Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:09:04.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 66 - Assisted Vaginal Delivery (Content last reviewed: 15th December 2018)

from Section 6 - Late Prenatal – Obstetric Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2017

By
Deirdre J. Murphy
Edited by
David James ,
Philip Steer ,
Carl Weiner ,
Bernard Gonik  and
Stephen Robson
David James
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Philip Steer
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Carl Weiner
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Bernard Gonik
Affiliation:
Wayne State University, Detroit
Stephen Robson
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle
Get access

Summary

Assisted vaginal delivery is an important management option when difficulties arise in the second stage of labor. There is a choice to be made between forceps and vacuum extraction, and in some cases more than one instrument is used. In addition to choosing an instrument, the operator must decide when to intervene, where to conduct the delivery, when to seek senior support, which alternative to employ if the chosen instrument fails, and when to abandon an attempt at assisted vaginal delivery in favor of cesarean section.

Type
Chapter
Information
High-Risk Pregnancy
Management Options
 , pp. 1866 - 1888
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
First published in: 2017

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

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Operative Vaginal Delivery. Green-top Guideline No. 26. London: RCOG, 2011. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg26/ (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Operative vaginal delivery use of forceps and vacuum extractors for operative vaginal delivery. ACOG Practice Bulletin 2000; 17: 1–6.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intrapartum Care for Healthy Women and Babies. NICE Clinical Guideline CG190. London: NICE, 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/CG190 (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
BirthChoiceUK. 2014/15 Maternity statistics for England. http://www.birthchoiceuk.com/Professionals (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London: RCOG Press, 2001. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/research--audit/nscs_audit.pdf (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
O’ Leary, CM, De Klerk, N, Keogh, J, et al. Trends in mode of delivery during 1984–2003: can they be explained by pregnancy and delivery complications? BJOG 2007; 114: 855–64.Google ScholarPubMed
Johanson, RB, Menon, BK. Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2): CD000224.Google Scholar
O’Mahony, F, Hofmeyr, GJ, Menon, V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (11): CD005455.Google Scholar
Anim-Somuah, M, Smyth, RM, Jones, L. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (12): CD000331.Google Scholar
Hodnett, ED, Gates, S, Hofmeyr, GJ, Sakala, C. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (7): CD003766.Google Scholar
Gupta, JK, Hofmeyr, GJ. Position for women during second stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; (3): CD002006.Google Scholar
Seidman, DS, Laor, A, Gale, R, et al. Long-term effects of vacuum and forceps deliveries. Lancet 1991; 337: 1583–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yancey, MK, Herpolsheimer, A, Jordan, GD, et al. Maternal and neonatal effects of outlet forceps delivery compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery in term pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 1991; 78: 646–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Murphy, DJ, Liebling, RE, Verity, L, et al. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet 2001; 358: 1203–7.Google Scholar
Murphy, DJ, Liebling, RE, Patel, R, Verity, L, Swingler, R. Cohort study of operative delivery in the second stage of labour and standard of obstetric care. BJOG 2003; 110: 610–15.Google Scholar
Demissie, K, Rhoads, GG, Smulian, JC, et al. Operative vaginal delivery and neonatal and infant adverse outcomes: population based retrospective analysis. BMJ 2004; 329: 24–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bahl, R, Van de Venne, M, Macleod, M, Strachan, B, Murphy, DJ. Maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to the instrument used for midcavity rotational operative vaginal delivery: a prospective cohort study. BJOG 2013; 120: 1526–32.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 2013; 120: 1277–84.Google Scholar
Olah, KS. Reversal of the decision for Caesarean section in the second stage of labour on the basis of consultant vaginal assessment. J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25: 115–6.Google Scholar
Ramphul, M, O’Brien, Y, Murphy, DJ. Strategies to enhance assessment of the fetal head position before instrumental delivery: a survey of obstetric practice in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012; 165: 181–8.Google Scholar
Bashore, RA, Phillips, WH, Brinkman, CR. A comparison of the morbidity of midforceps and cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 1428–34.Google Scholar
Revah, A, Ezra, Y, Farine, D, Ritchie, K. Failed trial of vacuum or forceps: maternal and fetal outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 176: 200–4.Google Scholar
Saunders, NS, Pearson, CM, Wadsworth, J. Neonatal and maternal morbidity in relation to the length of the second stage of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 381–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, CL, Torvaldsen, S, Cameron, CA, Olive, E. Delayed versus early pushing in women with epidural analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2004; 111: 1333–40.Google Scholar
Cheng, YW, Hopkins, LM, Caughey, AB. How long is too long: does a prolonged second stage of labor in nulliparous women affect maternal and neonatal outcomes? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 194: 933–8.Google Scholar
Cheng, YW, Hopkins, LM, Laros, RK, Caughey, AB. Duration of the second stage of labour in multiparous women: Maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196: 585.e1–6.Google Scholar
Allen, VM, Baskett, TF, O’Connell, CM, McKeen, D, Allen, AC. Maternal and perinatal outcomes with increasing duration of the second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113: 1248–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saunders, NS, Pearson, CM, Wadsworth, J. Neonatal and maternal morbidity in relation to the length of the second stage of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 99: 381–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cargill, YM, MacKinnon, CJ, Arsenault, MY, et al.; Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee. Guidelines for operative vaginal birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2004; 26: 747–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. College Statement C-Obs 16: Instrumental Vaginal Delivery. Melbourne: RANZCOG, 2009.Google Scholar
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. College Statement C-Obs 13: Guidelines for Use of Rotational Forceps. Melbourne: RANZCOG, 2009.Google Scholar
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Instrumental Vaginal Birth. College Statement C-Obs 16. Melbourne: RANZCOG, 2016. https://www.ranzcog.edu.au/RANZCOG_SITE/media/RANZCOG-MEDIA/Women%27s%20Health/Statement%20and%20guidelines/Clinical-Obstetrics/Instrumental-Vaginal-Birth-(C-Obs-16)-Review-March-2016.pdf (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Vacca, A. The trouble with vacuum extraction. Curr Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 9: 41–5.Google Scholar
Rosemann, GWE. Vacuum extraction of premature infants. S Afr J Obstet Gynaecol 1969; 7: 10–12.Google Scholar
Morales, R, Adair, CD, Sanchez-Ramos, L, Gaudier, FL. Vacuum extraction of preterm infants with birth weights of 1,500– 2,499 grams. J Reprod Med 1995; 40: 127–30.Google Scholar
Dupuis, O, Silveira, R, Zentner, A, et al. Birth simulator: reliability of transvaginal assessment of fetal head station as defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 868–74.Google Scholar
Akmal, S, Kametas, N, Tsoi, E, Hargreaves, C, Nicolaides, KH. Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 437–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramphul, M, Ooi, PV, Burke, G, et al. Instrumental delivery and ultrasound: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of ultrasound assessment of the fetal head position versus standard care as an approach to prevent morbidity at instrumental delivery. BJOG 2014; 121: 1029–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awan, N, Rhoades, A, Weeks, AD. The validity and reliability of the StationMaster: a device to improve the accuracy of station assessment in labour. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009; 145: 65–70.Google Scholar
Fletcher, GC, McGeorge, P, Flin, RH, Glavin, RJ, Maran, NJ. The role of non-technical skills in anaesthesia: a review of current literature. Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 418–29.Google Scholar
Bahl, R, Murphy, DJ, Strachan, B. Non-technical skills for obstetricians conducting forceps and vacuum deliveries: qualitative analysis by interviews and video recordings. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010; 150: 147–51.Google Scholar
Bahl, R, Murphy, DJ, Strachan, B. Decision making in operative vaginal delivery: when to intervene, where to deliver and which instrument to use? Qualitative analysis of expert practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 170: 333–40.Google Scholar
Scholefield, H. Safety in obstetric critical care. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2008; 22: 965–82.Google Scholar
Daniels, K, Lipman, S, Harney, K, Arafeh, J, Druzin, M. Use of simulation based team training for obstetric crises in resident education. Simul Healthcare 2008; 3: 154–60.Google Scholar
Bloom, SL, Casey, BM, Schaffer, JI, et al. A randomized trial of coached versus uncoached maternal pushing during the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 10–13.Google Scholar
Schaffer, JI, Bloom, SL, Casey, BM, et al. A randomized trial of coached versus uncoached maternal pushing during the second stage of labor on postpartum pelvic floor structure and function. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 1692–6.Google Scholar
Vacca, A. Vaccum-assisted birth. In Attilakos, G, Draycott, T, Gale, A, Siassakos, D, Winter, C (eds), ROBuST Course Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 44–58.Google Scholar
Bahl, R, Murphy, DJ, Strachan, B. Qualitative analysis by interviews and video recordings to establish the components of a skilled low-cavity non-rotational vacuum delivery. BJOG 2009; 116: 319–26.Google Scholar
Attilakos, G, Sibanda, T, Winter, C, Johnson, N, Draycott, T. A randomised controlled trial of a new handheld vacuum extraction device. BJOG 2005; 112: 1510–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groom, KM, Jones, BA, Miller, N, Paterson-Brown, S. A prospective randomised controlled trial of the Kiwi Omnicup versus conventional ventouse cups for vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery. BJOG 2006; 113: 183–9.Google Scholar
Ramphul, M, Kennelly, M, Burke, G, Murphy, D. Risk factors and morbidity associated with suboptimal instrument placement at instrumental delivery: observational study nested within the Instrumental Delivery & Ultrasound randomised controlled trial ISRCTN 72230496. BJOG 2015; 122: 558–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Youssef, R, Ramalingam, U, Macleod, M, Murphy, DJ. Cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of episiotomy at instrumental vaginal delivery. BJOG 2005; 112: 941–5.Google Scholar
Murphy, DJ, Macleod, M, Bahl, R, et al. A randomised controlled trial of routine versus restrictive use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery – a multi-centre pilot study. BJOG 2008; 115: 1695–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 1688–94.Google Scholar
De Leeuw, JW, Struijk, PC, Vierhout, ME, Wallenburg, HC. Risk factors for third degree perineal ruptures during delivery. BJOG 2001; 108: 383–7.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: 1709–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Food and Drug Administration. Food and Drug Administration Public Health Advisory. Need for CAUTION when using vacuum assisted delivery devices. Silver Spring, MD: FDA, 1998.Google Scholar
Ismail, NA, Saharan, WS, Zaleha, MA, et al. Kiwi Omnicup versus Malmstrom metal cup in vacuum assisted delivery: a randomized comparative trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2008; 34: 350–3.Google Scholar
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. 2013; 170: 341–7.Google Scholar
Hinshaw, K, Mahadasu, S. Nonrotational forceps and manual rotation. In Attilakos, G, Draycott, T, Gale, A, Siassakos, D, Winter, C (eds), ROBuST Course Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Olah, KSJ. Rotational forceps. In Attilakos, G, Draycott, T, Gale, A, Siassakos, D, Winter, C (eds), ROBuST Course Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
Liebling, RE, Swingler, R, Patel, R, et al. Pelvic floor morbidity up to one year following difficult instrumental vaginal delivery and caesarean section in the second stage of labour: a cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 4–10.Google Scholar
Sultan, AH, Kamm, MA, Hudson, CN, Bartram, CI. Third degree obstetric anal sphincter tears: risk factors and outcome of primary repair. BMJ 1994; 308: 87–91.Google Scholar
Donnelly, V, Fynes, M, Campbell, D, et al. Obstetric events leading to anal sphincter damage. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92: 955–6.Google ScholarPubMed
MacArthur, C, Glazener, CMA, Wilson, PD, et al. Obstetric practice and faecal incontinence three months after delivery. BJOG 2001; 108: 678–83.Google Scholar
Handa, VL, Danielsen, BH, Gilbert, WM. Obstetric anal sphincter lacerations. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98: 225–30.Google Scholar
Hall, W, McCracken, K, Osterweil, P, Guise, JM. Frequency and predictors for postpartum fecal incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 1205–7.Google Scholar
Bahl, R, Strachan, BK, Murphy, DJ. Pelvic floor morbidity at 3 years after instrumental delivery and cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor and the impact of a subsequent delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 789–94.Google Scholar
Macleod, M, Goyder, K, Howarth, L, et al. Morbidity experienced by women before and after operative vaginal delivery: prospective cohort study nested within a two-centre randomised controlled trial of restrictive versus routine use of episiotomy. BJOG 2013; 120: 1020–6.Google Scholar
Macleod, M, Murphy, DJ. Operative vaginal delivery and the use of episiotomy: a survey of practice in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008; 136: 178–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaffer, BL, Cheng, YW, Vargas, JE, Caughey, AB. Manual rotation to reduce caesarean delivery in persistent occiput posterior or transverse position. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011; 24: 65–72.Google Scholar
Murphy, DJ, Macleod, M, Bahl, R, Strachan, B. A cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of sequential instruments at operative vaginal delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol 2011; 156: 41–5.Google Scholar
Damron, DP, Capeless, EL. Operative vaginal delivery: a comparison of forceps and vacuum for success rate and risk of rectal sphincter injury. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 907–10.Google Scholar
De Leeuw, JW, Struijk, PC, Vierhout, ME, Wallenburg, HC. Risk factors for third degree perineal ruptures during delivery. BJOG 2001; 108: 383–7.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, M, Behan, M, O’Connell, PR, O’Herlihy, C. Randomised clinical trial to assess anal sphincter function following forceps or vacuum assisted vaginal delivery. BJOG 2003; 110: 424–9.Google Scholar
Johanson, RB, Heycock, E, Carter, J, et al. Maternal and child health after assisted vaginal delivery: five-year follow up of a randomised controlled study comparing forceps and ventouse. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106: 544–9.Google Scholar
Bahl, R, Patel, RR, Swingler, R, Ellis, N, Murphy, DJ. Neuro developmental outcome at 5 years after operative delivery in the second stage of labor: a cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197: 147e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, DJ, Koh, DM. Cohort study of the decision to delivery interval and neonatal outcome for “emergency” operative vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196: 145.e1–7.Google 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 2013; 120: 1277–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bahl, R, Van de Venne, M, Macleod, M, Strachan, B, Murphy, DJ. Maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to the instrument used for midcavity rotational operative vaginal delivery: a prospective cohort study. BJOG 2013; 120: 1526–32.Google Scholar
Burke, N, Field, K, Mujahid, F, Morrison, JJ. Use and safety of Kielland’s forceps in current obstetric practice. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 766–70.Google Scholar
Badawi, N, Kurinczuk, JJ, Keogh, JM, et al. Intrapartum risk factors for newborn encephalopathy: the Western Australian case-control study. BMJ 1998; 317: 1554–8.Google Scholar
Alexander, JM, Leveno, KJ, Hauth, JC, et al.; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU). Failed operative vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 1017–22.Google Scholar
Murphy, DJ, Liebling, R. Cohort study of maternal views on future mode of delivery following operative delivery in the second stage of labour. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188: 542–8.Google Scholar
Bahl, R, Strachan, B, Murphy, DJ. Outcome of subsequent pregnancy three years after previous operative delivery in the second stage of labour: cohort study. Br Med J 2004; 328: 311–14.Google Scholar
Bofill, JA, Rust, OA, Perry, KGJ, et al. Forceps and vacuum delivery: a survey of North American residency programs. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88: 622–5.Google Scholar

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
×