Premium
Is the Vacuum Extractor Really the Instrument of First Choice?
Author(s) -
Chan C.C.T.,
Malath I.,
Yeo G.S.H.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
australian and new zealand journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.734
H-Index - 65
eISSN - 1479-828X
pISSN - 0004-8666
DOI - 10.1111/j.1479-828x.1999.tb03402.x
Subject(s) - vacuum extractor , forceps , extractor , vacuum extraction , medicine , obstetrics , surgery , engineering , process engineering
Summary: This study was a retrospective analysis of the pattern of usage of both the forceps and vacuum extractor as well as the neonatal outcome on all the instrumental deliveries conducted in 1995 at the Kandang Kerbau Hospital, Singapore. There were a total of 927 forceps deliveries and 495 vacuum extractions but neonatal data was available for only 481 forceps and 255 vacuum extractor babies. (There were 2 neonatal units which accepted admissions on alternate days; all of the data were collected from 1 of the units only). Demographic data were comparable in most aspects except that vacuum deliveries were significantly associated with higher parity and shorter labours. There was a trend towards using the vacuum extractor in less difficult cases. Almost all the instrumental deliveries were conducted by specialists. Birth trauma was significantly more likely to occur with the vacuum extractor. Almost all the deliveries were conducted with similar expertise in both groups, yet the use of the vacuum extractor resulted in more birth trauma even in the presence of ‘easier’ cases. This may suggest an inherent risk in using the vacuum extractor.