Prospective assessment of vacuum deliveries from midpelvic station in a tertiary care university hospital: Frequency, failure rates, labor characteristics and maternal and neonatal complications

• Published in: PloS one 2021-11, Vol.16 (11), p.e0259926-e0259926
• Main Authors: Sugulle, Meryam, Halldórsdóttir, Erna, Kvile, Janne, Berntzen, Line Sissel Dahlgaard, Jacobsen, Anne Flem
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Biology and Life Sciences; Birth weight; Cesarean section; Cesarean Section - statistics & numerical data; Chi square analysis; Chi-square test; Childbirth & labor; Clinical medicine; Complications; Confidence intervals; Failure rates; Female; Gestational age; Gynecology; Health risks; High vacuum; Hospitals, University; Humans; Injuries; Labor; Labor Onset; Maternal Age; Medical instruments; Medicine; Medicine and Health Sciences; Methods; Morbidity; Neonates; Newborn babies; Obstetric Labor Complications - epidemiology; Obstetric Labor Complications - etiology; Obstetrical Forceps; Obstetrics; Patient outcomes; Perineum; Pregnancy; Prospective Studies; Statistical analysis; Statistical tests; Success; Surveillance; Tertiary; Tertiary Care Centers; Vacuum; Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical - adverse effects; Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical - statistics & numerical data; Vagina
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259926

Midpelvic vacuum extractions are controversial due to reports of increased risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity and high failure rates. Prospective studies of attempted midpelvic vacuum outcomes are scarce. Our main aims were to assess frequency, failure rates, labor characteristics, maternal and neonatal complications of attempted midpelvic vacuum deliveries, and to compare labor characteristics and complications between successful and failed midpelvic vacuum deliveries. Clinical data were obtained prospectively from all attempted vacuum deliveries (n = 891) over a one-year period with a total of 6903 births (overall cesarean section rate 18.2% (n = 1258). Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test or Chi-square test for group differences were used as appropriate. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are given as indicated. The uni- and multivariable analysis were conducted both as a complete case analysis and with a multiple imputation approach. A p-value of