|
The Cochrane Collaboration
Cochrane Reviews |
| Explore | New + Updated | Other languages |
|
|
|
Trial of instrumental delivery in theatre versus immediate caesarean section for anticipated difficult assisted birthsMajoko F, Gardener G SummaryTrial of instrumental birth in theatre versus immediate caesarean section for anticipated difficult assisted birthsMost women give birth spontaneously, but some need assistance during the second stage of labour with obstetric forceps or the vacuum. The rates of instrumental vaginal births range from 5% to 20% of all births in high-income countries, with little information about the incidence in low-income countries. Indications for instrumental vaginal births are generally fetal heart rate abnormalities, poor position of the baby, maternal exhaustion and some maternal medical conditions such as heart disease. The majority of instrumental vaginal births are conducted in the delivery room, but in a small proportion of anticipated difficult births (2% to 5%), a trial of instrumental vaginal birth is conducted in theatre with preparations made for proceeding to caesarean section. It has been suggested that for these anticipated difficult assisted vaginal births, it may be preferable to go straight to caesarean section. The advantage of doing an immediate caesarean section would be a reduced risk of morbidity for both mother and baby from a failed attempted instrumental birth. However, the disadvantages of routinely doing a caesarean section in these circumstances are an increased risk of morbidity from caesarean section which often manifests itself at a subsequent birth. The review of trials looking at attempted instrumental delivery in theatre versus immediate caesarean section for anticipated difficult births identified no trials to help with making this decision. Further research is clearly needed.
This is a Cochrane review abstract and plain language summary, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration, currently published in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010 Issue 1, Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.. The full text of the review is available in The Cochrane Library (ISSN 1464-780X).
This version first published online:
October 08. 2008 AbstractBackgroundThe majority of women have spontaneous vaginal births, but some women need assistance in the second stage with delivery of the baby, using either the obstetric forceps or vacuum extraction. Rates of instrumental vaginal delivery range from 5% to 20% of all births in industrialised countries. The majority of instrumental vaginal deliveries are conducted in the delivery room, but in a small proportion (2% to 5%), a trial of instrumental vaginal delivery is conducted in theatre with preparations made for proceeding to caesarean section. ObjectivesTo determine differences in maternal and neonatal morbidity between women who, due to anticipated difficulty, have trial of instrumental vaginal delivery in theatre and those who have immediate caesarean section for failure to progress in the second stage. Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (May 2008). Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials comparing trial of instrumental vaginal delivery (vacuum extraction or forceps) in operating theatre to immediate caesarean section for women with failure to progress in the second stage (active second stage more than 60 minutes in primigravidae). Data collection and analysisWe identified no studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Main resultsNo studies were included. Authors' conclusionsThere is no current evidence from randomised trials to influence practice. |