Evaluation of delivery options for second-stage events
- PMID: 26596236
- PMCID: PMC4851577
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.11.007
Evaluation of delivery options for second-stage events
Abstract
Background: Cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor is common, whereas the frequency of operative vaginal delivery has been declining. However, data comparing outcomes for attempted operative vaginal delivery vs cesarean in the second stage are scant. Previous studies that examine operative vaginal delivery have compared it to a baseline risk of complications from a spontaneous vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery. However, when a woman has a need for intervention in the second stage, spontaneous vaginal delivery is not an option she or the provider can choose. Thus, the appropriate clinical comparison is cesarean vs operative vaginal delivery.
Objective: Our objective was to compare outcomes by the first attempted operative delivery (vacuum, forceps vs cesarean delivery) in patients needing second-stage assistance at a fetal station of +2 or below.
Study design: We conducted secondary analysis of an observational obstetric cohort in 25 academically affiliated US hospitals over a 3-year period. A subset of ≥37 weeks, nonanomalous, vertex, singletons, with no prior vaginal delivery who reached a station of +2 or below and underwent an attempt at an operative delivery were included. Indications included for operative delivery were: failure to descend, nonreassuring fetal status, labor dystocia, or maternal exhaustion. The primary outcomes included a composite neonatal outcome (death, fracture, length of stay ≥3 days beyond mother's, low Apgar, subgaleal hemorrhage, ventilator support, hypoxic encephalopathy, brachial plexus injury, facial nerve palsy) and individual maternal outcomes (postpartum hemorrhage, third- and fourth-degree tears [severe lacerations], and postpartum infection). Outcomes were examined by the 3 attempted modes of delivery. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated for primary outcomes adjusting for confounders. Final mode of delivery was quantified.
Results: In all, 2531 women met inclusion criteria. No difference in the neonatal composite outcome was observed between groups. Vacuum attempt was associated with the lowest frequency of maternal complications (postpartum infection 0.2% vs 0.9% forceps vs 5.3% cesarean, postpartum hemorrhage 1.4% vs 2.8% forceps vs 3.8% cesarean), except for severe lacerations (19.1% vs 33.8% forceps vs 0% cesarean). When confounders were taken into account, both forceps (OR, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.49) and vacuum (OR, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.17) were associated with a significantly lower odds of postpartum infection. The neonatal composite and postpartum hemorrhage were not significantly different between modes of attempted delivery. Cesarean occurred in 6.4% and 4.4% of attempted vacuum and forceps groups (P = .04).
Conclusion: In patients needing second-stage delivery assistance with a station of +2 or below, attempted operative vaginal delivery was associated with a lower frequency of postpartum infection, but higher frequency of severe lacerations.
Keywords: forceps; operative vaginal delivery; second stage of labor; vacuum.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
References
-
- Alexander JM, Leveno KJ, Rouse DJ, et al. Comparison of Maternal and Infant Outcomes From Primary Cesarean Delivery During the Second Compared With First Stage of Labor. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2007;109:917–21. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000257121.56126.fe. - PubMed
-
- Martin J, Hamilton B, Osterman M, Al E. National Vital Statistics report. 1. Vol. 64. National Center for Health Statistics; Hyattsville, MD: 2015. Births: Final data for 2013. - PubMed
-
- Ecker JL, Frigoletto FD. Cesarean Delivery and the Risk-Benefit Calculus. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007;356:885–88. - PubMed
-
- Drife JO. Choice and instrumental delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103:608–11. - PubMed
-
- Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM. Effect of Mode of Delivery in Nulliparous Women on Neonatal Intracranial Injury. New England Journal of Medicine. 1999;341:1709–14. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
- U10 HD040500/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- UG1 HD027869/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD040544/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- UG1 HD040560/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD034136/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- UG1 HD053097/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- UG1 HD027915/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD040485/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD034116/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD027869/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD027917/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- UL1 TR000439/TR/NCATS NIH HHS/United States
- UG1 HD040485/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD040560/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- UG1 HD040500/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD040512/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD040545/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U01 HD036801/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD053118/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- UL1 RR024989/RR/NCRR NIH HHS/United States
- UL1 RR025764/RR/NCRR NIH HHS/United States
- UG1 HD034116/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- UG1 HD040544/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- UG1 HD034208/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- UG1 HD040512/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD027915/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- UG1 HD040545/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD034208/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD053097/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- P2C HD050924/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD021410/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U10 HD036801/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
- U24 HD036801/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous