Immediate Maternal and Neonatal Effects of Forceps and Vacuum-Assisted Deliveries
- 1 March 2004
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Vol. 103 (3) , 513-518
- https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000114985.22844.6d
Abstract
To estimate the differences in immediate maternal and neonatal effects of forceps and vacuum-assisted deliveries. We conducted a medical record review of all forceps and vacuum-assisted deliveries that occurred from January 1, 1998, to August 30, 1999, at Winthrop-University Hospital. Maternal demographics and delivery characteristics were recorded. Maternal outcomes, such as use of episiotomy and presence of lacerations, were studied. Neonatal outcomes evaluated were Apgar scores, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, cephalohematomas, instrument marks and bruising, and caput and molding. Of 508 operative vaginal deliveries, 200 were forceps and 308 were vacuum assisted. Forceps were used more often than vacuum for prolonged second stage of labor (P =.001). There was a higher rate of epidural (P =.02) and pudendal (P <.001) anesthesia, episiotomies (P =.01), maternal third- and fourth-degree perineal (P <.001) and vaginal lacerations (P =.004) with the use of forceps, whereas periurethral lacerations were more common in vacuum-assisted (P =.026) deliveries. More instrument marks and bruising (P <.001) were found in the neonates delivered by forceps, whereas there was a greater incidence of cephalohematomas (P =.03) and caput and molding (P <.001) in the neonates delivered with vacuum. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that forceps use was associated with an increase in major perineal and vaginal tears (odds ratio [OR] 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27, 2.69; P =.001), an increase in instrument marks and bruising (OR 4.63; 95% CI 2.90, 7.41; P <.001) and a decrease in cephalohematomas (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.29, 0.83; P =.007) compared with the vacuum. Maternal injuries are more common with the use of forceps. Neonates delivered with forceps have more facial injuries, whereas neonates delivered with vacuum have more cephalohematomas. II-3Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of Maternal and Infant Outcomes between Vacuum Extraction and Forceps DeliveriesAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2001
- Forceps and vacuum delivery: A survey of North American residency programsPublished by Wolters Kluwer Health ,1999
- Is there a benefit to episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery? Observations over ten years in a stable populationAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1997
- A randomized prospective trial of the obstetric forceps versus the M-cup vacuum extractorAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1996
- Operative vaginal delivery - Year 2000American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1996
- Worldwide survey of assisted vaginal deliveryInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 1994
- A randomised prospective study comparing the new vacuum extractor policy with forceps deliveryBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1993
- Trends in obstetric operative procedures, 1980 to 1987.American Journal of Public Health, 1992
- International collaborative effort (ICE) on birth weight, plurality, perinatal, and infant mortality: IV. Differences in obstetrical delivery practice: Norway, Scotland and the United StatesActa Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 1991
- Maternal and neonatal morbidity in instrumental deliveries with the kobayashi vacuum extractor and low forcepsActa Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 1987