The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2017
Kiwi omnicup handheld versus Mityvac M-style conventional vacuum system: a retrospective observational study.
Источник пометил эту публикацию как отозванную.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеОтозванная публикацияНазвание 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.
Weissbach Tal, Hag-Yahia Nasreen, Ovadia Michal, Tzadikevitch Geffen Keren, Weitzner Omer, Biron-Shental Tal
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: To improve the choice of vacuum-assisted delivery (VAD) system, we compared the outcomes of Kiwi handheld system and Mityvac M-style conventional system (both use disposable plastic cups).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study with data collection from electronic medical records. The study was conducted at a tertiary medical center, with approximately 7000 deliveries annually. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed using chi-square test and t-test, respectively. p value < .05 was considered significant. The main outcomes assessed were the overall failure rate of each system, failure rates for occipito-anterior (OA) versus occipito-transverse/occipito-anterior (OT/OP) positions, +1 versus +2 fetal stations, and early maternal/neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS: During a 10-month period, there were 507 (8.4%) attempted VADs, 36 failed (7.1%), and eight (1.5%) converted to cesarean section. Of these, 364 were Kiwi-assisted and 143 Mityvac-assisted. Background characteristics were similar. The handheld system had more failures overall (9.6 versus 0.7%), at OA (7.6 versus 0.9%), and non-OA positions (17.3% versus none), at +1 (13.25 versus 0.96%) and at +2/3 stations (6.1% versus none), than the conventional system did, respectively. There was a higher rate of early post-partum hemorrhage (15.3 versus 7.4%) in the conventional group. Both systems had similar rates of third/fourth degree perineal tears, shoulder dystocia and adverse neonatal outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest more failures with Kiwi compared to Mityvac, overall and at any fetal position/station, without a significant difference in adverse outcome profile.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study with data collection from electronic medical records. The study was conducted at a tertiary medical center, with approximately 7000 deliveries annually. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed using chi-square test and t-test, respectively. p value < .05 was considered significant. The main outcomes assessed were the overall failure rate of each system, failure rates for occipito-anterior (OA) versus occipito-transverse/occipito-anterior (OT/OP) positions, +1 versus +2 fetal stations, and early maternal/neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS: During a 10-month period, there were 507 (8.4%) attempted VADs, 36 failed (7.1%), and eight (1.5%) converted to cesarean section. Of these, 364 were Kiwi-assisted and 143 Mityvac-assisted. Background characteristics were similar. The handheld system had more failures overall (9.6 versus 0.7%), at OA (7.6 versus 0.9%), and non-OA positions (17.3% versus none), at +1 (13.25 versus 0.96%) and at +2/3 stations (6.1% versus none), than the conventional system did, respectively. There was a higher rate of early post-partum hemorrhage (15.3 versus 7.4%) in the conventional group. Both systems had similar rates of third/fourth degree perineal tears, shoulder dystocia and adverse neonatal outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest more failures with Kiwi compared to Mityvac, overall and at any fetal position/station, without a significant difference in adverse outcome profile.