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
. 1987 Mar;69(3 Pt 1):338-42.

Vacuum extraction versus forceps delivery: indications and complications, 1979 to 1984

  • PMID: 3822282

Vacuum extraction versus forceps delivery: indications and complications, 1979 to 1984

F F Broekhuizen et al. Obstet Gynecol. 1987 Mar.

Abstract

Two hundred fifty-six vacuum extractions and 300 randomly chosen forceps deliveries were analyzed retrospectively. Vacuum extraction use increased from 0.3 to 3.1%, while forceps use declined from 10.1 to 4.9% over a five-year period. No differences were found in indications for vacuum extraction and forceps, but the preapplication position differed (occiput posterior or transverse in 81.2% in the vacuum group and 27% in forceps patients). Preapplication station also differed, with 59.8% of vacuum extraction at +1 or higher stations, compared with 9% of forceps. Under these conditions we found less maternal trauma, similar failure rates (3.9 versus 2%), and no difference in maternal morbidity. There was a higher incidence of shoulder dystocia and neonatal jaundice in the vacuum group, but cephalohematoma frequency did not differ significantly (3.9% vacuum extraction, 4.3% forceps). Cosmetic injuries (ecchymoses, abrasions) were more likely with vacuum extraction than with forceps (44.1 versus 29.5%). One death occurred in each group. Vacuum extraction replaced midforceps in our institution in the study period. We consider vacuum extraction a useful technique to teach house staff in view of today's decreasing instrumental delivery rate.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

LinkOut - more resources