European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2017
Rotational forceps versus manual rotation and direct forceps: A retrospective cohort study.
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.
O'Brien Stephen, Day Fiona, Lenguerrand Erik, Cornthwaite Katie, Edwards Sian, Siassakos Dimitrios
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Rotational forceps and manual rotation followed by direct forceps are techniques used in the management of malposition of the fetal head in the second stage of labor. However, there is widespread debate regarding their relative safety and utility. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of rotational forceps with manual rotation followed by direct forceps, for management of fetal malposition at full dilation.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study in a single tertiary obstetric unit with >6000 births per year. We recorded and analysed outcomes of 104 sequential rotational forceps births over 21 months (Jan 2010-Sept 2012) and 208 matched chronologically sequential attempted manual rotations and direct forceps births (1:2 by number). Univariable and multivariable approaches used for statistical analysis. The main outcome measure was vaginal birth.
RESULTS: The rate of vaginal birth was significantly higher with rotational forceps than with manual rotation followed by direct forceps (88.5% vs 82.2%, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.31, p=0.017). Births by rotational forceps were associated with a significantly higher rate of shoulder dystocia (19.2% vs 10.6%, RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.23-4.47, p=0.012), but not of neonatal injury. There were no significant differences in all other maternal and neonatal outcomes between the two modes of birth.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of rotational forceps was associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of vaginal birth, but also of shoulder dystocia, compared to manual rotation followed by direct forceps. This is the first study to demonstrate a statistically significant increase in the rate of shoulder dystocia following rotational forceps birth.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study in a single tertiary obstetric unit with >6000 births per year. We recorded and analysed outcomes of 104 sequential rotational forceps births over 21 months (Jan 2010-Sept 2012) and 208 matched chronologically sequential attempted manual rotations and direct forceps births (1:2 by number). Univariable and multivariable approaches used for statistical analysis. The main outcome measure was vaginal birth.
RESULTS: The rate of vaginal birth was significantly higher with rotational forceps than with manual rotation followed by direct forceps (88.5% vs 82.2%, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.31, p=0.017). Births by rotational forceps were associated with a significantly higher rate of shoulder dystocia (19.2% vs 10.6%, RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.23-4.47, p=0.012), but not of neonatal injury. There were no significant differences in all other maternal and neonatal outcomes between the two modes of birth.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of rotational forceps was associated with a statistically significantly higher rate of vaginal birth, but also of shoulder dystocia, compared to manual rotation followed by direct forceps. This is the first study to demonstrate a statistically significant increase in the rate of shoulder dystocia following rotational forceps birth.