Assisted vaginal birth using the Paily obstetric forceps vs Ventouse – A randomized clinical trial
Instruments used in assisted vaginal birth have seen little innovation for decades. Due to the risk of trauma and technical difficulty incurred during forceps delivery, instrumental deliveries are on a decline, and the global rate of primary cesarean birth is rising. The novel Paily Obstetric Forcep...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology 2023-01, Vol.280, p.40-47 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 47 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 40 |
container_title | European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology |
container_volume | 280 |
creator | Burande, Anuprita Prakash Jayaraj, Vasanthi Pai, Anitha V. Akkarappatty, Philo Arathi, V.L. Pradeep, Manu Paily, Vakkanal Paily |
description | Instruments used in assisted vaginal birth have seen little innovation for decades. Due to the risk of trauma and technical difficulty incurred during forceps delivery, instrumental deliveries are on a decline, and the global rate of primary cesarean birth is rising. The novel Paily Obstetric Forceps (POF) features a compact, lighter design with thinner blades, designed to increase operator comfort and minimize maternal and neonatal injuries. We aim to determine the feasibility and safety of POF in achieving vaginal birth compared to a ventouse device with a 50 mm silastic cup.
We conducted a single-blinded, parallel arm, randomized clinical trial of the novel POF vs a ventouse device, in patients undergoing indicated assisted vaginal birth, at a tertiary care obstetric unit. We randomized 100 patients to be allocated on a 1:1 ratio to both intervention arms. Primary outcome was the proportion of successful instrumental deliveries. Secondary outcomes were the number of pulls required during traction and any maternal or neonatal adverse events.
The POF was significantly more successful in achieving vaginal birth than the ventouse device (n = 50/50, 100 % vs n = 42/50, 84 %, p = 0.006). Operators reported requiring significantly fewer pulls during POF traction than ventouse. POF demonstrated a higher risk for maternal trauma (RR = 3.2, 95 % CI = 1.5 to 6.9, NNH = 2.7) but a lower risk for neonatal injury (RR = 0.6, 95 % CI = 0.3 to 1, NNH = 5.7). Maternal and neonatal recovery durations were comparable. There were no incidences of maternal or neonatal mortality.
The POF can be used in indicated assisted vaginal birth with superior success rates and better neonatal outcomes than ventouse. Other obstetric forceps must be standardized to conduct larger superiority trials of forceps designs. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.10.028 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2738193709</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0301211522005772</els_id><sourcerecordid>2738193709</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c292t-617adde9471134f96443d761240baa334941a94e7259b7d37b54a9626259a2ed3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1KAzEUhYMotlbfQCRLN1Pz10mzEYr4BwVdqNuQSe60KdOZmkwLdeU7-IY-iSlTXZrNJZfvnHvvQeickiElNL9aDGHRzEIxZISx1BoSNj5AfTqWLJP5SByiPuGEZozSUQ-dxLgg6XGujlGP51wpRVUfuUmMPrbg8MbMfG0qXPjQzvE6-nqG2zngZ-OrLW6KBLXBW1w2wcIq4k3Eb1C3zToC_v78whMcTO2apf9IZrbytbfJLUlMdYqOSlNFONvXAXq9u325ecimT_ePN5NpZplibZZTaZwDJSSlXJQqF4I7mVMmSGEM50IJapQAyUaqkI7LYiSMylme_oaB4wN02fmuQvO-htjqpY8WqsrUkPbUTPIxVVwSlVDRoTY0MQYo9Sr4pQlbTYne5asXustX7_LddVO-SXaxn7AuluD-RL-BJuC6AyDdufEQdLQeagvOB7Ctdo3_f8IP0-uOVQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2738193709</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assisted vaginal birth using the Paily obstetric forceps vs Ventouse – A randomized clinical trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Burande, Anuprita Prakash ; Jayaraj, Vasanthi ; Pai, Anitha V. ; Akkarappatty, Philo ; Arathi, V.L. ; Pradeep, Manu ; Paily, Vakkanal Paily</creator><creatorcontrib>Burande, Anuprita Prakash ; Jayaraj, Vasanthi ; Pai, Anitha V. ; Akkarappatty, Philo ; Arathi, V.L. ; Pradeep, Manu ; Paily, Vakkanal Paily</creatorcontrib><description>Instruments used in assisted vaginal birth have seen little innovation for decades. Due to the risk of trauma and technical difficulty incurred during forceps delivery, instrumental deliveries are on a decline, and the global rate of primary cesarean birth is rising. The novel Paily Obstetric Forceps (POF) features a compact, lighter design with thinner blades, designed to increase operator comfort and minimize maternal and neonatal injuries. We aim to determine the feasibility and safety of POF in achieving vaginal birth compared to a ventouse device with a 50 mm silastic cup.
We conducted a single-blinded, parallel arm, randomized clinical trial of the novel POF vs a ventouse device, in patients undergoing indicated assisted vaginal birth, at a tertiary care obstetric unit. We randomized 100 patients to be allocated on a 1:1 ratio to both intervention arms. Primary outcome was the proportion of successful instrumental deliveries. Secondary outcomes were the number of pulls required during traction and any maternal or neonatal adverse events.
The POF was significantly more successful in achieving vaginal birth than the ventouse device (n = 50/50, 100 % vs n = 42/50, 84 %, p = 0.006). Operators reported requiring significantly fewer pulls during POF traction than ventouse. POF demonstrated a higher risk for maternal trauma (RR = 3.2, 95 % CI = 1.5 to 6.9, NNH = 2.7) but a lower risk for neonatal injury (RR = 0.6, 95 % CI = 0.3 to 1, NNH = 5.7). Maternal and neonatal recovery durations were comparable. There were no incidences of maternal or neonatal mortality.
The POF can be used in indicated assisted vaginal birth with superior success rates and better neonatal outcomes than ventouse. Other obstetric forceps must be standardized to conduct larger superiority trials of forceps designs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-2115</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7654</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.10.028</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36399919</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ireland: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Birth Injuries - epidemiology ; Birth Injuries - etiology ; Birth Injuries - prevention & control ; Delivery, Obstetric - adverse effects ; Female ; Humans ; Infant, Newborn ; Medical device safety ; Obstetrical extraction ; Obstetrical forceps ; Obstetrical Forceps - adverse effects ; Pregnancy ; Surgical Instruments - adverse effects ; Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical - adverse effects ; Vagina</subject><ispartof>European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology, 2023-01, Vol.280, p.40-47</ispartof><rights>2022 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c292t-617adde9471134f96443d761240baa334941a94e7259b7d37b54a9626259a2ed3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c292t-617adde9471134f96443d761240baa334941a94e7259b7d37b54a9626259a2ed3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.10.028$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27922,27923,45993</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36399919$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Burande, Anuprita Prakash</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jayaraj, Vasanthi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pai, Anitha V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akkarappatty, Philo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arathi, V.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pradeep, Manu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paily, Vakkanal Paily</creatorcontrib><title>Assisted vaginal birth using the Paily obstetric forceps vs Ventouse – A randomized clinical trial</title><title>European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology</title><addtitle>Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol</addtitle><description>Instruments used in assisted vaginal birth have seen little innovation for decades. Due to the risk of trauma and technical difficulty incurred during forceps delivery, instrumental deliveries are on a decline, and the global rate of primary cesarean birth is rising. The novel Paily Obstetric Forceps (POF) features a compact, lighter design with thinner blades, designed to increase operator comfort and minimize maternal and neonatal injuries. We aim to determine the feasibility and safety of POF in achieving vaginal birth compared to a ventouse device with a 50 mm silastic cup.
We conducted a single-blinded, parallel arm, randomized clinical trial of the novel POF vs a ventouse device, in patients undergoing indicated assisted vaginal birth, at a tertiary care obstetric unit. We randomized 100 patients to be allocated on a 1:1 ratio to both intervention arms. Primary outcome was the proportion of successful instrumental deliveries. Secondary outcomes were the number of pulls required during traction and any maternal or neonatal adverse events.
The POF was significantly more successful in achieving vaginal birth than the ventouse device (n = 50/50, 100 % vs n = 42/50, 84 %, p = 0.006). Operators reported requiring significantly fewer pulls during POF traction than ventouse. POF demonstrated a higher risk for maternal trauma (RR = 3.2, 95 % CI = 1.5 to 6.9, NNH = 2.7) but a lower risk for neonatal injury (RR = 0.6, 95 % CI = 0.3 to 1, NNH = 5.7). Maternal and neonatal recovery durations were comparable. There were no incidences of maternal or neonatal mortality.
The POF can be used in indicated assisted vaginal birth with superior success rates and better neonatal outcomes than ventouse. Other obstetric forceps must be standardized to conduct larger superiority trials of forceps designs.</description><subject>Birth Injuries - epidemiology</subject><subject>Birth Injuries - etiology</subject><subject>Birth Injuries - prevention & control</subject><subject>Delivery, Obstetric - adverse effects</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant, Newborn</subject><subject>Medical device safety</subject><subject>Obstetrical extraction</subject><subject>Obstetrical forceps</subject><subject>Obstetrical Forceps - adverse effects</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Surgical Instruments - adverse effects</subject><subject>Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical - adverse effects</subject><subject>Vagina</subject><issn>0301-2115</issn><issn>1872-7654</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1KAzEUhYMotlbfQCRLN1Pz10mzEYr4BwVdqNuQSe60KdOZmkwLdeU7-IY-iSlTXZrNJZfvnHvvQeickiElNL9aDGHRzEIxZISx1BoSNj5AfTqWLJP5SByiPuGEZozSUQ-dxLgg6XGujlGP51wpRVUfuUmMPrbg8MbMfG0qXPjQzvE6-nqG2zngZ-OrLW6KBLXBW1w2wcIq4k3Eb1C3zToC_v78whMcTO2apf9IZrbytbfJLUlMdYqOSlNFONvXAXq9u325ecimT_ePN5NpZplibZZTaZwDJSSlXJQqF4I7mVMmSGEM50IJapQAyUaqkI7LYiSMylme_oaB4wN02fmuQvO-htjqpY8WqsrUkPbUTPIxVVwSlVDRoTY0MQYo9Sr4pQlbTYne5asXustX7_LddVO-SXaxn7AuluD-RL-BJuC6AyDdufEQdLQeagvOB7Ctdo3_f8IP0-uOVQ</recordid><startdate>202301</startdate><enddate>202301</enddate><creator>Burande, Anuprita Prakash</creator><creator>Jayaraj, Vasanthi</creator><creator>Pai, Anitha V.</creator><creator>Akkarappatty, Philo</creator><creator>Arathi, V.L.</creator><creator>Pradeep, Manu</creator><creator>Paily, Vakkanal Paily</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202301</creationdate><title>Assisted vaginal birth using the Paily obstetric forceps vs Ventouse – A randomized clinical trial</title><author>Burande, Anuprita Prakash ; Jayaraj, Vasanthi ; Pai, Anitha V. ; Akkarappatty, Philo ; Arathi, V.L. ; Pradeep, Manu ; Paily, Vakkanal Paily</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c292t-617adde9471134f96443d761240baa334941a94e7259b7d37b54a9626259a2ed3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Birth Injuries - epidemiology</topic><topic>Birth Injuries - etiology</topic><topic>Birth Injuries - prevention & control</topic><topic>Delivery, Obstetric - adverse effects</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant, Newborn</topic><topic>Medical device safety</topic><topic>Obstetrical extraction</topic><topic>Obstetrical forceps</topic><topic>Obstetrical Forceps - adverse effects</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Surgical Instruments - adverse effects</topic><topic>Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical - adverse effects</topic><topic>Vagina</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Burande, Anuprita Prakash</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jayaraj, Vasanthi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pai, Anitha V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Akkarappatty, Philo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arathi, V.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pradeep, Manu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paily, Vakkanal Paily</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Burande, Anuprita Prakash</au><au>Jayaraj, Vasanthi</au><au>Pai, Anitha V.</au><au>Akkarappatty, Philo</au><au>Arathi, V.L.</au><au>Pradeep, Manu</au><au>Paily, Vakkanal Paily</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assisted vaginal birth using the Paily obstetric forceps vs Ventouse – A randomized clinical trial</atitle><jtitle>European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol</addtitle><date>2023-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>280</volume><spage>40</spage><epage>47</epage><pages>40-47</pages><issn>0301-2115</issn><eissn>1872-7654</eissn><abstract>Instruments used in assisted vaginal birth have seen little innovation for decades. Due to the risk of trauma and technical difficulty incurred during forceps delivery, instrumental deliveries are on a decline, and the global rate of primary cesarean birth is rising. The novel Paily Obstetric Forceps (POF) features a compact, lighter design with thinner blades, designed to increase operator comfort and minimize maternal and neonatal injuries. We aim to determine the feasibility and safety of POF in achieving vaginal birth compared to a ventouse device with a 50 mm silastic cup.
We conducted a single-blinded, parallel arm, randomized clinical trial of the novel POF vs a ventouse device, in patients undergoing indicated assisted vaginal birth, at a tertiary care obstetric unit. We randomized 100 patients to be allocated on a 1:1 ratio to both intervention arms. Primary outcome was the proportion of successful instrumental deliveries. Secondary outcomes were the number of pulls required during traction and any maternal or neonatal adverse events.
The POF was significantly more successful in achieving vaginal birth than the ventouse device (n = 50/50, 100 % vs n = 42/50, 84 %, p = 0.006). Operators reported requiring significantly fewer pulls during POF traction than ventouse. POF demonstrated a higher risk for maternal trauma (RR = 3.2, 95 % CI = 1.5 to 6.9, NNH = 2.7) but a lower risk for neonatal injury (RR = 0.6, 95 % CI = 0.3 to 1, NNH = 5.7). Maternal and neonatal recovery durations were comparable. There were no incidences of maternal or neonatal mortality.
The POF can be used in indicated assisted vaginal birth with superior success rates and better neonatal outcomes than ventouse. Other obstetric forceps must be standardized to conduct larger superiority trials of forceps designs.</abstract><cop>Ireland</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>36399919</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.10.028</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0301-2115 |
ispartof | European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology, 2023-01, Vol.280, p.40-47 |
issn | 0301-2115 1872-7654 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2738193709 |
source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
subjects | Birth Injuries - epidemiology Birth Injuries - etiology Birth Injuries - prevention & control Delivery, Obstetric - adverse effects Female Humans Infant, Newborn Medical device safety Obstetrical extraction Obstetrical forceps Obstetrical Forceps - adverse effects Pregnancy Surgical Instruments - adverse effects Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical - adverse effects Vagina |
title | Assisted vaginal birth using the Paily obstetric forceps vs Ventouse – A randomized clinical trial |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T15%3A18%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assisted%20vaginal%20birth%20using%20the%20Paily%20obstetric%20forceps%20vs%20Ventouse%20%E2%80%93%20A%20randomized%20clinical%20trial&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20&%20gynecology%20and%20reproductive%20biology&rft.au=Burande,%20Anuprita%20Prakash&rft.date=2023-01&rft.volume=280&rft.spage=40&rft.epage=47&rft.pages=40-47&rft.issn=0301-2115&rft.eissn=1872-7654&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.10.028&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2738193709%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2738193709&rft_id=info:pmid/36399919&rft_els_id=S0301211522005772&rfr_iscdi=true |