Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery.

BACKGROUND Instrumental or assisted vaginal birth is commonly used to expedite birth for the benefit of either mother or baby or both. It is sometimes associated with significant complications for both mother and baby. The choice of instrument may be influenced by clinical circumstances, operator choice and availability of specific instruments. OBJECTIVES To evaluate different instruments in terms of achieving a vaginal birth and avoiding significant morbidity for mother and baby. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials of assisted vaginal delivery using different instruments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted the data, and checked them for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS We included 32 studies (6597 women) in this review. Forceps were less likely than the ventouse to fail to achieve a vaginal birth with the allocated instrument (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.94). However, with forceps there was a trend to more caesarean sections, and significantly more third- or fourth-degree tears (with or without episiotomy), vaginal trauma, use of general anaesthesia, and flatus incontinence or altered continence. Facial injury was more likely with forceps (RR 5.10, 95% CI 1.12 to 23.25). Using a random-effects model because of heterogeneity between studies, there was a trend towards fewer cases of cephalhaematoma with forceps (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.11).Among different types of ventouse, the metal cup was more likely to result in a successful vaginal birth than the soft cup, with more cases of scalp injury and cephalhaematoma. The hand-held ventouse was associated with more failures than the metal ventouse, and a trend to fewer than the soft ventouse.Overall forceps or the metal cup appear to be most effective at achieving a vaginal birth, but with increased risk of maternal trauma with forceps and neonatal trauma with the metal cup. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is a recognised place for forceps and all types of ventouse in clinical practice. The role of operator training with any choice of instrument must be emphasised. The increasing risks of failed delivery with the chosen instrument from forceps to metal cup to hand-held to soft cup vacuum, and trade-offs between risks of maternal and neonatal trauma identified in this review need to be considered when choosing an instrument.

[1]  N. Fisk,et al.  Labor outcome of juvenile primiparae in a population with a high incidence of contracted pelvis , 1989, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[2]  Dell Dl,et al.  Soft cup vacuum extraction: a comparison of outlet delivery. , 1985 .

[3]  G. Hofmeyr,et al.  Symphysiotomy for feto-pelvic disproportion. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[4]  R. Johanson,et al.  Worldwide survey of assisted vaginal delivery. , 1995, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[5]  K. Brady,et al.  Maternal and Neonatal Effects of Outlet Forceps Delivery Compared With Spontaneous Vaginal Delivery in Term Pregnancies , 1991, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[6]  E. Hodnett,et al.  Continuous support for women during childbirth. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[7]  R. Johanson,et al.  North Staffordshire/Wigan assisted delivery trial , 1989, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[8]  D. Murphy,et al.  Forceps delivery in modern obstetric practice , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  R. Johanson,et al.  A random allocation comparison of silicone and santoprene soft vacuum extractor cups for assisted delivery , 1993 .

[10]  A. Grant,et al.  Portsmouth operative delivery trial. A randomised controlled trial to compare vacuum extraction with forceps delivery , 1983 .

[11]  C. Redman,et al.  Health after assisted vaginal delivery: Follow up of a random controlled study , 1993 .

[12]  M. Devidas,et al.  Shoulder dystocia and operative vaginal delivery. , 1997, The Journal of maternal-fetal medicine.

[13]  G. Hofmeyr Obstructed labor: using better technologies to reduce mortality , 2004, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[14]  E. Salamalekis,et al.  Comparison between metal cup and silicone rubber cup vacuum extractor. , 1992, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[15]  O. Sadan,et al.  Herpes Simplex Virus Infection after Vacuum-assisted Vaginally Delivered Infants of Asymptomatic Mothers , 2004, Journal of Perinatology.

[16]  M. Klein,et al.  Guidelines for operative vaginal birth , 2004, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC.

[17]  P. Wadhwa,et al.  Urethral avulsion injury during vacuum extraction delivery , 2004, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[18]  A. Weiss,et al.  Obstetric correlates of neonatal retinal hemorrhage. , 1993, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  Rick W. Martin,et al.  FORCEPS AND VACUUM DELIVERY: A SURVEY OF NORTH AMERICAN RESIDENCY PROGRAMS , 1996, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  R. Johanson,et al.  A random controlled trial of two different vacuum extractor pumps: new foot pump and electric pump. , 1997, Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

[21]  Steve N Caritis,et al.  Fetal Injury Associated With Cesarean Delivery , 2006, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[22]  P. Wilkinson,et al.  Maternal impressions of forceps or the Silc‐cup , 1991, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[23]  MichaelL. Cox CONTRACTED PELVIS IN NIGERIA , 1963, The Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of the British Empire.

[24]  I. Chalmers,et al.  Follow Up of Babies Delivered in a Randomized Controlled Comparison of Vacuum Extraction and Forceps Delivery , 1986, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[25]  R. Johanson,et al.  Health after childbirth: a comparison of normal and assisted vaginal delivery. , 1993, Midwifery.

[26]  A. Sultan,et al.  Maternal and child health after assisted vaginal delivery: five‐year follow up of a randomised controlled study comparing forceps and ventouse , 1999 .

[27]  N. Ehlers,et al.  RETINAL HAEMORRHAGES IN THE NEWBORN Comparison of delivery by forceps and by vacuum extractor , 1974, Acta ophthalmologica.

[28]  A. Sau,et al.  Vacuum extraction: is there any need to improve the current training in the UK? , 2004, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[29]  F. Huikeshoven,et al.  A Randomized Comparison of Vacuum Extraction Delivery With a Rigid and a Pliable Cup , 1993, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[30]  M. Nordin,et al.  Vacuum delivery at The Maternity Hospital Kuala Lumpur: a comparison of metal and silicone cups. , 1996, Singapore medical journal.

[31]  I. Chalmers,et al.  Portsmouth operative delivery trial: a comparison vacuum extraction and forceps delivery , 1983, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[32]  M. Thiéry,et al.  A randomized study of two cups for vacuum extraction , 1987, Journal of perinatal medicine.

[33]  J. N. Martin,et al.  Neonatal cephalohematoma from vacuum extraction. , 1997, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

[34]  E. Salamalekis,et al.  Soft cup vacuum extractor versus forceps delivery , 1995 .

[35]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Statistical Methods for Examining Heterogeneity and Combining Results from Several Studies in Meta‐Analysis , 2008 .

[36]  R. Johanson,et al.  Occult anal sphincter trauma following randomized forceps and vacuum delivery , 1998, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[37]  I. Chalmers,et al.  Views of Women and their Medical and Midwifery Attendants about Instrumental Delivery using Vacuum Extraction and Forceps , 1985 .

[38]  B. Menon,et al.  Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted vaginal delivery. , 2010, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[39]  H. Lashen,et al.  Can formal education and training improve the outcome of instrumental delivery? , 2004, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[40]  C. Crichton,et al.  A study of the relative merits and scope for vacuum extraction as opposed to forceps delivery - a preliminary report , 1928 .

[41]  Rob C. Brown,et al.  A Randomized Trial of Two Vacuum Extraction Techniques , 1997, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[42]  G. Hofmeyr,et al.  New design rigid and soft vacuum extractor cups: a preliminary comparison of traction forces , 1990, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[43]  S. Lindow,et al.  Trends in obstetric care in the United Kingdom. , 2000, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research.

[44]  R. Johanson,et al.  Soft versus rigid vacuum extractor cups for assisted vaginal delivery. , 2010, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[45]  A. Rigby,et al.  Frequency and natural history of subdural haemorrhages in babies and relation to obstetric factors , 2004, The Lancet.

[46]  J. Holm,et al.  Stepwise compared with rapid application of vacuum in ventouse extraction procedures , 1997, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[47]  Z. Razi,et al.  Kiwi Omnicup versus Malmstrom metal cup in vacuum assisted delivery: A randomized comparative trial , 2008, The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research.

[48]  E. Cluett,et al.  Immersion in water in pregnancy, labour and birth. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[49]  A. Afifi,et al.  A randomized comparative study of the use of vacuum extraction with metal and silastic cups in second stage management of deliveries in a Saudi Military Hospital , 1995 .

[50]  F. Carmona,et al.  Immediate maternal and neonatal effects of low-forceps delivery according to the new criteria of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery in term pregnancies. , 1995, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[51]  Mc Williams,et al.  A randomized comparison of assisted vaginal delivery by obstetric forceps and polyethylene vacuum cup , 1991, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[52]  M. Behan,et al.  Randomised clinical trial to assess anal sphincter function following forceps or vacuum assisted vaginal delivery , 2003, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[53]  W. Piyamongkol,et al.  Comparison of vacuum extraction delivery between the conventional metal cup and the new soft rubber cup. , 1998, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet.

[54]  J. N. Martin,et al.  A randomized prospective trial of the obstetric forceps versus the M-cup vacuum extractor. , 1996, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[55]  R. Johanson,et al.  A randomized prospective study comparing delivery with metal and silicone rubber vacuum extractor cups , 1993 .

[56]  S. Paterson–Brown,et al.  A prospective randomised controlled trial of the Kiwi Omnicup versus conventional ventouse cups for vacuum‐assisted vaginal delivery , 2006, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[57]  J. Maltau,et al.  Retinal Hemorrhages in the Preterm Neonate , 1984, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[58]  M. Hammarström,et al.  Comparison Between the Conventional Malmström Extractor and a New Extractor with Silastic Cup , 1986, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[59]  S. Premaratne,et al.  A randomised prospective trial of the obstetric forceps versus vacuum extraction using defined criteria. , 2002 .

[60]  H. Ben‐Hur,et al.  The beneficial effect of vacuum extraction of the fetus. , 1982, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[61]  C. Winter,et al.  A randomised controlled trial of a new handheld vacuum extraction device , 2005, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[62]  A. Grant,et al.  Vacuum extraction: a randomized controlled comparison of the New Generation cup with the original BIRD cup , 1986, Journal of perinatal medicine.

[63]  R. Johanson,et al.  A multicentre randomized trial comparing delivery with a silicone rubber cup and rigid metal vacuum extractor cups , 1989, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[64]  F. Barros,et al.  Rates and implications of caesarean sections in Latin America: ecological study. , 1999, BMJ.