Loading…

Predictors for failure of vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery: a case-control study

Abstract Objective To identify potential predictors for failed vacuum-assisted delivery. Study Design Retrospective case-control study conducted in two perinatal centers in the Netherlands. Cases were women who underwent a failed vacuum-assisted delivery between 1997 and 2011. A failed vacuum extrac...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology 2016-05, Vol.200, p.29-34
Main Authors: Verhoeven, Corine J.M., PhD, Nuij, Chelly, Janssen-Rolf, Christel R.M., MPA, Schuit, Ewoud, PhD, Bais, Joke M.J., MD, PhD, Oei, S. Guid, MD, PhD, Mol, Ben Willem J., MD, PhD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Objective To identify potential predictors for failed vacuum-assisted delivery. Study Design Retrospective case-control study conducted in two perinatal centers in the Netherlands. Cases were women who underwent a failed vacuum-assisted delivery between 1997 and 2011. A failed vacuum extraction was defined as a delivery that was started as vacuum extraction but was converted to a cesarean section because of failure to progress. As controls we studied two successful vacuum extractions that were performed before the failed one. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the risk for failed vacuum extraction. Results Between 1997 and 2011, 6,734 trials of vacuum extraction were performed of which 309 failed (4.6%). These 309 cases were compared to the data of 618 women who underwent a successful vacuum extraction. Predictors for failed vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery were increasing gestational age (OR 1.2 per week), maternal height (OR 0.97 per cm), previous vaginal birth as compared to nulliparae (OR 0.32), estimated fetal weight ≥3750 g as compared to
ISSN:0301-2115
1872-7654
DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.02.008