Choose your font:
 Arimo
 Merriweather
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Rokkitt
 Source Sans Pro
 Login


 English 
 Français 
 Português 

[Valid RSS] RSS
bar

Database - Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR)

Description of this bibliographical database (AFAR website)
YouTube channel (tutorial)

https://afar.info/id=837

Created on : 08 Jul 2004
Modified on : 02 Dec 2007

 Modify this record
Do not follow this link unless you know an editor’s password!


Share: Facebook logo   Tweeter logo   Hard

Bibliographical entry (without author) :

Operative vaginal delivery and neonatal and infant adverse outcomes: population based retrospective analysis. The British Medical Journal 2004;329:24.

Author(s) :

Demissie K, Rhoads GG, Smulian JC, Balasubramanian BA, Gandhi K, Joseph KS, Kramer M.

Year of publication :

2004

URL(s) :

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;32…

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

Objective

To compare the risk of neonatal and infant adverse outcomes between vacuum and forceps assisted deliveries.

Design

Population based study.

Setting

US linked natality and mortality birth cohort file and the New Jersey linked natality, mortality, and hospital discharge summary birth cohort file.

Participants

Singleton live births in the United States (n = 11 639 388) and New Jersey (n = 375 351).

Main outcome measures

Neonatal morbidity and mortality.

Results

Neonatal mortality was comparable between vacuum and forceps deliveries in US births (odds ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.12). Vacuum delivery was associated with a lower risk of birth injuries (0.69, 0.66 to 0.72), neonatal seizures (0.78, 0.68 to 0.90), and need for assisted ventilation (< 30 minutes 0.94, 0.92 to 0.97; 30 minutes 0.92, 0.88 to 0.98). Among births in New Jersey, vacuum extraction was more likely than forceps to be complicated by postpartum haemorrhage (1.22, 1.07 to 1.39) and shoulder dystocia (2.00, 1.62 to 2.48). The risks of intracranial haemorrhage, difficulty with feeding, and retinal haemorrhage were comparable between both modes of delivery. The sequential use of vacuum and forceps was associated with an increased risk of need for mechanical ventilation in the infant and third and fourth degree perineal tears.

Conclusion

Although vacuum extraction does have risks, it remains a safe alternative to forceps delivery.

Sumário (português)  :

Comments :

Argument (français) :

Autant de mortalité néonatale avec les forceps et la ventouse.

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Keywords :

➡ evidence-based medicine/midwifery ; dystocy ; forceps delivery ; vacuum extraction (ventouse) ; postpartum hemorrhage ; perinatal death rates ; morbidity ; instrumental delivery

Author of this record :

Cécile Loup — 08 Jul 2004

Discussion (display only in English)
 
➡ Only identified users



 I have read the guidelines of discussions and I accept all terms (read guidelines)

barre

New expert query --- New simple query

Creating new record --- Importing records

User management --- Dump database --- Contact

bar

This database is managed by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR, https://afar.info)
affiliated with Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, http://ciane.net).
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in documentation
(2) or financially supporting AFAR (see below)
(3) or joining the AFAR (or another society affiliated with CIANE).
Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
Contact afar.association(arobase)gmail.com for more information.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!
Donating to AFAR (click “Faire un don”) will help us to maintain and develop sites and public
databases towards the support of parents and caregivers’ informed decisions with respect to childbirth