BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2014
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.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ramphul M, Ooi P V, Burke G, Kennelly M M, Said S A T, Montgomery A A, Murphy D J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of ultrasound can reduce the incidence of incorrect diagnosis of the fetal head position at instrumental delivery and subsequent morbidity.
DESIGN: Two-arm, parallel, randomised trial, conducted from June 2011 to December 2012.
SETTING: Two maternity hospitals in the Republic of Ireland.
SAMPLE: A cohort of 514 nulliparous women at term (≥37 weeks of gestation) with singleton cephalic pregnancies, aiming to deliver vaginally, were recruited prior to an induction of labour or in early labour.
METHODS: If instrumental delivery was required, women who had provided written consent were randomised to receive clinical assessment (standard care) or ultrasound scan and clinical assessment (ultrasound). [Correction added on 17 April 2014, after first online publication: Sentence was amended.]
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incorrect diagnosis of the fetal head position.
RESULTS: The incidence of incorrect diagnosis was significantly lower in the ultrasound group than the standard care group (4/257, 1.6%, versus 52/257, 20.2%; odds ratio 0.06; 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.19; P < 0.001). The decision to delivery interval was similar in both groups (ultrasound mean 13.8 minutes, SD 8.7 minutes, versus standard care mean 14.6 minutes, SD 10.1 minutes, P = 0.35). The incidence of maternal and neonatal complications, failed instrumental delivery, and caesarean section was not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: An ultrasound assessment prior to instrumental delivery reduced the incidence of incorrect diagnosis of the fetal head position without delaying delivery, but did not prevent morbidity. A more integrated clinical skills-based approach is likely to be required to prevent adverse outcomes at instrumental delivery.
DESIGN: Two-arm, parallel, randomised trial, conducted from June 2011 to December 2012.
SETTING: Two maternity hospitals in the Republic of Ireland.
SAMPLE: A cohort of 514 nulliparous women at term (≥37 weeks of gestation) with singleton cephalic pregnancies, aiming to deliver vaginally, were recruited prior to an induction of labour or in early labour.
METHODS: If instrumental delivery was required, women who had provided written consent were randomised to receive clinical assessment (standard care) or ultrasound scan and clinical assessment (ultrasound). [Correction added on 17 April 2014, after first online publication: Sentence was amended.]
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incorrect diagnosis of the fetal head position.
RESULTS: The incidence of incorrect diagnosis was significantly lower in the ultrasound group than the standard care group (4/257, 1.6%, versus 52/257, 20.2%; odds ratio 0.06; 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.19; P < 0.001). The decision to delivery interval was similar in both groups (ultrasound mean 13.8 minutes, SD 8.7 minutes, versus standard care mean 14.6 minutes, SD 10.1 minutes, P = 0.35). The incidence of maternal and neonatal complications, failed instrumental delivery, and caesarean section was not significantly different between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: An ultrasound assessment prior to instrumental delivery reduced the incidence of incorrect diagnosis of the fetal head position without delaying delivery, but did not prevent morbidity. A more integrated clinical skills-based approach is likely to be required to prevent adverse outcomes at instrumental delivery.