Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Oct 17;10(10):CD005545.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005545.pub3.

Trial of instrumental delivery in theatre versus immediate caesarean section for anticipated difficult assisted births

Franz Majoko  1 , Glenn Gardener
Affiliations

Trial of instrumental delivery in theatre versus immediate caesarean section for anticipated difficult assisted births

Franz Majoko et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: The 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.

Objectives: To 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 methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 June 2012).

Selection criteria: Randomised 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 analysis: We identified no studies meeting our inclusion criteria.

Main results: No studies were included.

Authors' conclusions: There is no current evidence from randomised trials to influence practice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Update of

References

Additional references

Al‐Kadri 2003
    1. Al‐Kadri H, Sabr Y, Al‐Saif S, Abulaimoun B, Ba'Aqeel H, Saleh A. Failed individual and sequential instrumental vaginal delivery: contributing risk factors and maternal‐neonatal complications. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2003;82:642‐8. - PubMed
Allen 2005
    1. Allen VM, O'Connell CM, Baskett TF. Maternal and perinatal morbidity for caesarean delivery at full cervical dilatation compared with caesarean delivery in the first stage of labour. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2005;112(7):986‐90. - PubMed
Blickstein 2004
    1. Blickstein I. Difficult delivery of the impacted fetal head during cesarean section: intraoperative disengagement dystocia. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 2004;32(6):465‐9. - PubMed
Burrows 2004
    1. Burrows LJ, Meyn LA, Weber AM. Maternal morbidity associated with vaginal versus cesarean delivery. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004;103:907‐12. - PubMed
Cheng 2004
    1. Cheng YW, Hopkins LM, Caughey AB. How long is too long: Does a prolonged second stage of labor in nulliparous women affect maternal and neonatal outcomes?. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;191:933‐8. - PubMed
Cheong 2004
    1. Cheong YC, Abdullahi H, Lashen H, Fairlie FM. Can formal education and training improve the outcome of instrumental delivery?. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2004;113:139‐44. - PubMed
Egger 1997
    1. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629‐34. - PMC - PubMed
Fraser 2000
    1. Fraser WD, Marcoux S, Krauss I, Douglas J, Goulet C, Boulvain M. Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of delayed pushing for nulliparous women in the second stage of labor with continuous epidural analgesia. The PEOPLE (Pushing Early or Pushing Late with Epidural) Study Group. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;182(5):1165‐72. - PubMed
Harbord 2006
    1. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small‐study effects in meta‐analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 2006;25:3443‐57. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Janni 2002
    1. Janni W, Schiessl B, Peschers U, Huber S, Strobl B, Hantschmann P, et al. The prognostic impact of a prolonged second stage of labor on maternal and fetal outcome. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2002;81:214‐21. - PubMed
Johanson 1999
    1. Johanson RB, Menon V. Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1999, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000224] - DOI - PubMed
Johnson 2004
    1. Johnson JH, Figueroa R, Garry D, Elimian A, Maulik D. Immediate maternal and neonatal effects of forceps and vacuum‐assisted deliveries. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004;103:513‐8. - PubMed
Liebling 2004
    1. Liebling RE, Swingler R, Patel RR, Verity L, Soothill PW, Murphy DJ. Pelvic floor morbidity up to one year after difficult instrumental delivery and caesarean section in the second stage of labour: a cohort study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004;191:4‐10. - PubMed
Liu 2004
    1. Liu EH, Sia AT. Rates of caesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery in nulliparous women after low concentration epidural infusions or opioid analgesia: systematic review. BMJ 2004;328(7453):1410‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Lowe 1987
    1. Lowe B. Fear of failure: a place for the trial of instrumental delivery. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1987;94:60‐6. - PubMed
Mola 2002
    1. Mola GD, Amoa AB, Edilyong J. Factors associated with success or failure in trials of vacuum extraction. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2002;42:35‐9. - PubMed
Murphy 2001a
    1. Murphy DJ. Failure to progress in the second stage of labour. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001;13:557‐61. - PubMed
Murphy 2001b
    1. Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L, Swingler R, Patel R. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet 2001;358:1203‐7. - PubMed
Murphy 2003
    1. Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Patel R, Verity L, Swingler R. Cohort study of operative delivery in the second stage of labour and standard of obstetric care. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2003;110:610‐5. - PubMed
NICE 2007
    1. National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. London: RCOG Press, September 2007. - PubMed
Nordstrom 2001
    1. Nordstrom L, Achanna S, Naka K, Arulkumaran S. Fetal and maternal lactate increase during active second stage of labour. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2001;108(3):263‐8. - PubMed
Olagundoye 2007
    1. Olagundoye V, MacKenzie IZ. The impact of a trial of instrumental delivery in theatre on neonatal outcome. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2007;114:603‐8. - PubMed
RCOG 2005
    1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Operative vaginal delivery. Green Top Guideline 26. London: RCOG Press, 2005.
Revah 1997
    1. Revah A, Ezra Y, Farine D, Ritchie K. Failed trial of vacuum or forceps: maternal and fetal outcome. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1997;176:200‐4. - PubMed
RevMan 2011 [Computer program]
    1. The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.1 for Windows. Copenhagen, The Nordic Cochrane Centre: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
Roberts 2002a
    1. Roberts CL, Algert CS, Carnegie M, Peat B. Operative delivery during labour: trends and predictive factors. Paediatrics and Perinatal Epidemiology 2002;16:115‐23. - PubMed
Roberts 2002b
    1. Roberts JE. The "push" for evidence: management of the second stage. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health 2002;47:2‐15. - PubMed
Roberts 2003
    1. Roberts JE. A new understanding of the second stage of labor: implications for nursing care. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Neonatal Nursing 2003;32:794‐801. - PubMed
Sadan 2003
    1. Sadan O, Ginath S, Gomel A, Abramov D, Rotmensch S, Boaz M, et al. What to do after a failed attempt of vacuum delivery?. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2003;107:151‐5. - PubMed
Sau 2004
    1. Sau A, Sau M, Ahmed H, Brown R. Vacuum extraction: is there any need to improve the current training in the UK?. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2004;83:466‐70. - PubMed
Saunders 1989
    1. Saunders NJ, Spiby H, Gilbert L, Fraser RB, Hall JM, Mutton PM, et al. Oxytocin infusion during second stage of labour in primiparous women using epidural analgesia: a randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. BMJ 1989;299(6713):1423‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Sheiner 2001
    1. Sheiner E, Shoham‐Vardi I, Silberstein T, Hallak M, Katz M, Mazor M. Failed vacuum extraction. Maternal risk factors and pregnancy outcome. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2001;46:819‐24. - PubMed
Sizer 2000
    1. Sizer AR, Evans J, Bailey SM, Weiner J. A second‐stage partogram. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2000;96:678‐83. - PubMed
Zhang 2001
    1. Zhang J, Yancey MK, Klebanoff MA, Schwart D. Does epidural analgesia prolong labor and increase risk of cesarean delivery? a natural experiment. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001;185:128‐34. - PubMed

Publication types