Weissbach Tal, Hag-Yahia Nasreen, Ovadia Michal, Tzadikevitch Geffen Keren, Weitzner Omer, Biron-Shental Tal
a Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Meir Medical Center , Kfar Saba , Israel affiliated with Sackler Faculty of Medicine , Tel Aviv University , Tel Aviv , Israel.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017 Aug 17:1-8. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1368484.
To improve choice of vacuum-assisted delivery (VAD) system, we compared outcomes of Kiwi handheld system and Mityvac M-style conventional system (both use disposable plastic cups).
Retrospective observational study with data collection from electronic medical records. The study was conducted at a tertiary medical center, with approximately 7000 deliveries annually. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed using chi-square test and t-test, respectively. p value < 0.05 considered significant. The main outcomes assessed were the overall failure rate of each system, failure rates for occipito-anterior (OA) vs. occipito-transverse/occipito-anterior (OT/OP) positions, +1 vs. +2 fetal stations, and early maternal/neonatal outcomes.
During a 10-month period, there were 507 (8.4%) attempted VADs, 36 failed (7.1%) and 8 (1.5%) converted to cesarean section. Of these, 364 were Kiwi-assisted and 143 Mityvac-assisted. Background characteristics were similar. The handheld system had more failures overall (9.6 vs. 0.7%), at OA (7.6 vs. 0.9%) and non-OA positions (17.3% vs. none), at + 1 (13.25 vs. 0.96%) and at + 2/3 stations (6.1% vs. none), than the conventional system did, respectively. There was a higher rate of early post-partum hemorrhage (15.3 vs. 7.4%) in the conventional group. Both systems had similar rates of third/fourth degree perineal tears, shoulder dystocia and adverse neonatal outcomes.
Our results suggest more failures with Kiwi compared to Mityvac, overall and at any fetal position/station, without a significant difference in adverse outcome profile.
为了优化真空辅助分娩(VAD)系统的选择,我们比较了奇异果手持式系统和Mityvac M型传统系统(两者均使用一次性塑料杯)的分娩结局。
采用回顾性观察研究,从电子病历中收集数据。该研究在一家三级医疗中心进行,每年约有7000例分娩。分类变量和连续变量分别采用卡方检验和t检验进行分析。p值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。评估的主要结局包括每个系统的总体失败率、枕前位(OA)与枕横位/枕后位(OT/OP)的失败率、胎头+1与+2水平、以及早期母婴结局。
在10个月的时间里,共尝试进行了507例(8.4%)VAD,其中36例失败(7.1%),8例(1.5%)转为剖宫产。其中,364例采用奇异果辅助,143例采用Mityvac辅助。两组的背景特征相似。与传统系统相比,手持式系统在总体(9.6%对0.7%)、枕前位(7.6%对0.9%)和非枕前位(17.3%对0%)、胎头+1水平(13.25%对0.96%)以及+2/3水平(6.1%对0%)的失败率更高。传统组的早期产后出血发生率更高(15.3%对7.4%)。两种系统的会阴三度/四度撕裂、肩难产和不良新生儿结局的发生率相似。
我们的结果表明,与Mityvac相比,奇异果系统在总体以及任何胎儿位置/水平的失败率更高,不良结局方面无显著差异。