Analysis of perinatal outcomes and maternal morbidity associated with vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Aim. To compare early neonatal and postpartum complications in puerperal women after vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery using various vacuum extractor systems. Materials and methods. We conducted a prospective analysis of birth data and child’s medical records of patients who were admitted to maternity wards of the N.I. Pirogov Samara City Clinical Hospital No. and underwent vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery using a Kiwi vacuum system. The historical control group comprised 34patients who underwent vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery using a reusable Silc cup vacuum extractor with a silicone cup. The groups were comparable. The indication for vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery in all cases was fetal distress. Results. The study group had shorter delivery time, lower episiotomy rate, a lower rate of transfers of the newborns to the next stage of nursing, lower perineal injury rate, and shorter hospital stay. Conclusion. Vacuum-assisted delivery using Kiwi disposable vacuum extractors does not increase the risk of early neonatal and postpartum complications compared with reusable silicone cups.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

M. A Kaganova

Samara State Medical University

Email: nvspiridonova@mail.ru
candidate of medical sciences, docent of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Institute for Improvement of Physicians 443100, Russia, Samara, Polevaya str. 80

N. V Spiridonova

Samara State Medical University

Email: nvspiridonova@mail.ru
doctor of medical sciences, professor, head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the Institute for Improvement of Physicians 443100, Russia, Samara, Polevaya str. 80

T. I Kaganova

Samara State Medical University

Email: t.kaganova2010@yandex.ru
professor, head of the Department of Pediatrics of the Institute for Improvement of Physicians 443100, Russia, Samara, Chapaevskaya str. 89. Tel.: +78462600812

S. V Syresina

N.I. Pirogov City Clinical Hospital №1

Email: svetlana.syresina@yandex.ru
head of 21 maternity wards, obstetrician-gynecologist 443100, Russia, Samara, ul. Field, d. 80

O. O Devyatova

N.I. Pirogov City Clinical Hospital №1

Email: dewyatowa.olya@yandex.ru
Doctor obstetrician-gynecologist 443100, Russia, Samara, Polevaya str. 80. Tel.: +78462071949

D. A Galkina

N.I.Pirogov Sity clinical hospital №1

Email: darya.golubeva.1992@mail.ru
doctor obstetrician-gynecologist

O. N Golovina

N.I.Pirogov Sity clinical hospital №1

Email: doktorola@yandex.ru
doctor obstetrician-gynecologist 443100, Russia, Samara, Polevaya str. 80. Tel.: +78462071949

References

  1. Черненков Ю.В., Нечаев В.Н., Кушеков Ф.А. Особенности состояния здоровья новорожденных после родоразрешения методом вакуум-экстракции плода. Саратовский научно-медицинский журнал. 2017; 13(3): 498-501
  2. Медведева И.Н., Святченко К.С., Барбашова Ю.Ю. Вакуум-экстракция плода: версии и контраверсии. Журнал акушерства и женских болезней. 2017; 66(1): 21-26
  3. Петрухин В.А., Ахвледиани К.Н., Логутова Л.С., Иванкова Н.М., Мельников А.П., Чечнева М.А., Башакин Н.Ф., Коваленко Т.С., Реброва Т.В. Вакуум-экстракция плода в современном акушерстве. Российский вестник акушера-гинеколога. 2013; 6: 53-59
  4. Клинические рекомендации «Оказание специализированной медицинской помощи при оперативных влагалищных родах при наличии живого плода (с помощью акушерских щипцов или с применением вакуум-экстрактора или родоразрешение с использованием другого акушерского пособия)». М., 2017
  5. Harlev A., Fatool S.K., Sergienko R., Sheiner E. Non-progressive labor in the second stage leading to vacuum extraction is a risk factor for recurrent nonprogressive labor. Arch. Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 295(6): 1393-8. DOI: 10.1007/ s00404-017-4359-z
  6. Weissbach T., Hag-Yahia N., Ovadia M., Tzadikevitch Geffen K., Weitzner O., Biron-Shental T. Kiwi Omni Cup Handheld vs. Mityvac M-Style conventional vacuum system: a retrospective observational study. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 17: 1-8. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ijmf20
  7. Ayres-de-Campos D., Spong C.Y., Chandraharan E.; FIGO Intrapartum Fetal Monitoring Expert Consensus Panel. FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartumfetal monitoring: Cardiotocography. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2015; 131(1): 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.06.020
  8. Vacca A. Handbook of vacuum delivery in obstetric practice. 2nd ed. Brisbane: Vacca Research; 2003
  9. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Operative vaginal delivery. Green-top Guideline No. 26. January 2011.
  10. OMahony F., Hofmeyr G.J., Menon V. Instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2010; (11): CD005455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005455.pub2
  11. Ekeus C., Wrangsell K., Penttinen S., Aberg K. Neonatal complications among 596 infants delivered by vacuum extraction (in relation to characteristics of the extraction). J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018; 31(18): 2402-8. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1344631
  12. Muraca G.M., Sabr Y., Lisonkova S., Skoll A., Brant R., Cundiff G.W., Joseph K.S. Perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality after attempted operative vaginal delivery at midpelvic station. CMAJ. 2017; 189(22): E764-72. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.161156
  13. Власюк В.В. Родовая травма и перинатальные нарушения мозгового кровообращения. СПб.: Нестор-История, 2009. 252 с.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies