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
. 2013 Sep 30;9(9):CD008878.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008878.pub2.

Analgesia for forceps delivery

Affiliations

Analgesia for forceps delivery

Payam Nikpoor et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: A forceps delivery may be indicated when a fetus fails to progress to delivery, or when delivery needs to be expedited in the second stage of labour. Effective analgesia is required to ensure that the woman is comfortable throughout the delivery, to allow the obstetrician to safely perform the procedure. It is currently unclear what the most effective and safe agent or method is to provide pain relief during forceps delivery.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different analgesic agents and methods available for forceps delivery for women and their babies.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2013), reviewed published guidelines and searched the reference lists of review articles.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing an analgesic agent or method used for forceps delivery with placebo/no treatment or an alternative agent or method.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.

Main results: We included four trials involving 388 women that were judged to be at an unclear to high risk of bias overall. A variety of different agents for providing analgesia were assessed in the trials, and a number of different methods to measure pain relief were used, and thus results could not be combined in meta-analysis. Three trials compared diazepam with an alternative agent (ketamine; vinydan-ether; "other" anaesthesic agent) for the provision of general anaesthesia, and one trial compared spinal analgesia to pudendal nerve block (in both groups lignocaine was administered).With regard to the primary outcomes, women receiving diazepam for forceps delivery in one small trial were more likely to judge their pain relief as effective compared with women receiving vinydan-ether (risk ratio (RR) 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.25; 101 women). In a further small trial, no significant difference was seen in the number of women judging their pain relief as effective when diazepam was compared with ketamine (RR 1.42; 95% CI 0.98 to 2.07; 26 women). In the trial that compared spinal analgesia to pudendal nerve block, women receiving spinal analgesia were significantly more likely to regard their analgesia as adequate (RR 3.36; 95% CI 2.46 to 4.60; 183 women) and were less likely to report severe pain during forceps delivery (RR 0.02; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.27; 183 women). No trials reported on the review's other two primary outcomes of serious maternal adverse effects or complications, and neonatal mortality or serious morbidity.In terms of secondary outcomes, women receiving diazepam compared with vinydan-ether, were significantly less likely to experience vomiting (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.62; 101 women). No significant differences were seen for the few neonatal outcomes that were reported across any of the comparisons (including Agpar score of less than seven at five minutes and acidosis as defined by cord blood arterial pH less than 7.2).

Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support any particular analgesic agent or method as most effective in providing pain relief for forceps delivery. Neonatal outcomes have largely not been evaluated.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Figures

1
1
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
2
2
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Diazepam versus ketamine, Outcome 1 Pain relief (judged as effective by the mother).
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Diazepam versus ketamine, Outcome 2 Maternal apnoea requiring oxygen ventilation.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Diazepam versus ketamine, Outcome 3 Apgar score of less than seven at five minutes.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Diazepam versus ketamine, Outcome 4 Acidosis as defined by cord blood arterial pH less than 7.2.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Diazepam versus ketamine, Outcome 5 Good anaesthesia (judged by the obstetrician).
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Diazepam versus ketamine, Outcome 6 Pleasant recovery (judged by the mother).
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 Diazepam versus ketamine, Outcome 7 Awareness (mother sensed the operation).
2.1
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Diazepam versus vinydan‐ether, Outcome 1 Pain relief (judged as effective by the mother).
2.2
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Diazepam versus vinydan‐ether, Outcome 2 Vomiting.
2.3
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Diazepam versus vinydan‐ether, Outcome 3 Apgar score of less than seven at five minutes.
2.4
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Diazepam versus vinydan‐ether, Outcome 4 Good anaesthesia (judged by the obstetrician).
2.5
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Diazepam versus vinydan‐ether, Outcome 5 Comfortable induction and recovery (judged by the mother).
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Diazepam versus other (general, local, other anaesthetic), Outcome 1 Apgar score of less than eight at two minutes.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Spinal analgesia versus pudendal block anaesthesia, Outcome 1 Pain relief (analgesia achieved).
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Spinal analgesia versus pudendal block anaesthesia, Outcome 2 Severe pain during delivery.
4.3
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Spinal analgesia versus pudendal block anaesthesia, Outcome 3 Serious maternal complications.
4.4
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 Spinal analgesia versus pudendal block anaesthesia, Outcome 4 Request for additional anaesthesia.
4.5
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 Spinal analgesia versus pudendal block anaesthesia, Outcome 5 Maternal hypotension (defined as a decrease in diastolic or systolic blood pressure of more than 10 mmHg).
4.6
4.6. Analysis
Comparison 4 Spinal analgesia versus pudendal block anaesthesia, Outcome 6 Headache (mild or moderate).

Update of

References

References to studies included in this review

Ellingson 1977 {published data only}
    1. Ellingson A, Haram K, Sagen N. Ketamine and diazepam as anaesthesia for forceps delivery. A comparative study. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 1977;21(1):37‐40. - PubMed
Hutchins 1980 {published data only}
    1. Hutchins CJ. Spinal analgesia for instrumental delivery. A comparison with pudendal nerve block. Anaesthesia 1980;35:376‐7. - PubMed
Mundow 1974 {published data only}
    1. Mundow LS, Long SV. The amnestic value of diazepam at forceps delivery A preliminary report. Irish Journal of Medical Science 1974;143:101‐4. - PubMed
Sagen 1973 {published data only}
    1. Sagen N, Haram K. Diazepam (Valium) as an anaesthetic for operative vaginal delivery. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1973;52:153‐6. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Pingsuthiwong 1992 {published data only}
    1. Pingsuthiwong S. Instrumental delivery in epidural analgesia using 0.125 % bupivacaine plus 0.05 mg. fentanyl versus 0.25 % bupivacaine alone. Chon Buri Hospital Journal 1992;17(3):62‐78.

Additional references

Ameh 2009
    1. Ameh CA, Weeks AD. The role of instrumental vaginal delivery in low resource settings. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2009;116(Suppl 1):22‐5. - PubMed
Bailey 2005
    1. Bailey PE. The disappearing art of instrumental delivery: time to reverse the trend. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2005;91:89‐96. - PubMed
Djabatey 2009
    1. Djabatey EA, Barclay PM. Difficult and failed intubation in 3430 obstetric general anaesthetics. Anaesthesia 2009;64:1168‐71. - PubMed
FDA 2008
    1. U.S. Food, Drug Administration. Valium (diazepam) prescribing information. http://www.fda.gov/ (accessed 9 July 2013).
Gate 1955
    1. Gate JM, Dutton WA. Forceps delivery under local analgesia. British Medical Journal 1955;2(4931):99‐101. - PMC - PubMed
Gibbs 2008
    1. Gibbs RS, Karlan BY, Hnaey AF, Nydaard IE. Danforth's Obstetrics and Gynecology. 10th Edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008:480.
Grant 2011
    1. Grant GJ. Pharmacologic management of pain during labor and delivery. In: Hepner DL, Barss VA editor(s). UpToDate. Waltham, MA: UpToDate, 2011.
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.
Li 2011
    1. Li Z, McNally L, Hilder L, Sullivan EA. Australia’s mothers and babies 2009. Perinatal Statistics Series no. 25. Sydney: AIHW National Perinatal Statistics Unit, 2011:25‐52.
Martin 2009
    1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S, et al. Births: final data for 2006, Volume 57, Number 7. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_07.pdf (accessed 1 July 2013).
McGrady 2004
    1. McGrady E, Litchfield K. Epidural analgesia in labour. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain 2004;4(4):114‐7.
NHS 2012
    1. The Health and Social Care Information Centre, Hospital Episode Statistics, National Health Service (NHS). NHS Maternity Statistics ‐ England, 2011‐2012. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB09202 (accessed 1 July 2013).
O'Sullivan 1962
    1. O'Sullivan JF. Analgesia for forceps delivery. British Medical Journal 1962;1(5272):151‐2. - PMC - PubMed
Osterman 2011
    1. Osterman MJK, Martin JA. Epidural and spinal anesthesia use during labor: 27‐state reporting area, 2008. National Vital Statistics Reports 2011;59(5):1‐13, 16. - PubMed
Patel 2004
    1. Patel R, Murphy D. Forceps delivery in modern obstetric practice. BMJ 2004;328:1302‐3. - PMC - PubMed
Public Health Agency of Canada 2008
    1. Public Health Agency of Canada. Canadian Perinatal Health Report 2008 Edition. Ottawa: Minister of Health, 2008.
RANZCOG 2009a
    1. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG). Instrumental vaginal delivery. RANZCOG College Statement: C‐Obs 16. http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/the‐ranzcog/policies‐and‐guidelines/college‐st... (accessed 22 May 2012).
RANZCOG 2009b
    1. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG). Rotational forceps. RANZCOG College Statement: C‐Obs 13. http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/the‐ranzcog/policies‐and‐guidelines/college‐st... (accessed 22 May 2012).
RCOG 2011
    1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Operative vaginal delivery. Green‐top Guideline No. 26. http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog‐corp/GTG26.pdf (accessed 22 May 2012).
RevMan 2012 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
Ross 2012
    1. Ross MG. Forceps delivery. emedicine.medscape.com/article/263603 (accessed 1 July 2013).
SOGC 2004
    1. Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC). Guidelines for operative vaginal birth. SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines No. 148. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2004;26(8):747‐53. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Nikpoor 2010
    1. Nikpoor P, Watson‐Jones R. Analgesia for forceps delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008878] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources