Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Safe operative vaginal delivery requires a careful assessment of the clinical situation.
During the pushing efforts, the complexity of the delivery can lead to choose between an operative vaginal delivery attempt and a caesarean section straightaway. An emergency caesarean section for failed operative vaginal delivery is associated with a higher fetal and maternal morbidity, compared to a successful operative vaginal delivery and to a caesarean section straightaway.
The objective of this study was to develop a risk score of failed vacuum extraction leading to an emergency caesarean section.
This score could be an objective tool to help the obstetricians to choose between a vacuum extraction attempt and a caesarean section straightaway.
The investigators included patients who benefited from a vacuum extraction attempt in the Regional Teaching Hospital of Besançon (France) between January 2010 and December 2015. Patients were separated into two groups : the vacuum extraction failure group and the vacuum extraction success group.
The investigators selected maternal, fetal and labor characteristics which could influence success or failure of the vacuum extraction and compared them between the two groups.
The score was developed with the characteristics which significantly influence the vacuum extraction failure.
Safe operative vaginal delivery requires a careful assessment of the clinical situation.
During the pushing efforts, the complexity of the delivery can lead to choose between an operative vaginal delivery attempt and a caesarean section straightaway. An emergency caesarean section for failed operative vaginal delivery is associated with a higher fetal and maternal morbidity, compared to a successful operative vaginal delivery and to a caesarean section straightaway.
The objective of this study was to develop a risk score of failed vacuum extraction leading to an emergency caesarean section.
This score could be an objective tool to help the obstetricians to choose between a vacuum extraction attempt and a caesarean section straightaway.
The investigators included patients who benefited from a vacuum extraction attempt in the Regional Teaching Hospital of Besançon (France) between January 2010 and December 2015. Patients were separated into two groups : the vacuum extraction failure group and the vacuum extraction success group.
The investigators selected maternal, fetal and labor characteristics which could influence success or failure of the vacuum extraction and compared them between the two groups.
The score was developed with the characteristics which significantly influence the vacuum extraction failure.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Successful vacuum extraction | Patients for whom vacuum extraction was successful |
| |
| Failed vacuum extraction | Patients who had an emergency caesarean section after failed vacuum extraction |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No intervention (observational study) | Other | No intervention (observational study) |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Final mode of delivery | The final mode of delivery corresponds to :
| 1 year |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
All the patients who delivered in the Regional Teaching Hospital of Besançon (France) between January 2010 and December 2015 and who met the inclusion criteria
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University Hospital of Besançon | Besançon | 25000 | France |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26967343 | Background | Verhoeven CJ, Nuij C, Janssen-Rolf CR, Schuit E, Bais JM, Oei SG, Mol BW. Predictors for failure of vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery: a case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 May;200:29-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.02.008. Epub 2016 Mar 2. | |
| 15450259 | Background | Miot S, Riethmuller D, Deleplancque K, Teffaud O, Martin M, Maillet R, Schaal JP. [Cesarean section for failed vacuum extraction: risk factors and maternal and neonatal outcomes]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2004 Jul-Aug;32(7-8):607-12. doi: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2004.04.003. French. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D019370 | Observation |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D008722 | Methods |
| D008919 | Investigative Techniques |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| 26855108 | Background | Palatnik A, Grobman WA, Hellendag MG, Janetos TM, Gossett DR, Miller ES. Predictors of Failed Operative Vaginal Delivery in a Contemporary Obstetric Cohort. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Mar;127(3):501-506. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001273. |
| 20168101 | Background | Alexander JM, Leveno KJ, Hauth JC, Landon MB, Gilbert S, Spong CY, Varner MW, Caritis SN, Meis P, Wapner RJ, Sorokin Y, Miodovnik M, O'Sullivan MJ, Sibai BM, Langer O, Gabbe SG; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network (MFMU). Failed operative vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Nov;114(5):1017-1022. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181bbf3be. |
| 22227232 | Background | Langeron A, Mercier G, Chauleur C, Varlet MN, Patural H, Lima S, Seffert P, Chene G. [Failed forceps extraction: risk factors and maternal and neonatal morbidity]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2012 Jun;41(4):333-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2011.11.001. Epub 2012 Jan 9. French. |
| 15467561 | Background | Gopalani S, Bennett K, Critchlow C. Factors predictive of failed operative vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Sep;191(3):896-902. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.05.073. |