage laborin the forceps group. There was no significant difference in termsof maternal and neonatal morbidities, except for fetal blood pH level.Fetal blood pH level was significantly lower in the vacuum group thanin the forceps group.Conclusion: Risks and benefits of both instruments must be individualized,and operative vaginal deliveries should be performed only ifconsidered a safe alternative. The choice of instrument depends on theoperator’s skills and training.

Özet

Forseps veya vakum yardımıyla gerçekleştirilen vaginal doğumoperatif vaginal doğum olarak adlandırılır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, tersiyerbir merkezdeki vakum ve forseps uygulamalarının endikasyonlar,maternal ve neonatal sonuçlar yönünden karşılaştırılmasıdır.Yöntemler: Bu çalışma Ocak 2016-Aralık 2016 arasında tersiyerbir hastanede gerçekleştirilen retrospektif bir çalışmadır. Bu tarihlerarasında operatif vaginal doğum yapan hastalar demografikveriler, endikasyonlar, maternal ve neonatal sonuçlar yönündenkarşılaştırıldı.Bulgular: Operatif vaginal doğum oranı % 1,4'tü. Hastaların çoğuprimigravida idi. Vakum grubunda en sık endikasyon fetal distresiken forseps grubunda en sık endikasyon ikinci evrenin uzamasıolarak saptandı. Maternal ve neonatal morbidite yönünden iki gruparasında fetal kan pH değeri dışında fark saptanmadı. Fetal kan pHdeğerleri vakum grubunda forseps grubuna göre anlamlı derecededüşük saptandı.Sonuç: Her iki enstrümanın riskleri ve faydaları göz önünde bulundurularakoperatif vaginal doğumlar bireyselleştirilmeli ve güvenliolduğu düşünülüyorsa gerçekleştirilmelidir. Enstrüman seçimicerrahın tercihine ve tecrübesine göre olmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KONAL, M., ÇETİN, B. A., BAHAT, P. Y., AKÇA, A., KÖROĞLU, N. (2022). Comparison of Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Operative Vaginal Deliveries: Vacuum vs. Forceps. İstanbul Medical Journal, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 4, 196–199. https://ajindex.com/articles/552068

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Anonymous. Vacuum versus forceps. (Editorial). Lancet 1984; 1: 144
  2. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Hankins GD. Variation in the rates of operative delivery in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196: 526.e1- 5. [CrossRef] 3. Demissie K, Rhoads GG, Smulian JC, Balasubramanian BA, Gandhi K, Joseph KS, et al. Operative vagival delivery and neonatal and infant adverse outcomes: population based retrospective analysis. BML 2004; 329: 24-9. [CrossRef] 4. ACOG practice bulletin No: 17. Operative vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 1-12
  3. Caughey AB, Sandberg PL, Zlatnik MG, Thiet MP, Parer JT, Laros Jr RK. Forceps compared with vacuum: rates of neonatal and maternal morbidity. Obstetr Gynecol 2006; 107: 740. [CrossRef] 6. Bofill JA, Rust OA, Schorr SJ, Brown RC, Martin RW, Martin JN, et al. A randomized prospective trial of the obstetric forceps versus the M-cup vacuum extractor. Am J Obstetr Gynecol 1996; 175: 1325-30. [CrossRef] 7. Johnson JH, Figueroa R, Garry D, Elimian A, Maulik D. Immediate maternal and neonatal effects of forceps and vacuum-assisted deliveries. Obstetr Gynecol 2004; 103: 513-8. [CrossRef] 8. Vacca A, Grant A, Wyatt G, Chalmers I. Portsmouth operative delivery trial: a comparison vacuum extraction and forceps delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983; 90: 1107-12. [CrossRef] 9. Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1709-14. [CrossRef] 10. Johanson RB. Vacuum extraction vs. forceps delivery. Oxford, England: The Cochrane Library: pregnancy and childbirth database, 2000, Disk Issue I
  4. Johanson RB, Rice C, Doyle M, Arthur J, Anyawu L, Ibrahim J, et al. A randomized prospective study comparing the new vacuum extractor policy with forceps delivery. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 100: 524-30. [CrossRef] 12. Spongy CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD. Preventing the first ceaserean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 1181-93
  5. Johanson R. Advances in assisted vaginal delivery with vacuum extractor. In Bonnar J (Ed). Recent Advances in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Edinburg: Churchill Livingstone; 1998; 125-39
  6. Ameh CA, Weeks AD. The Role of Instrumental Vaginal delivery in low resource settings; BJOG 2009; 116: 22-5. [CrossRef] 15. Lawani LO, Anozie OB, Ezeonu PO, Iyoke CA. Comparison of outcomes between operative vaginal deliveries and spontaneous vaginal deliveries in southeast Nigeria. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2014; 125: 206-9. [C