Advertisement

Operative Vaginal Birth

  • Stephen O’Brien
  • Mohamed ElHodaiby
  • Tim Draycott
Chapter

Abstract

The rate of operative vaginal births (OVBs) is stable in the UK running at approximately 12% of all deliveries. OVB is in the main a safe practice when performed in the correct setting by an appropriately trained operator, producing good outcomes for the majority of mothers and babies. There should be a balance of risk. Instrumental delivery is safer than a caesarean section at full dilatation for the mother and causes less impact on future pregnancies, as most women will achieve a vaginal birth in a subsequent pregnancy. A caesarean section at full dilatation, however, shows reduced rates of traumatic birth injury to the baby. Despite the fact that in most cases the outcomes are good for forceps and vacuum assisted deliveries, these births still generate a considerable cost in terms of litigation when they are performed sub optimally, or when the baby is born in poor condition. All obstetricians require appropriate training and supervision to ensure these deliveries are performed safely in line with national guidance.

Keywords

Operative vaginal delivery Obstetric forceps Vacuum assisted vaginal delivery Ventouse delivery Rotational ventouse delivery Kiwi cup Kiellands forceps Mid cavity forceps Rotational delivery Rotational forceps 

References

  1. 1.
    Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L, Swingler R, Patel R. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet. 2001;358(9289):1203–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murphy DJ, Koh DKM. Cohort study of the decision to delivery interval and neonatal outcome for emergency operative vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(2):145.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahl R, Strachan B, Murphy DJ. Outcome of subsequent pregnancy three years after previous operative delivery in the second stage of labour: cohort study. BMJ. 2004;328(7435):311.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jolly J, Walker J, Bhabra K. Subsequent obstetric performance related to primary mode of delivery. BJOG. 1999;106(3):227–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark EAS, Silver RM. Long-term maternal morbidity associated with repeat cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(6 Suppl):S2–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moraitis AA, Oliver-Williams C, Wood AM, Fleming M, Pell JP, Smith G. Previous caesarean delivery and the risk of unexplained stillbirth: retrospective cohort study and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2015;122(11):1467–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    NHS Litigation Authority. Ten years of maternity claims. London: NHS Litigation Authority; 2012.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    RCOG. Operative vaginal delivery. 2011. pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Watts P, Maguire S, Kwok T, Talabani B, Mann M, Wiener J, et al. Newborn retinal hemorrhages: a systematic review. J AAPOS Elsevier. 2013;17(1):70–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Senécal J, Xiong X, Fraser WD. Pushing early or pushing late with epidural study group. Effect of fetal position on second-stage duration and labor outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(4):763–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bahl R, Murphy DJ, Strachan B. Qualitative analysis by interviews and video recordings to establish the components of a skilled rotational forceps delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Elsevier. 2013;170(2):341–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aiken AR, Aiken CE, Alberry MS, Brockelsby JC, Scott JG. Management of fetal malposition in the second stage of labor: a propensity score analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(3):355.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O'Brien S, Day F, Lenguerrand E, Cornthwaite K, Edwards S, Siassakos D. Rotational forceps versus manual rotation and direct forceps: a retrospective cohort study. EJOG. Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 2017;212:119–25.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wattar Al BH, Wattar BA, Gallos I, Pirie AM. Rotational vaginal delivery with Kiellandʼs forceps. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27(6):438–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Murphy DJ, Macleod M, Bahl R, Strachan B. A cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of sequential instruments at operative vaginal delivery. EJOG Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 2011;156(1):41–5.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hamasaki T, Hagihara A. A comparison of medical litigation filed against obstetrics and gynecology, internal medicine, and surgery departments. BMC Med Ethics. 2015;16(1):72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    GMC. Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. 2017. p. 1–66.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    UKSC TSC. Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent). 2015. pp. 1–38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen O’Brien
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mohamed ElHodaiby
    • 1
    • 2
  • Tim Draycott
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologySouthmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS TrustBristolUK
  2. 2.Academic Women’s Health Unit, School of Clinical SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations