4.5 Article

Trends in instrument preference for operative vaginal delivery in a tertiary referral center: 2008-2021

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS
Volume 162, Issue 2, Pages 752-758

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14736

Keywords

forceps; labor ward management; operative vaginal delivery; perineal trauma; vacuum

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective study examined trends in operative vaginal deliveries over a 15-year period and found a decline in the rate of operative vaginal delivery and an increase in the use of vacuum-assisted deliveries compared to forceps-assisted deliveries. Perineal trauma rates remained unchanged during the study period.
ObjectiveTo examine temporal trends in operative vaginal deliveries as well as the ratio between vacuum and forceps deliveries over 15 years in a large tertiary hospital. MethodsThis retrospective study assessed prospectively collected data from 2008 to 2021. Women with greater than 37 weeks of gestation who underwent an operative vaginal delivery were included. The rate and ratio of instrumental deliveries and perineal trauma were recorded. ResultsFrom 2008 to 2021 there was a total of 109 230 term deliveries, of which 20 151 were an operative vaginal delivery. The rate of operative vaginal delivery as a proportion of all term deliveries decreased from 21.9% (1547 of 7069) in 2008 to 17.1% in 2021 (1428 of 8338, P < 0.001). The ratio between vacuum and forceps-assisted deliveries decreased significantly over the study period, from 7.06 in 2008 to 2.39 in 2021 (P < 0.001). Perineal trauma remained unchanged during the study period. ConclusionOperative vaginal delivery rates declined over the 15-year study period. While vacuum-assisted vaginal deliveries remain the favored instrument, forceps-assisted deliveries are becoming more prevalent. The cause for this change in practice is unclear but is likely multifactorial.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available