Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2099728

Silastic cup vacuum extractor or forceps: a comparative study.

J M Svigos·D G Cave·R Vigneswaran·A Resch·J Christiansen
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A retrospective analysis over a 2-year period was carried out to compare the limitations in the use of the Silastic Cup vacuum extractor and forceps as the preferred instrument for operative vaginal delivery. Whilst the use of the vacuum extractor was associated with less maternal morbidity (54.9% episiotomy rate; 20.9% nil analgesia) and comparable neonatal problems, an increased failure rate (6.5%) was demonstrated in comparison to forceps delivery (0.7% failed vaginal delivery rate). A comparison of their use for rotational vaginal delivery failed to reveal any significant difference in maternal or neonatal outcome apart from an increased failure rate (30%) to complete vaginal delivery after application of the vacuum extractor. It is concluded that the vacuum extractor is a comparable instrument for midcavity or lift-out instrumental delivery but Kielland's forceps may still be a more appropriate instrument for rotational vaginal delivery.

Explore related subjects

Delivery, ObstetricFemaleHumansObstetrical ForcepsPregnancyRetrospective StudiesVacuum Extraction, ObstetricalComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J M Svigos, D G Cave, R Vigneswaran, A Resch, J Christiansen. 1990. Silastic cup vacuum extractor or forceps: a comparative study.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.1990.tb00356.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Effects of teamwork training on adverse outcomes and process of care in labor and delivery: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of teamwork training on the occurrence of adverse outcomes and process of care in labor and delivery. METHODS: A cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted at seven intervention and eight control hospitals. The intervention was a standardized teamwork training curriculum based on crew resource management that emphasized communication and team structure. The primary outcome was the proportion of deliveries at 20 weeks or more of gestation in which one or more adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes or both occurred (Adverse Outcome Index). Additional outcomes included 11 clinical process measures. RESULTS: A total of 1,307 personnel were trained and 28,536 deliveries analyzed. At baseline, there were no differences in demographic or delivery characteristics between the groups. The mean Adverse Outcome Index prevalence was similar in the control and intervention groups, both at baseline and after implementation of teamwork training (9.4% versus 9.0% and 7.2% versus 8.3%, respectively). The intracluster correlation coefficient was 0.015, with a resultant wide confidence interval for the difference in mean Adverse Outcome Index between groups (-5.6% to 3.2%). One process measure, the time from the decision to perform an immediate cesarean delivery to the incision, differed significantly after team training (33.3 minutes versus 21.2 minutes, P=.03). CONCLUSION: Training, as was conducted and implemented, did not transfer to a detectable impact in this study. The Adverse Outcome Index could be an important tool for comparing obstetric outcomes within and between institutions to help guide quality improvement. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), NCT00381056 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Delivery, Obstetric↗