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-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-26T21:39:30.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 55 - Instrumental Operative Obstetrics

from Section 5 - Intrapartum Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2021

By
Jørg Kessler  and
Anke Reitter
Edited by
Tahir Mahmood ,
Charles Savona Ventura ,
Ioannis Messinis  and
Sambit Mukhopadhyay
Tahir Mahmood
Affiliation:
Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
Charles Savona Ventura
Affiliation:
University of Malta, Malta
Ioannis Messinis
Affiliation:
University of Thessaly, Greece
Sambit Mukhopadhyay
Affiliation:
Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital, UK
Get access

Summary

A number of factors have contributed to an increasing preference for caesarean delivery: maternal and neonatal morbidity related to instrumental vaginal delivery, fear of litigation, lack of practical skills and financial incentives in favour of caesarean delivery.

Type
Chapter
Information
The EBCOG Postgraduate Textbook of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Obstetrics & Maternal-Fetal Medicine
 , pp. 440 - 447
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Asicioglu, O, Gungorduk, K, Yildirim, G, et al. Second-stage vs first-stage caesarean delivery: comparison of maternal and perinatal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Oct;34(7):598–604.Google Scholar
Malmstrom, T. Vacuum extractor, an obstetrical instrument. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1954;33(4):1–31.Google ScholarPubMed
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. 2016 Mar;123(4):559–68.Google Scholar
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 Feb;113(2):183–9.Google Scholar
Lund, NS, Persson, LK, Jango, 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 Dec;207:193–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Bavel, J, Hukkelhoven, C, de 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. 2018 Mar;29(3):407–13.Google Scholar
Murphy, DJ, Pope, C, Frost, J, Liebling, RE. Women’s views on the impact of operative delivery in the second stage of labour: qualitative interview study. BMJ. 2003 Nov 15;327(7424):1132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Lee, J. The Principles and Practice of Obstetrics, 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1924.Google Scholar
Al Wattar, BH, Al Wattar, B, Gallos, I, Pirie, AM. Rotational vaginal delivery with Kielland’s forceps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness and safety outcomes. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Dec;27(6):438–44.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. Lancet. 2001 Oct 13;358(9289):1203–7.Google Scholar
O’Mahony, F, Hofmeyr, GJ, Menon, V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Nov 10;(11):CD005455.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 Jul 3;329(7456):24–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011 May;156(1):41–5.CrossRefGoogle 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 Nov;120(12):1516–25.Google Scholar
Muraca, GM, Skoll, A, Lisonkova, S, et al. Perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality among term singletons following midcavity operative vaginal delivery versus caesarean delivery. BJOG. 2018 May;125(6):693–702.Google Scholar
Friedman, T, Eslick, GD, Dietz, HP. Delivery mode and the risk of levator muscle avulsion: a meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2019 Jun;30(6):901–7.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 Apr;110(4):424–9.Google Scholar
Dietz, HP. Forceps: towards obsolescence or revival? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015 Apr;94(4):347–51.Google Scholar
Laine, K, Rotvold, W, Staff, AC. Are obstetric anal sphincter ruptures preventable?– large and consistent rupture rate variations between the Nordic countries and between delivery units in Norway. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013 Jan;92(1):94–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Operative Vaginal Delivery, Green-top Guideline No. 26. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 2011, www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_26.pdfGoogle Scholar
Committee on Practice Bulletins – Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 154: operative vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Nov;126(5):e56-65.CrossRefGoogle 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
×