Evaluation of delivery options for second-stage events

Background Cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor is common, whereas the frequency of operative vaginal delivery has been declining. However, data comparing outcomes for attempted operative vaginal delivery vs cesarean in the second stage are scant. Previous studies that examine operative va...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2016-05, Vol.214 (5), p.638.e1-638.e10
Hauptverfasser: Bailit, Jennifer L., MD, MPH, Grobman, William A., MD, MBA, Rice, Madeline Murguia, PhD, Wapner, Ronald J., MD, Reddy, Uma M., MD, MPH, Varner, Michael W., MD, Thorp, John M., MD, Caritis, Steve N., MD, Iams, Jay D., MD, Saade, George, MD, Rouse, Dwight J., MD, Tolosa, Jorge E., MD, MSCE
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 638.e10
container_issue 5
container_start_page 638.e1
container_title American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
container_volume 214
creator Bailit, Jennifer L., MD, MPH
Grobman, William A., MD, MBA
Rice, Madeline Murguia, PhD
Wapner, Ronald J., MD
Reddy, Uma M., MD, MPH
Varner, Michael W., MD
Thorp, John M., MD
Caritis, Steve N., MD
Iams, Jay D., MD
Saade, George, MD
Rouse, Dwight J., MD
Tolosa, Jorge E., MD, MSCE
description Background Cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor is common, whereas the frequency of operative vaginal delivery has been declining. However, data comparing outcomes for attempted operative vaginal delivery vs cesarean in the second stage are scant. Previous studies that examine operative vaginal delivery have compared it to a baseline risk of complications from a spontaneous vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery. However, when a woman has a need for intervention in the second stage, spontaneous vaginal delivery is not an option she or the provider can choose. Thus, the appropriate clinical comparison is cesarean vs operative vaginal delivery. Objective Our objective was to compare outcomes by the first attempted operative delivery (vacuum, forceps vs cesarean delivery) in patients needing second-stage assistance at a fetal station of +2 or below. Study Design We conducted secondary analysis of an observational obstetric cohort in 25 academically affiliated US hospitals over a 3-year period. A subset of ≥37 weeks, nonanomalous, vertex, singletons, with no prior vaginal delivery who reached a station of +2 or below and underwent an attempt at an operative delivery were included. Indications included for operative delivery were: failure to descend, nonreassuring fetal status, labor dystocia, or maternal exhaustion. The primary outcomes included a composite neonatal outcome (death, fracture, length of stay ≥3 days beyond mother’s, low Apgar, subgaleal hemorrhage, ventilator support, hypoxic encephalopathy, brachial plexus injury, facial nerve palsy) and individual maternal outcomes (postpartum hemorrhage, third- and fourth-degree tears [severe lacerations], and postpartum infection). Outcomes were examined by the 3 attempted modes of delivery. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated for primary outcomes adjusting for confounders. Final mode of delivery was quantified. Results In all, 2531 women met inclusion criteria. No difference in the neonatal composite outcome was observed between groups. Vacuum attempt was associated with the lowest frequency of maternal complications (postpartum infection 0.2% vs 0.9% forceps vs 5.3% cesarean, postpartum hemorrhage 1.4% vs 2.8% forceps vs 3.8% cesarean), except for severe lacerations (19.1% vs 33.8% forceps vs 0% cesarean). When confounders were taken into account, both forceps (OR, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05–0.49) and vacuum (OR, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.01–0.17) were associated with a significantly
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.11.007
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4851577</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0002937815023005</els_id><sourcerecordid>1785746385</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c510t-8cc9e336cc1e67665d055ceca58c764f271331a6728b65009188654dc1900b083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9v1DAQxS0EotvCF-CAcuSSMGOv_0RClVBVClIlDsDZ8jqTxSEbL3YSab89ibZUwIGTZfu9N6PfY-wVQoWA6m1XuS7uKw4oK8QKQD9hG4Ral8oo85RtAICXtdDmgl3m3K1XXvPn7IIrWSsu1Iap29n1kxtDHIrYFg31YaZ0KuJxfcpFG1ORycehKfPo9lTQTMOYX7BnreszvXw4r9i3D7dfbz6W95_vPt28vy-9RBhL431NQijvkZRWSjYgpSfvpPFabVuuUQh0SnOzUxKgRmOU3DYea4AdGHHFrs-5x2l3oMYvs5Pr7TGFg0snG12wf_8M4bvdx9lujUSp9RLw5iEgxZ8T5dEeQvbU926gOGWL2ki9VcLIRcrPUp9izonaxzEIdgVuO7sCtytwi2gX4Ivp9Z8LPlp-E14E784CWjDNgZLNPtDgqQmJ_GibGP6ff_2P3fdhCN71P-hEuYtTGpYCLNrMLdgva8dr4yiBCwApfgHFIaYj</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1785746385</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of delivery options for second-stage events</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Bailit, Jennifer L., MD, MPH ; Grobman, William A., MD, MBA ; Rice, Madeline Murguia, PhD ; Wapner, Ronald J., MD ; Reddy, Uma M., MD, MPH ; Varner, Michael W., MD ; Thorp, John M., MD ; Caritis, Steve N., MD ; Iams, Jay D., MD ; Saade, George, MD ; Rouse, Dwight J., MD ; Tolosa, Jorge E., MD, MSCE</creator><creatorcontrib>Bailit, Jennifer L., MD, MPH ; Grobman, William A., MD, MBA ; Rice, Madeline Murguia, PhD ; Wapner, Ronald J., MD ; Reddy, Uma M., MD, MPH ; Varner, Michael W., MD ; Thorp, John M., MD ; Caritis, Steve N., MD ; Iams, Jay D., MD ; Saade, George, MD ; Rouse, Dwight J., MD ; Tolosa, Jorge E., MD, MSCE ; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network ; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network</creatorcontrib><description>Background Cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor is common, whereas the frequency of operative vaginal delivery has been declining. However, data comparing outcomes for attempted operative vaginal delivery vs cesarean in the second stage are scant. Previous studies that examine operative vaginal delivery have compared it to a baseline risk of complications from a spontaneous vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery. However, when a woman has a need for intervention in the second stage, spontaneous vaginal delivery is not an option she or the provider can choose. Thus, the appropriate clinical comparison is cesarean vs operative vaginal delivery. Objective Our objective was to compare outcomes by the first attempted operative delivery (vacuum, forceps vs cesarean delivery) in patients needing second-stage assistance at a fetal station of +2 or below. Study Design We conducted secondary analysis of an observational obstetric cohort in 25 academically affiliated US hospitals over a 3-year period. A subset of ≥37 weeks, nonanomalous, vertex, singletons, with no prior vaginal delivery who reached a station of +2 or below and underwent an attempt at an operative delivery were included. Indications included for operative delivery were: failure to descend, nonreassuring fetal status, labor dystocia, or maternal exhaustion. The primary outcomes included a composite neonatal outcome (death, fracture, length of stay ≥3 days beyond mother’s, low Apgar, subgaleal hemorrhage, ventilator support, hypoxic encephalopathy, brachial plexus injury, facial nerve palsy) and individual maternal outcomes (postpartum hemorrhage, third- and fourth-degree tears [severe lacerations], and postpartum infection). Outcomes were examined by the 3 attempted modes of delivery. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated for primary outcomes adjusting for confounders. Final mode of delivery was quantified. Results In all, 2531 women met inclusion criteria. No difference in the neonatal composite outcome was observed between groups. Vacuum attempt was associated with the lowest frequency of maternal complications (postpartum infection 0.2% vs 0.9% forceps vs 5.3% cesarean, postpartum hemorrhage 1.4% vs 2.8% forceps vs 3.8% cesarean), except for severe lacerations (19.1% vs 33.8% forceps vs 0% cesarean). When confounders were taken into account, both forceps (OR, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05–0.49) and vacuum (OR, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.01–0.17) were associated with a significantly lower odds of postpartum infection. The neonatal composite and postpartum hemorrhage were not significantly different between modes of attempted delivery. Cesarean occurred in 6.4% and 4.4% of attempted vacuum and forceps groups ( P  = .04). Conclusion In patients needing second-stage delivery assistance with a station of +2 or below, attempted operative vaginal delivery was associated with a lower frequency of postpartum infection, but higher frequency of severe lacerations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9378</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6868</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.11.007</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26596236</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Cesarean Section - adverse effects ; Cohort Studies ; Delivery, Obstetric ; Female ; forceps ; Humans ; Labor Stage, Second ; Lacerations - epidemiology ; Obstetrical Forceps - adverse effects ; Obstetrics and Gynecology ; operative vaginal delivery ; Postpartum Hemorrhage - epidemiology ; Pregnancy ; Puerperal Infection - epidemiology ; second stage of labor ; United States - epidemiology ; vacuum ; Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical - adverse effects</subject><ispartof>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2016-05, Vol.214 (5), p.638.e1-638.e10</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2016 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c510t-8cc9e336cc1e67665d055ceca58c764f271331a6728b65009188654dc1900b083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c510t-8cc9e336cc1e67665d055ceca58c764f271331a6728b65009188654dc1900b083</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9932-8908</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002937815023005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26596236$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bailit, Jennifer L., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grobman, William A., MD, MBA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rice, Madeline Murguia, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wapner, Ronald J., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reddy, Uma M., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varner, Michael W., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thorp, John M., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caritis, Steve N., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iams, Jay D., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saade, George, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rouse, Dwight J., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tolosa, Jorge E., MD, MSCE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of delivery options for second-stage events</title><title>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</title><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Background Cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor is common, whereas the frequency of operative vaginal delivery has been declining. However, data comparing outcomes for attempted operative vaginal delivery vs cesarean in the second stage are scant. Previous studies that examine operative vaginal delivery have compared it to a baseline risk of complications from a spontaneous vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery. However, when a woman has a need for intervention in the second stage, spontaneous vaginal delivery is not an option she or the provider can choose. Thus, the appropriate clinical comparison is cesarean vs operative vaginal delivery. Objective Our objective was to compare outcomes by the first attempted operative delivery (vacuum, forceps vs cesarean delivery) in patients needing second-stage assistance at a fetal station of +2 or below. Study Design We conducted secondary analysis of an observational obstetric cohort in 25 academically affiliated US hospitals over a 3-year period. A subset of ≥37 weeks, nonanomalous, vertex, singletons, with no prior vaginal delivery who reached a station of +2 or below and underwent an attempt at an operative delivery were included. Indications included for operative delivery were: failure to descend, nonreassuring fetal status, labor dystocia, or maternal exhaustion. The primary outcomes included a composite neonatal outcome (death, fracture, length of stay ≥3 days beyond mother’s, low Apgar, subgaleal hemorrhage, ventilator support, hypoxic encephalopathy, brachial plexus injury, facial nerve palsy) and individual maternal outcomes (postpartum hemorrhage, third- and fourth-degree tears [severe lacerations], and postpartum infection). Outcomes were examined by the 3 attempted modes of delivery. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated for primary outcomes adjusting for confounders. Final mode of delivery was quantified. Results In all, 2531 women met inclusion criteria. No difference in the neonatal composite outcome was observed between groups. Vacuum attempt was associated with the lowest frequency of maternal complications (postpartum infection 0.2% vs 0.9% forceps vs 5.3% cesarean, postpartum hemorrhage 1.4% vs 2.8% forceps vs 3.8% cesarean), except for severe lacerations (19.1% vs 33.8% forceps vs 0% cesarean). When confounders were taken into account, both forceps (OR, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05–0.49) and vacuum (OR, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.01–0.17) were associated with a significantly lower odds of postpartum infection. The neonatal composite and postpartum hemorrhage were not significantly different between modes of attempted delivery. Cesarean occurred in 6.4% and 4.4% of attempted vacuum and forceps groups ( P  = .04). Conclusion In patients needing second-stage delivery assistance with a station of +2 or below, attempted operative vaginal delivery was associated with a lower frequency of postpartum infection, but higher frequency of severe lacerations.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Cesarean Section - adverse effects</subject><subject>Cohort Studies</subject><subject>Delivery, Obstetric</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>forceps</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Labor Stage, Second</subject><subject>Lacerations - epidemiology</subject><subject>Obstetrical Forceps - adverse effects</subject><subject>Obstetrics and Gynecology</subject><subject>operative vaginal delivery</subject><subject>Postpartum Hemorrhage - epidemiology</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Puerperal Infection - epidemiology</subject><subject>second stage of labor</subject><subject>United States - epidemiology</subject><subject>vacuum</subject><subject>Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical - adverse effects</subject><issn>0002-9378</issn><issn>1097-6868</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU9v1DAQxS0EotvCF-CAcuSSMGOv_0RClVBVClIlDsDZ8jqTxSEbL3YSab89ibZUwIGTZfu9N6PfY-wVQoWA6m1XuS7uKw4oK8QKQD9hG4Ral8oo85RtAICXtdDmgl3m3K1XXvPn7IIrWSsu1Iap29n1kxtDHIrYFg31YaZ0KuJxfcpFG1ORycehKfPo9lTQTMOYX7BnreszvXw4r9i3D7dfbz6W95_vPt28vy-9RBhL431NQijvkZRWSjYgpSfvpPFabVuuUQh0SnOzUxKgRmOU3DYea4AdGHHFrs-5x2l3oMYvs5Pr7TGFg0snG12wf_8M4bvdx9lujUSp9RLw5iEgxZ8T5dEeQvbU926gOGWL2ki9VcLIRcrPUp9izonaxzEIdgVuO7sCtytwi2gX4Ivp9Z8LPlp-E14E784CWjDNgZLNPtDgqQmJ_GibGP6ff_2P3fdhCN71P-hEuYtTGpYCLNrMLdgva8dr4yiBCwApfgHFIaYj</recordid><startdate>20160501</startdate><enddate>20160501</enddate><creator>Bailit, Jennifer L., MD, MPH</creator><creator>Grobman, William A., MD, MBA</creator><creator>Rice, Madeline Murguia, PhD</creator><creator>Wapner, Ronald J., MD</creator><creator>Reddy, Uma M., MD, MPH</creator><creator>Varner, Michael W., MD</creator><creator>Thorp, John M., MD</creator><creator>Caritis, Steve N., MD</creator><creator>Iams, Jay D., MD</creator><creator>Saade, George, MD</creator><creator>Rouse, Dwight J., MD</creator><creator>Tolosa, Jorge E., MD, MSCE</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</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><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9932-8908</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20160501</creationdate><title>Evaluation of delivery options for second-stage events</title><author>Bailit, Jennifer L., MD, MPH ; Grobman, William A., MD, MBA ; Rice, Madeline Murguia, PhD ; Wapner, Ronald J., MD ; Reddy, Uma M., MD, MPH ; Varner, Michael W., MD ; Thorp, John M., MD ; Caritis, Steve N., MD ; Iams, Jay D., MD ; Saade, George, MD ; Rouse, Dwight J., MD ; Tolosa, Jorge E., MD, MSCE</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c510t-8cc9e336cc1e67665d055ceca58c764f271331a6728b65009188654dc1900b083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Cesarean Section - adverse effects</topic><topic>Cohort Studies</topic><topic>Delivery, Obstetric</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>forceps</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Labor Stage, Second</topic><topic>Lacerations - epidemiology</topic><topic>Obstetrical Forceps - adverse effects</topic><topic>Obstetrics and Gynecology</topic><topic>operative vaginal delivery</topic><topic>Postpartum Hemorrhage - epidemiology</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Puerperal Infection - epidemiology</topic><topic>second stage of labor</topic><topic>United States - epidemiology</topic><topic>vacuum</topic><topic>Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical - adverse effects</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bailit, Jennifer L., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Grobman, William A., MD, MBA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rice, Madeline Murguia, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wapner, Ronald J., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reddy, Uma M., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varner, Michael W., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thorp, John M., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caritis, Steve N., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Iams, Jay D., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saade, George, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rouse, Dwight J., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tolosa, Jorge E., MD, MSCE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network</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><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bailit, Jennifer L., MD, MPH</au><au>Grobman, William A., MD, MBA</au><au>Rice, Madeline Murguia, PhD</au><au>Wapner, Ronald J., MD</au><au>Reddy, Uma M., MD, MPH</au><au>Varner, Michael W., MD</au><au>Thorp, John M., MD</au><au>Caritis, Steve N., MD</au><au>Iams, Jay D., MD</au><au>Saade, George, MD</au><au>Rouse, Dwight J., MD</au><au>Tolosa, Jorge E., MD, MSCE</au><aucorp>National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network</aucorp><aucorp>Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of delivery options for second-stage events</atitle><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2016-05-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>214</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>638.e1</spage><epage>638.e10</epage><pages>638.e1-638.e10</pages><issn>0002-9378</issn><eissn>1097-6868</eissn><abstract>Background Cesarean delivery in the second stage of labor is common, whereas the frequency of operative vaginal delivery has been declining. However, data comparing outcomes for attempted operative vaginal delivery vs cesarean in the second stage are scant. Previous studies that examine operative vaginal delivery have compared it to a baseline risk of complications from a spontaneous vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery. However, when a woman has a need for intervention in the second stage, spontaneous vaginal delivery is not an option she or the provider can choose. Thus, the appropriate clinical comparison is cesarean vs operative vaginal delivery. Objective Our objective was to compare outcomes by the first attempted operative delivery (vacuum, forceps vs cesarean delivery) in patients needing second-stage assistance at a fetal station of +2 or below. Study Design We conducted secondary analysis of an observational obstetric cohort in 25 academically affiliated US hospitals over a 3-year period. A subset of ≥37 weeks, nonanomalous, vertex, singletons, with no prior vaginal delivery who reached a station of +2 or below and underwent an attempt at an operative delivery were included. Indications included for operative delivery were: failure to descend, nonreassuring fetal status, labor dystocia, or maternal exhaustion. The primary outcomes included a composite neonatal outcome (death, fracture, length of stay ≥3 days beyond mother’s, low Apgar, subgaleal hemorrhage, ventilator support, hypoxic encephalopathy, brachial plexus injury, facial nerve palsy) and individual maternal outcomes (postpartum hemorrhage, third- and fourth-degree tears [severe lacerations], and postpartum infection). Outcomes were examined by the 3 attempted modes of delivery. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated for primary outcomes adjusting for confounders. Final mode of delivery was quantified. Results In all, 2531 women met inclusion criteria. No difference in the neonatal composite outcome was observed between groups. Vacuum attempt was associated with the lowest frequency of maternal complications (postpartum infection 0.2% vs 0.9% forceps vs 5.3% cesarean, postpartum hemorrhage 1.4% vs 2.8% forceps vs 3.8% cesarean), except for severe lacerations (19.1% vs 33.8% forceps vs 0% cesarean). When confounders were taken into account, both forceps (OR, 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.05–0.49) and vacuum (OR, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.01–0.17) were associated with a significantly lower odds of postpartum infection. The neonatal composite and postpartum hemorrhage were not significantly different between modes of attempted delivery. Cesarean occurred in 6.4% and 4.4% of attempted vacuum and forceps groups ( P  = .04). Conclusion In patients needing second-stage delivery assistance with a station of +2 or below, attempted operative vaginal delivery was associated with a lower frequency of postpartum infection, but higher frequency of severe lacerations.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>26596236</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajog.2015.11.007</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9932-8908</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-9378
ispartof American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2016-05, Vol.214 (5), p.638.e1-638.e10
issn 0002-9378
1097-6868
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4851577
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Adult
Cesarean Section - adverse effects
Cohort Studies
Delivery, Obstetric
Female
forceps
Humans
Labor Stage, Second
Lacerations - epidemiology
Obstetrical Forceps - adverse effects
Obstetrics and Gynecology
operative vaginal delivery
Postpartum Hemorrhage - epidemiology
Pregnancy
Puerperal Infection - epidemiology
second stage of labor
United States - epidemiology
vacuum
Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical - adverse effects
title Evaluation of delivery options for second-stage events
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T20%3A30%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20delivery%20options%20for%20second-stage%20events&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynecology&rft.au=Bailit,%20Jennifer%20L.,%20MD,%20MPH&rft.aucorp=National%C2%A0Institute%C2%A0of%C2%A0Child%20Health%20and%20Human%20Development%20Maternal-Fetal%20Medicine%20Units%20Network&rft.date=2016-05-01&rft.volume=214&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=638.e1&rft.epage=638.e10&rft.pages=638.e1-638.e10&rft.issn=0002-9378&rft.eissn=1097-6868&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.11.007&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1785746385%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1785746385&rft_id=info:pmid/26596236&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0002937815023005&rfr_iscdi=true