Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Extraction, Obstetrical”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 541 records · Page 30Linked to original sources
PubMed1986

Follow up of babies delivered in a randomized controlled comparison of vacuum extraction and forceps delivery.

Babies delivered in a randomized controlled comparison of vacuum extraction vs. forceps delivery were reassessed at 9 months of age. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups as regards head circumference, weight, or head circumference to weight ratio, nor in the results of hearing and vision tests. The reasons for hospital readmission, pediatric follow-up and parents' and health visitors' worries appeared to be unrelated to the mode of delivery in nearly all cases. The finding in the original trial that neonatal jaundice was more common following vacuum extraction was reinforced by an additional case of jaundice in the vacuum extractor group which had necessitated readmission to hospital.

Child Development↗
PubMed1975

[Some considerations on forceps delivery with excenter handle (author's transl)].

The introduction of electronic monitoring techniques in delivery increasingly has lead to the use of vaginal surgery in delivery. Vacuum and forceps extraction, in our view, do not compete with each other. Years ago forceps extraction was decisively improved by introducing the axial traction forceps. However, we believe that this technique has not been given due attention and is not applied widely enough. In vacuum extraction and in forceps deliveries without axial traction considerable part of the force is exerted in the direction of the symphysis. When using the excentric handle forceps, it is necessary in addition to the traction and pressure components to include the lever action. This is a so-called couple of forces. The additional torque involved in the use of an axial traction forceps shifts the fetal head during extraction in the direction of the hollow of the sacrum. The force needed for this shift and the progression of the head is many times less than that required for conventional forceps extraction. This is due to the absence of the component directed at the symphysis which impedes delivery. The axial traction forceps may also be used in case of the infant's abnormal positioning of the head. In case of a transverse position of the fetal head, a special fastener on the forceps makes it possible to use an excentric handle on the traction hook of the Kielland forceps and thus render possible rotation of the fetal head from the transverse position. The extentric handle in forceps extraction is optimal in order to overcome increased mechanical resistance to delivery. Adjustment of the handles to all types of forceps being used today is possible. From the results mentioned it is clear that the use of the axial traction forceps constitutes a valuable contribution toward declining perinatal mortality rates.

Apgar Score↗
PubMed2002

Comparison of maternal and infant outcomes between vacuum extraction and forceps deliveries.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the instrumental deliveries carried out at the Armed Forces Hospital, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during the year 2000 and compare the outcome of ventouse and forceps deliveries. METHODS: A retrospective case note review of all instrumental deliveries, carried out at the Armed Forces Hospital, Riyadh, during the year 2000. RESULTS: Three hundred and four vaginal deliveries, of whom 258 were ventouse and 46 were forceps deliveries, were assisted. Seventy percent of forceps deliveries were carried out in primigravida as compared to 49% of ventouse deliveries. Fetal distress was the indication in 81.4% of ventouse deliveries as compared to 76% of forceps deliveries. Prolonged 2nd stage of labor was an indication in 11% of forceps and 2.3% of ventouse deliveries. Consultants and Senior Registrars were more likely to use forceps while registrars use ventouse as their preferred instrument for delivery. Attempted ventouse delivery was successful in 91.4% as compared to 95.7% in forceps. Extension of an episiotomy was more likely to occur with ventouse than forceps deliveries while 3rd degree perineal tear occurred more with forceps deliveries. Babies who had attempted ventouse deliveries have lower apgar score at one minute than attempted forceps. No babies required admission to neonatal intensive care unit. There was only one stillbirth in the ventouse delivery group due to intrapartum asphyxia and true knot in the umbilical cord. CONCLUSION: Forceps is more likely to be used in the primigravida and prolonged 2nd stage of labor and less likely to fail. Ventouse is more likely to be used by registrars. Extension of an episiotomy and low apgar score at one minute is more likely to occur with ventouse deliveries.

Adult↗