Gynecologie, obstetrique, fertilite & senologie · 2019
[How to proceed after a failed vacuum delivery].
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Chamagne M, Perdriolle-Galet E, Baumann C, Morel O
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Compare maternal and neonatal morbidity in patients delivered by a second instrument versus cesarean section after failed vacuum.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study between January 2006 and December 2014. Case notes of 172 failed vacuum deliveries were studied. The studied parameters were blood loss, perineal tears, pH, Apgar score, neonatal reanimation and length of stay in neonatology.
RESULTS: The frequency of vacuum failure was 8.7%. The use of the second instrument (77.9%) was associated with a higher prevalence of third degree perineal tears (13.4% vs. 0%; P=0.017) and more episiotomy (72.2% vs. 0%; P<0.0001). There was no significant difference regarding post partum hemorrhage between cesarean section and second instrument delivery. There was no significant difference regarding neonatal morbidity between cesarean section and second instrument delivery after failed vacuum. When an attempted second instrument delivery failed, the risk of adverse neonatal outcome was increased: newborns had a significantly longer stay in a neonatal unit (2.4 versus 0.6 days; P=0.026), lower pH (P=0.017), lower Apgar scores (7.4 versus 8.8; P=0.0373), needed intubation (P=0.0471) and had seizures (P=0.04) more often.
CONCLUSION: Compared to cesarean section, the use of the second instrument increased maternal morbidity but doesn't seem to increase neonatal morbidity. If the second instrument fails, neonatal morbidity is significantly increased.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective study between January 2006 and December 2014. Case notes of 172 failed vacuum deliveries were studied. The studied parameters were blood loss, perineal tears, pH, Apgar score, neonatal reanimation and length of stay in neonatology.
RESULTS: The frequency of vacuum failure was 8.7%. The use of the second instrument (77.9%) was associated with a higher prevalence of third degree perineal tears (13.4% vs. 0%; P=0.017) and more episiotomy (72.2% vs. 0%; P<0.0001). There was no significant difference regarding post partum hemorrhage between cesarean section and second instrument delivery. There was no significant difference regarding neonatal morbidity between cesarean section and second instrument delivery after failed vacuum. When an attempted second instrument delivery failed, the risk of adverse neonatal outcome was increased: newborns had a significantly longer stay in a neonatal unit (2.4 versus 0.6 days; P=0.026), lower pH (P=0.017), lower Apgar scores (7.4 versus 8.8; P=0.0373), needed intubation (P=0.0471) and had seizures (P=0.04) more often.
CONCLUSION: Compared to cesarean section, the use of the second instrument increased maternal morbidity but doesn't seem to increase neonatal morbidity. If the second instrument fails, neonatal morbidity is significantly increased.