-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.
OBJECTIVES
To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (25 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e. regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death using the GRADE methodology: all primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = eight; high quality) and less all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = four), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss less than 24 weeks and neonatal death (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = seven), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = three) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = seven). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss equal to/after 24 weeks and neonatal death, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and all fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.
Topics: Amnion; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Continuity of Patient Care; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Midwifery; Models, Organizational; Patient Satisfaction; Perinatal Care; Postnatal Care; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27121907
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2017Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics may be prescribed to prevent these infections. However, the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal deliveries is still unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries including vacuum or forceps deliveries, or both.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (12 July 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 July 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised trials comparing any prophylactic antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing vacuum or forceps deliveries were eligible. Participants were all pregnant women without evidence of infections or other indications for antibiotics of any gestational age undergoing vacuum or forceps delivery for any indications. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium) compared with either placebo or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality. Two review authors extracted the data independently using prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and a consensus reached through discussion with all review authors. We assessed methodological quality of the one included trial using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
One trial, involving 393 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, was included. The trial compared the antibiotic intravenous cefotetan after cord clamping compared with no treatment. This trial reported only two out of the nine outcomes specified in this review. Seven women in the group given no antibiotics had endomyometritis and none in prophylactic antibiotic group, the risk reduction was 93% (risk ratio (RR) 0.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 1.21; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (mean difference (MD) 0.09 days; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41; low-quality evidence). Overall, the risk of bias was judged to be unclear. The quality of the evidence using GRADE was low for both endometritis and maternal length of stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
One small trial was identified reporting only two outcomes. Evidence from this single trial suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis may lead to little or no difference in endometritis or maternal length of stay. There were no data on any other outcomes to evaluate the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis after operative vaginal delivery. Future research on antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery is needed to conclude whether it is useful for reducing postpartum morbidity.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Endometritis; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Obstetrical Forceps; Pregnancy; Puerperal Infection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical; Vaginal Diseases
PubMed: 28779515
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub4 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Jul 2023There is conflicting evidence regarding the safety of Kielland's rotational forceps delivery (KRFD) in comparison with other modes of delivery for the management of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is conflicting evidence regarding the safety of Kielland's rotational forceps delivery (KRFD) in comparison with other modes of delivery for the management of persistent fetal malposition in the second stage of labour.
OBJECTIVES
To derive estimates of risks of maternal and neonatal complications following KRFD, compared with rotational ventouse delivery (RVD), non-rotational forceps delivery (NRFD) or a second-stage caesarean section (CS), from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Standard search methodology, as recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Case series, prospective or retrospective cohort studies and population-based studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to derive weighted pooled estimates of maternal and neonatal complications.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included. For postpartum haemorrhage there was no significant difference between Kielland's and ventouse delivery; the rate was lower in Kielland's delivery compared with non-rotational forceps (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.95) and second-stage CS (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36-0.58). There were no differences in the rates of anal sphincter injuries or admission to neonatal intensive care. Rates of shoulder dystocia were higher with Kielland's delivery compared with ventouse delivery (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.08-2.98), but rates of neonatal birth trauma were lower (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.91). There were no differences seen in the rates of 5-min APGAR score < 7 between Kielland's delivery and other instrumental births, but they were lower when compared with second-stage CS (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.97).
CONCLUSIONS
Kielland's rotational forceps delivery is a safe option for the management of fetal malposition in the second stage of labour.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Extraction, Obstetrical; Obstetrical Forceps; Cesarean Section; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Obstetric Labor Complications; Infant, Newborn, Diseases
PubMed: 36694989
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.17402 -
BJOG : An International Journal of... Mar 2022There is variation in the reported incidence rates of levator avulsion (LA) and paucity of research into its risk factors.
BACKGROUND
There is variation in the reported incidence rates of levator avulsion (LA) and paucity of research into its risk factors.
OBJECTIVE
To explore the incidence rate of LA by mode of birth, imaging modality, timing of diagnosis and laterality of avulsion.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and MIDIRS with no language restriction from inception to April 2019.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
A study was included if LA was assessed by an imaging modality after the first vaginal birth or caesarean section. Case series and reports were not included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
RevMan v5.3 was used for the meta-analyses and SW SAS and STATISTICA packages were used for type and timing of imaging analyses.
RESULTS
We included 37 primary non-randomised studies from 17 countries and involving 5594 women. Incidence rates of LA were 1, 15, 21, 38.5 and 52% following caesarean, spontaneous, vacuum, spatula and forceps births, respectively, with no differences by imaging modality. Odds ratio of LA following spontaneous birth versus caesarean section was 10.69. The odds ratios for LA following vacuum and forceps compared with spontaneous birth were 1.66 and 6.32, respectively. LA was more likely to occur unilaterally than bilaterally following spontaneous (P < 0.0001) and vacuum-assisted (P = 0.0103) births but not forceps. Incidence was higher if assessment was performed in the first 4 weeks postpartum.
CONCLUSIONS
LA incidence rates following caesarean, spontaneous, vacuum and forceps deliveries were 1, 15, 21 and 52%, respectively. Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging were comparable tools for LA diagnosis.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Levator avulsion incidence rates after caesarean, spontaneous, vacuum and forceps deliveries were 1, 15, 21 and 52%, respectively.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Incidence; Pelvic Floor Disorders; Pregnancy; Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical
PubMed: 34245656
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.16837 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics may be prescribed to prevent these infections. However, the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal deliveries is still unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries including vacuum or forceps deliveries, or both.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised trials comparing any prophylactic antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing vacuum or forceps deliveries were eligible. Participants were all pregnant women without evidence of infections or other indications for antibiotics of any gestational age undergoing vacuum or forceps delivery for any indications. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium) compared with either placebo or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality. Two review authors extracted the data independently using prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and a consensus reached through discussion with all review authors. For this update, we assessed methodological quality of the one included trial using the standard Cochrane criteria and the GRADE approach. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) using a fixed-effect model and all the review authors interpreted and discussed the results.
MAIN RESULTS
One trial, involving 393 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, was included. This trial identified only two out of the nine outcomes specified in this review. It reported seven women with endomyometritis in the group given no antibiotic and none in prophylactic antibiotic group. This difference did not reach statistical significance, but the risk reduction was 93% (risk ratio (RR) 0.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 1.21). There was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (mean difference (MD) 0.09 days; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41). Overall, the risk of bias was judged as low. The quality of the evidence using GRADE was low for both endometritis and maternal length of stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The data were too few to make any recommendations for practice. Future research on antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery is needed to conclude whether it is useful for reducing postpartum morbidity.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Endometritis; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Obstetrical Forceps; Pregnancy; Puerperal Infection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical; Vaginal Diseases
PubMed: 25308837
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub3 -
Current Opinion in Obstetrics &... Dec 2015The use of Kielland's forceps has declined significantly in the last three decades. There is a lack of quality evidence on potential benefits and harms associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The use of Kielland's forceps has declined significantly in the last three decades. There is a lack of quality evidence on potential benefits and harms associated with using these forceps. We have performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of using Kielland's forceps.
RECENT FINDINGS
We have searched electronic databases for all clinical studies reporting primary data on using Kielland's forceps and assessed their risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We have pooled the event rate of adverse outcomes reported following the use of Kielland's forceps including a direct comparison to rotational ventouse. In total we included 23 studies. Direct comparison meta-analysis revealed higher failure rate with rotational ventouse compared with Kielland's. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of adverse maternal outcomes between the two groups. There was higher risk of neonatal trauma in the ventouse group, but no significant difference in other neonatal outcomes.
SUMMARY
Kielland's forceps have a high success rate with relatively low adverse outcomes despite their use being controversial. In comparison to rotational ventouse, Kielland's forceps have higher efficacy with less risk of neonatal trauma.
Topics: Anal Canal; Birth Injuries; Delivery, Obstetric; Evidence-Based Medicine; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Obstetric Labor Complications; Obstetrical Forceps; Patient Safety; Patient Selection; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pregnancy; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 26485456
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000221 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics may be prescribed to prevent these infections. However, the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal deliveries is still unclear. This is an update of a review last published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries including vacuum or forceps delivery, or both.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials comparing any prophylactic antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing vacuum or forceps deliveries were eligible. Participants were all pregnant women without evidence of infections or other indications for antibiotics of any gestational age. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Two review authors extracted the data independently using prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and a consensus reached through discussion with all review authors. We assessed methodological quality of the two included studies using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Two studies, involving 3813 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, were included. One study involving 393 women compared the antibiotic intravenous cefotetan after cord clamping compared with no treatment. The other study involving 3420 women compared a single dose of intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid with placebo using 20 mL of intravenous sterile 0.9% saline. The evidence suggests that prophylactic antibiotics reduce superficial perineal wound infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence), deep perineal wound infection (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence) and probably reduce wound breakdown (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; women = 2593; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). We are unclear about the effect on organ or space perineal wound infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.05; women = 3420; 1 study) and endometritis (average RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.64; 15/1907 versus 30/1906; women = 3813; 2 studies) based on low-certainty evidence with wide CIs that include no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics probably lower serious infectious complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). They also have an important effect on reduction of confirmed or suspected maternal infection. The two included studies did not report on fever or urinary tract infection. It is unclear, based on low-certainty evidence, whether prophylactic antibiotics have any impact on maternal adverse reactions (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.05; women = 2593; 1 study) and maternal length of stay (MD 0.09 days, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41; women = 393; 1 study) as the CIs were wide and included no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain and probably reduce costs. Prophylactic antibiotics did not have an important effect on dyspareunia (difficult or painful sexual intercourse) or breastfeeding at six weeks. Antibiotic prophylaxis may slightly improve maternal hospital re-admission and maternal health-related quality of life. Neonatal adverse reactions were not reported in any included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Prophylactic intravenous antibiotics are effective in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in terms of superficial and deep perineal wound infection or serious infectious complications in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries without clinical indications for antibiotic administration after delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain, probably reduce the costs, and may slightly reduce the maternal hospital re-admission and health-related quality of life. However, the effect on reduction of endometritis, organ or space perineal wound infection, maternal adverse reactions and maternal length of stay is unclear due to low-certainty evidence. As the evidence was mainly derived from a single multi-centre study conducted in a high-income setting, future well-designed randomised trials in other settings, particularly in low- and middle-income settings, are required to confirm the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery.
Topics: Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cefotetan; Endometritis; Episiotomy; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Obstetrical Forceps; Perineum; Pregnancy; Puerperal Infection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical; Vaginal Diseases
PubMed: 32215906
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Caesarean section involves making an incision in the woman's abdomen and cutting through the uterine muscle. The baby is then delivered through that incision. Difficult... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Caesarean section involves making an incision in the woman's abdomen and cutting through the uterine muscle. The baby is then delivered through that incision. Difficult caesarean birth may result in injury for the infant or complications for the mother. Methods to assist with delivery include vacuum or forceps extraction or manual delivery utilising fundal pressure. Medication that relaxes the uterus (tocolytic medication) may facilitate the birth of the baby at caesarean section. Delivery of the impacted head after prolonged obstructed labour can be associated with significant maternal and neonatal complication; to facilitate delivery of the head the surgeon may utilise either reverse breech extraction or head pushing.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the use of tocolysis (routine or selective use) with no use of tocolysis or placebo and to compare different extraction methods at the time of caesarean section for outcomes of infant birth trauma, maternal complications (particularly postpartum haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion), and long-term measures of infant and childhood morbidity.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials comparing the use of tocolytic agents (routine or selective) at caesarean section versus no use of tocolytic or placebo at caesarean section to facilitate the birth of the baby. Use of instrument versus manual delivery to facilitate birth of the baby. Reverse breech extraction versus head pushing to facilitate delivery of the deeply impacted fetal head.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
Seven randomised controlled trials, involving 582 women undergoing caesarean section were included in this review. The risk of bias of included trials was variable, with some trials not adequately describing allocation or randomisation.Three comparisons were included. 1. Tocolysis versus no tocolysisA single randomised trial involving 97 women was identified and included in the review. Birth trauma was not reported. There were no cases of any maternal side-effect reported in either the nitroglycerin or the placebo group. No other maternal and infant health outcomes were reported. 2. Reverse breech extraction versus head push for the deeply impacted head at full dilation at caesarean section Four randomised trials involving 357 women were identified and included in the review. The primary outcome of birth trauma was reported by three trials and there was no difference between reverse breech extraction and head push for this rare outcome (three studies, 239 women, risk ratio (RR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 5.73). Secondary outcomes including endometritis rate (three studies, 285 women, average RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.05, Tau I² = 0.22, I² = 56%), extension of uterine incision (four studies, 357 women, average RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.40), mean blood loss (three studies, 298 women, mean difference (MD) -294.92, 95% CI -493.25 to -96.59; I² = 98%) and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)/special care nursery (SCN) admission (two studies, 226 babies, average RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.22, Tau I² = 0.27, I² = 74%) were decreased with reverse breech extraction. No differences were observed between groups for many of the other secondary outcomes reported (blood loss > 500 mL; blood transfusion; wound infection; mean hospital stay; average Apgar score).There was significant heterogeneity between the trials for the outcomes mean blood loss, operative time and mean hospital stay, making comparison difficult. However the operation duration was significantly shorter for reverse breech extraction, which may correspond with ease of delivery and therefore, the amount of tissue trauma and therefore, significantly less blood loss. Given the heterogeneity, we cannot define the amount of difference in blood loss, operative time or hospital stay however. 3. Instrument (vacuum or forceps) versus manual extraction at elective caesarean section Two randomised trials involving 128 women were identified and included in the review. Only one trial reported maternal and infant health outcomes as prespecified in this review. This trial reported birth trauma as an outcome but there were no instances of birth trauma in either comparison group. There were no differences found in mean fall in haemoglobin (Hb) between groups (one study, 44 women, MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.59), or in uterine incision extension (one study, 44 women, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.73).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently insufficient information available from randomised trials to support or refute the routine or selective use of tocolytic agents or instrument to facilitate infant birth at the time of difficult caesarean section. There is limited evidence that reverse breech extraction may improve maternal and fetal outcomes, though there was no difference in primary outcome of infant birth trauma. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to answer these questions.
Topics: Birth Injuries; Cesarean Section; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tocolysis; Tocolytic Agents
PubMed: 26827159
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004944.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.
OBJECTIVES
To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e., regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and overall fetal loss and neonatal death (fetal loss was assessed by gestation using 24 weeks as the cut-off for viability in many countries) using the GRADE methodology: All primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = 8; high quality) and less overall fetal/neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = 4), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss/neonatal death before 24 weeks (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = 7), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = 3) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = 7). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss or neonatal death more than or equal to 24 weeks, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and overall fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.
Topics: Amnion; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Continuity of Patient Care; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Midwifery; Models, Organizational; Patient Satisfaction; Perinatal Care; Postnatal Care; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26370160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub4 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Oct 2019To perform a systematic review of the literature on the effect of simulation training of operative vaginal delivery on learner technique and knowledge, operator comfort,...
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review of the literature on the effect of simulation training of operative vaginal delivery on learner technique and knowledge, operator comfort, and patient-centered outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception through April 2017. The search criteria used MeSH terms ("simulation training," "high fidelity simulation training," "teaching," "obstetrical extraction," "obstetrical forceps," "vaginal delivery," "clinical competence," and "internship and residency").
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
A total of 30,813 articles were reviewed for inclusion. Studies detailing operative vaginal delivery simulation using forceps or vacuums and reporting health care provider or patient outcomes were eligible.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
All studies were independently reviewed by two investigators for inclusion. Only eight articles assessed the effect of simulation on trainee skill and comfort or patient outcomes and were included. Four were pretest-posttest studies, two were cross-sectional studies, one was a case-control study, and one was a cohort study. No randomized trials were identified. Simulation was associated with improved forceps placement accuracy and generated force during extraction, as well as increased operator knowledge and comfort with operative vaginal delivery. Additionally, simulation had no association with forceps failure rates, but there was an association with decreased rates of maternal lacerations and neonatal injury. The quality of the included studies was assessed with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument, with a median score of 9.75 (range 9.0-13.5), indicating low-to-moderate quality.
CONCLUSION
The available evidence suggests that improved technique, comfort, knowledge, and patient outcomes are associated with operative vaginal delivery simulation, but additional studies are required to further characterize such benefits for both forceps and vacuum.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO, CRD42018087343.
Topics: Clinical Competence; Delivery, Obstetric; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Obstetrics; Patient Outcome Assessment; Pregnancy; Simulation Training
PubMed: 31568036
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003431