Assisted delivery of high floating fetal head: a comparison of vacuum-assisted delivery with manual extraction

Open access

Abstract

Background: It is a well-established obstetric practice to use a vacuum device to assist in delivery of the fetal head at cesarean delivery. As a vacuum sauce, the hospital piped-vacuum supply is often used. However, no study has compared the safety and efficacy of vacuum-assisted delivery with the traditional manual extraction.

Objective: Compare the safety and efficacy of delivery of the high floating fetal head using a soft cup vacuum extractor with the traditional manual extraction.

Methods: This randomized study included 90 cases of caesarean sections with vacuum-assisted delivery using the soft cup vacuum extractor (V group) and 90 cases of caesarean sections with manual extraction of the head (M group). The hospital piped-vacuum supply was used to develop the required vacuum. Operative and postoperative maternal and neonatal data of importance were analyzed using Student t-test for continuous variables and Chi Square test for categorical variables.

Results: The U-D interval (the time of entry into the uterus until the full delivery of the fetal head) was significantly prolonged (p <0.001) in M group (86.3±53.9 and 65.3±31.2 seconds, respectively). Mean blood loss in the V group was higher (576.7±182.9 mL and 504.4±204.9 mL, respectively). However, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.306). There was no difference in the Apgar scores and resuscitation in the newborns of the two groups. Infants did not show evidence of any scalp remarks.

Conclusion: The extraction of the fetal head at caesarean section with vacuum extractor was a non-traumatic and rapid method that did not need the prolonged fundal compression and thus avoid unwanted consequences.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Hankins GDV Clark SL Cunningham FG Gilstrap LC.

  • Operative obstetrics Norwalk:Appleton & Lange;

  • 1995. p. 318.

  • 2. Pelosi MA Apuzzio J. Use of the soft silastic obstetric vacuum cup for delivery of the fetal head at cesarean section. J Reprod Med. 1984; 29:289-92.

  • 3. Arad I Linder N Bercovici B. Vacuum extraction at cesarean section-neonatal outcomes. J Perinatal Med. 1986; 14:137-40.

  • 4. Simonson C Barlow P Dehennin N Sphel M Toppet V Murillo D Rosenberg S. Neonatal complications of vacuum- assisted delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109: 626-33.

  • 5. Clark SL Vines VL Belfort MA. Fetal injury associated with routine vacuum use during cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; e4.

  • 6. Miksovsky PWatson WJ. Obstetricvacuum extraction: state of the art in the new millennium. Obstet Gynecol Survey. 2001; 56:736-51.

  • 7. Apgar V. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Curr Res Anesth Analg. 1953; 32: 260-7.

  • 8. Kim TY Ryu DH. The effect of fundal pressure at Caesarean section on maternal haemodynamics.

  • Anaesthesia. 2006; 61:434-8.

  • 9. Wylie B. Traction in forceps deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1935; 29:425-33.

  • 10. Vacca A. Handbook of Vacuum Delivery in Obstetric Practice.Brisbane Australia:Vacca Research 2003.

  • 11. Boehm FH. Vacuum extraction during cesarean section.

  • South Med J. 1985; 78:1502.

  • 12. Nakano R. Use of the vacuum extractor for delivery of the fetal head at cesarean section. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981; 141:475-6.

  • 13. Lim FT Holm JP Schuitemaker NW Jansen FH Hermans J. Stepwise compared with rapid application of vacuum in ventouse extraction procedures. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997; 104:33-6.

  • 14. Svenningsen L. Birth progression and traction forces developed under vacuum extraction after slow or rapid application of suction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1987; 26:105-12.

  • 15. Solomons E. Delivery of the head with the Malmstrom vacuum extractor during cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol. 1962; 19:201-3.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor
IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.2
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.293

CiteScore 2018: 0.30

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.172
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.237

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 873 700 142
PDF Downloads 701 581 162