Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T09:20:07.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 1 - Trends in Assisted Vaginal Birth and Future Practice

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

In skilled hands, assisted vaginal birth (AVB) remains the most efficient and effective method of expediting birth in the second stage of labour. It is associated with fewer adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes compared to second stage emergency caesarean section. In this chapter we will focus on the history and role of AVB as it currently stands. We will review relevant literature, examine important areas of practice and suggest a way forward that aims to maintain AVB at the heart of obstetric practice in the twenty-first century. The need for such focus is clear – complications in the second stage of labour (fetal compromise, obstructed labour, maternal exhaustion, or maternal medical conditions exacerbated by the act of pushing) remain a major cause of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity across the world. Such complications are responsible for 4 to 13% of maternal deaths in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. In 2013 obstructed labour alone accounted for 0.4 deaths per 100,000 women worldwide.

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

Khan, KS, Wojdyla, D, Say, L, Gülmezoglu, AM, Look, PFV. WHO analysis of causes of maternal death: a systematic review. The Lancet. 2006;367(9516):1066–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
GBD 2013 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 240 causes of death, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet. 2015;385(9963):117–71.Google Scholar
Arulkumaran, S, Robson, M. Munro Kerr’s Operative Obstetrics. 13th ed. Arulkumaran, S, Robson, M, editors. London: Elsevier; 2019.Google Scholar
Murphy, DJ, Liebling, RE, Verity, L, Swingler, R, Patel, R. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. The Lancet. 2001; 358(9289):1203–7.Google ScholarPubMed
AIHW. Australian mothers and babies 2015 – in brief. 2017; p. 172.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, AJ, Blondel, B, Mohangoo, AD et al. Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk-stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the Euro-Peristat study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2016;123(4):559–68.Google ScholarPubMed
National Centre for Health Statistics. Births: Final Data for 2013. 2015;64(1):168.Google Scholar
Souza, JP, Gülmezoglu, A, Lumbiganon, P et al. caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004–2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Medicine. 2010;8:71.Google ScholarPubMed
Fauveau, V. Is vacuum extraction still known, taught and practiced? A worldwide KAP survey. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2006;94(2):185–9.Google ScholarPubMed
General Statistical Service, NHS Maternity Statistics, England: 1980–1994. 1998; p. 143.Google Scholar
NHS Digital. NHS Maternity Statistics, England – 2021–22 [Internet]. London: NHS Digital; 2022 [accessed 15 March 2023]. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-maternity-statistics/2021-22Google Scholar
AIHW. Australia’s Mothers and Babies 1991. 1994; p. 184.Google Scholar
CDC. National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 66, Number 1, January 5, 2017. Dec p. 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verma, GL, Spalding, JJ, Wilkinson, MD et al. Instruments for assisted vaginal birth. Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2021;2021(9):CD005455.Google Scholar
Barber, M. Pervasive impacts of mode of delivery across multiple measures of prolapse severity. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2015;123(9):1557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Volløyhaug, I, Mørkved, S, Salvesen, Ø, Salvesen, K. Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence 15–23 years after first delivery: a cross-sectional study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2015;122(7):964–71.Google ScholarPubMed
Deering, S. Forceps, simulation, and social media. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2016 Sep;128(3):425–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Patel, RR. Forceps delivery in modern obstetric practice. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2004;328(7451):1302–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Murphy, DJ, Strachan, BK, Bahl, R. . Assisted Vaginal Birth: Green-top Guideline No. 26. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2020.Google Scholar
Chiswick, ML, James, DK. Kielland’s forceps: association with neonatal morbidity and mortality. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 1979;1(6155):79.Google ScholarPubMed
Aiken, AR, Aiken, CE, Alberry, MS, Brockelsby, JC, Scott, JG. Management of fetal malposition in the second stage of labor: a propensity score analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology [Internet]. 2015 ;212(3):355.e1-355.e7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bahl, R, Venne MV de, Macleod, M, Strachan, B, Murphy, DJ. Maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to the instrument used for mid-cavity rotational operative vaginal delivery: a prospective cohort study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2013 Aug 7;120(12):1526–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tempest, N, Hart, A, Walkinshaw, S, Hapangama, DK. A re-evaluation of the role of rotational forceps: retrospective comparison of maternal and perinatal outcomes following different methods of birth for malposition in the second stage of labour. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology [Internet]. 2013;120(10):1277–84.Google ScholarPubMed
O’Brien, S, Day, F, Lenguerrand, E et al. Rotational forceps versus manual rotation and direct forceps: a retrospective cohort study. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology. 2017;212:119–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Suhel, R, Gill, S, Robson, S, Shadbolt, B. Kielland’s forceps in the new millennium. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of attempted rotational forceps delivery. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2009 ;49(5):510–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattar, BHA, Wattar, BA, Gallos, I, Pirie, AM. Rotational vaginal delivery with Kiellandʼs forceps. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2015;27(6):438–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, S, Weeks, A, Scholefield, H. Monitoring obstetricians’ performance with statistical process control charts. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2007;114(5):614–8.Google ScholarPubMed
NHS England. Everyone Counts: Planning for Patients 2013/14 [Internet]. 2012Google Scholar
Vallance, AE, Fearnhead, NS, Kuryba, A et al. Effect of public reporting of surgeons’ outcomes on patient selection, ‘gaming,’ and mortality in colorectal cancer surgery in England: population based cohort study. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2018;361:k1581.CrossRefGoogle 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
×