Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T19:00:32.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 4 - Vacuum-Assisted Birth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  aN Invalid Date NaN

George Attilakos
Affiliation:
University College London
Sharon Jordan
Affiliation:
Southmead Hospital, Bristol
Michele Mohajer
Affiliation:
Shropshire Women and Children’s Centre
Glen Mola
Affiliation:
University of Papua New Guinea
Stephen O'Brien
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Dimitrios Siassakos
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access

Summary

When a valid indication for vacuum-assisted birth exists, the relevant obstetric variables should be identified and carefully assessed to determine whether vacuum-assisted birth is appropriate and safe under the clinical circumstances and for the level of experience of the operator. This important decision-making process is considered in Chapters 2 and 3 of the book. This chapter focuses on a few selected technical matters that should, if followed, improve the efficacy and reduce the risk of vacuum-assisted birth.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Vacca, A. Handbook of Vacuum Delivery on Obstetric Practice. 3rd ed. Brisbane: Vacca Research; 2009.Google Scholar
Vacca, A. Vacuum-assisted delivery: an analysis of traction force and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;46(2):124–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Suwannachat, B, Laopaiboon, M, Tonmat, S et al. Rapid versus stepwise application of negative pressure in vacuum extraction-assisted vaginal delivery: a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. BJOG. 2011;118(10):1247–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Bofill, J, Rust, OA, Schorr, SJ, Brown, RC. A randomized trial of two vacuum extraction techniques. Obstet Gynecol. No longer published by Elsevier; 19971;89(5):758–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muise, KL, Duchon, MA, Brown, RH. Effect of angular traction on the performance of modern vacuum extractors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;167(4):1125–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bird, GC. The use of the vacuum extractor. Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1982;9(3):641–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Lasbrey, AH, Orchard, CD, Crichton, D. A study of the relative merits and scope for vacuum extraction as opposed to forceps delivery. SAMJ. 1964;38(3).Google Scholar
Murphy, DJ, Strachan, BK, Bahl, R. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Assisted Vaginal Birth: Green-Top Guideline No. 26. BJOG. 2020 .Google Scholar
Bird, GC. The importance of flexion in vacuum extractor delivery. BJOG. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 1976;83(3):194200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ACOG. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 154: Operative Vaginal Delivery. New York: ACOG; 2015:110.Google Scholar
Vayssière, C, Beucher, G, Dupuis, O et al. Instrumental delivery: clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;159(1):43–8.Google ScholarPubMed
RANZCOG. Instrumental vaginal birth. RANZCOG; 2015:125.Google Scholar
Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Guidelines for operative vaginal birth. Number 148, May 2004. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;88(2):229–36.Google Scholar
O’Mahony, F, Hofmeyer, GJ, Menon, V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. O’Mahony, F, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2010;(11):CD005455.Google Scholar
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(23):1709–14.Google ScholarPubMed
Gardella, C, Taylor, M, Benedetti, T, Hitti, J, Critchlow, C. The effect of sequential use of vacuum and forceps for assisted vaginal delivery on neonatal and maternal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(4):896902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demissie, K, Rhoads, GG, Smulian, JC et al. Operative vaginal delivery and neonatal and infant adverse outcomes: population based retrospective analysis. BMJ. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2004;329(7456):24–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Attilakos, G, Sibanda, T, Winter, C, Johnson, N, Draycott, T. A randomised controlled trial of a new handheld vacuum extraction device. BJOG. Blackwell Science Ltd; 2005;112(11):1510–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Groom, KM, Jones, BA, Miller, N, Paterson-Brown, SA. A prospective randomised controlled trial of the Kiwi Omnicup versus conventional ventouse cups for vacuum‐assisted vaginal delivery. BJOG. 2006;113(2):183–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Fortune, PM, Thomas, RM. Sub-aponeurotic haemorrhage: a rare but life-threatening neonatal complication associated with ventouse delivery. BJOG. 1999;106(8):868–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chadwick, LM, Pemberton, PJ, Kurinczuk, JJ. Neonatal subgaleal haematoma: associated risk factors, complications and outcome. J Paediatr Child Health. 1996;32(3):228–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lipschuetz, M, Cohen, SM, Liebergall-Wischnitzer, M et al. Degree of bother from pelvic floor dysfunction in women one year after first delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;191:90–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gyhagen, M, Bullarbo, M, Nielsen, TF, Milsom, I. A comparison of the long-term consequences of vaginal delivery versus caesarean section on the prevalence, severity and bothersomeness of urinary incontinence subtypes: a national cohort study in primiparous women. BJOG. 2013;120(12):1548–55.Google ScholarPubMed
Gyhagen, M, Bullarbo, M, Nielsen, TF, Milsom, I. Faecal incontinence 20 years after one birth: a comparison between vaginal delivery and caesarean section. Int Urogynecol J. 1st ed. 2014;25(10):1411–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Salim, R, Peretz, H, Molnar, R, et al. Long-term outcome of obstetric anal sphincter injury repaired by experienced obstetricians. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;126(2):130–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palm, A, Israelsson, L, Bolin, M, Danielsson, I. Symptoms after obstetric sphincter injuries have little effect on quality of life. Acta Obst Gyne Scand. 2013;92(1):109–15.Google ScholarPubMed
Samarasekera, DN, Bekhit, MT, Wright, Y et al. Long-term anal continence and quality of life following postpartum anal sphincter injury. Colorectal Dis. 2008 ;10(8):793–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bavel, J, Hukkelhoven, CWPM, Vries, C et al. The effectiveness of mediolateral episiotomy in preventing obstetric anal sphincter injuries during operative vaginal delivery: a ten-year analysis of a national registry. Int Urogynecol J.; 2017;29(3):17.Google ScholarPubMed
Gurol-Urganci, I, Cromwell, DA, Edozien, LC et al. Third- and fourth-degree perineal tears among primiparous women in England between 2000 and 2012: time trends and risk factors. BJOG. 2013;120(12):1516–25.Google ScholarPubMed
Macleod, M, Strachan, B, Bahl, R et al. A prospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery. BJOG. 2008;115(13):1688–94.Google ScholarPubMed
Sagi-Dain, L, Sagi, S. Morbidity associated with episiotomy in vacuum delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2015 ;122(8):1073–81.Google ScholarPubMed
Lund, NS, Persson, LKG, Jangö, H, Gommesen, D, Westergaard, HB. Episiotomy in vacuum-assisted delivery affects the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;207:193–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hotton, E, O’Brien, S, Draycott, TJ. Skills training for operative vaginal birth. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2019;56:1122.Google ScholarPubMed
Reid, HE, Hayes, D, Wittkowski, A et al. The effect of senior obstetric presence on maternal and neonatal outcomes in UK NHS maternity units: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2017;124(9):1321–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Bahl, R, Murphy, DJ, Strachan, B. Qualitative analysis by interviews and video recordings to establish the components of a skilled rotational forceps delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. Elsevier; 2013;170(2):341–7.Google ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×