Clinical Case Database / Category: Clinical Care

Operative vaginal delivery: Are forceps always better than a Kiwi Omnicup?

Publication details

Hayser Medina Lucena, MBChB, MRCOG,, Harnek Rai, MBChB, MRCOG, FRANZCOG,
Foundation Years Journal, volume 8, issue 7, p.21 (123Doc Education, London, July 2014)

Abstract

After centuries of use in obstetrics, have forceps and vacuum deliveries become a dying art? For example, following a number of poor outcomes with Kielland’s forceps in the 1970s, their use has no longer been taught to obstetricians, with the result that usage was abandoned in some units, while rigorous training and use continued elsewhere (1). Contemporary trends in operative vaginal delivery show increasing numbers of vacuum deliveries and corresponding decreasing numbers of forceps deliveries worldwide (2). In the UK the overall rate of operative vaginal deliveries is between 10 and 13%. This rate has remained stable over many years compared with caesarean section rates, which have continued to climb. It is difficult to determine exactly why forceps have fallen out of fashion and been replaced by Ventouse (vacuum). Although Kiwi Omnicup (vacuum delivery) is associated with less perineal trauma, it has a higher failure rate than forceps. Could this be contributing to the caesarean-section increase rate? A safe operative vaginal delivery requires careful assessment of the clinical situation, clear communication with the patient and healthcare personnel and operator expertise in the chosen procedure. It is crucial to anticipate any complication such as shoulder dystocia, postpartum haemorrhage or an obstetric anal sphincter injury.

Access the Clinical Cases Database

A subscription is required to read the full article. Please subscribe using one of the options below.

Authors

Hayser Medina Lucena, MBChB, MRCOG,

ST4 in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, West Suffolk Hospital,
Hardwick Lane, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP33 2QZ
hmlucena@doctors.org.uk

Harnek Rai, MBChB, MRCOG, FRANZCOG,

Consultant Gynaecologist, Peterborough and
Stamford Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Edith Cavell Campus,
Bretton Gate, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, PE3 9GZ
harnek.rai@pbh-tr.nhs.uk

References

1. Clarkson C. Do Kielland forceps have a role in modern obstetrics? NCT’s journal on preparing parents for birth and early parenthood 2012, 10
2. Goetzinger K, Macones G. Operative vaginal delivery: current trends in obstetrics. Women’s Health Journal 2008, 4(3):281-290
3. Talaulikar V, Arulkumaran S. Malpositions and malpresentations of the fetal head. Obstetrics,
Gynaecology and reproductive Medicine 2012, 22:155-161
4. Luesley DM, Baker PN Obstetric and Gynaecology An evidence–based text for MRCOG 2nd edition. London: Hodder Education, an Hachette UK Company 2010, 425-435
5. Aye S, Miller V, Saxena S et al. Management of large-for-gestational-age pregnancy in non-diabetic women. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist journal (TOG). 2010, 12 (4): 250–256
6. Sinha P, Dutta A, Langford K. Instrumental delivery: how to meet the need for improvements in training. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist journal (TOG) 2010, 12, (4):265–271
7. Edgar D, Baskett T, Young D et al. Neonatal Outcome Following Failed Kiwi OmniCup Vacuum Extraction. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada: JOGC = Journal D’obstetrique et Gynecologie du Canada: JOGC. 2012, 34(7):620-625
8. Werkoff G, Morel O, Desfeux P et al. Kiwi vacuum extractor versus forceps and spatula: maternal and fetal morbidity evaluation in 169 fetal extractions. Gynecologie, Obstetrique & Fertilite Journal 2010, 38(11):653-659
9. O’Mahony F, Hofmeyr G, Menon V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery (Review). The Cochrane Library, 2010, Issue 11:9-10

Disclaimers

Conflict Of Interest

The Journal requires that authors disclose any potential conflict of interest that they may have. This is clearly stated in the Journal’s published “Guidelines for Authors”. The Journal follows the Guidelines against Conflict of Interest published in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf).

Financial Statement

The authors of this article have not been paid. The Journal is financed by subscriptions and advertising. The Journal does not receive money from any other sources. The decision to accept or refuse this article for publication was free from financial considerations and was solely the responsibility of the Editorial Panel and Editor-in-Chief.

Patient Consent statement

All pictures and investigations shown in this article are shown with the patients’ consent. We require Authors to maintain patients’ anonymity and to obtain consent to report investigations and pictures involving human subjects when anonymity may be compromised. The Journal follows the Guidelines of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf). The Journal requires in its Guidelines for Authors a statement from Authors that “the subject gave informed consent”.

Animal & Human Rights

When reporting experiments on human subjects, the Journal requires authors to indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the HelsinkiDeclaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

About the Clinical Cases Database

T​he Foundation Years Clinical Cases Database is​ a selection of 600 peer-reviewed clinical cases in the field of patient safety and clinical practice, specifically focused on the clinical information needs of junior doctors, based around the Foundation Year Curriculum programme (MMC). The cases have been chosen to align with the Foundation Year Curriculum.

The database is fully searchable, or can be browsed by medical specialty. Abstracts can be read free of charge, however a subscription is required in order to read the complete cases.