Risk of cervical laceration in forceps vs vacuum delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2024-09-15 DOI:10.1111/aogs.14969
Parnian Hossein-Pour, Maya Rajasingham, Giulia M. Muraca
{"title":"Risk of cervical laceration in forceps vs vacuum delivery: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Parnian Hossein-Pour,&nbsp;Maya Rajasingham,&nbsp;Giulia M. Muraca","doi":"10.1111/aogs.14969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Cervical laceration is an obstetric injury associated with severe postpartum hemorrhage and subsequent spontaneous preterm birth. While operative vaginal delivery is a known risk factor for cervical laceration, it is unclear whether forceps and vacuum deliveries incur the same risk. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the risk of cervical laceration between operative instruments (forceps vs vacuum).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Medline, Embase, Global Health, CENTRAL, Emcare, and Web of Science were searched from inception until August 2024 with terms related to operative vaginal delivery and cervical laceration. Studies comparing the risk of cervical laceration in individuals undergoing forceps or vacuum delivery were included. Two authors conducted screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of all studies. Random-effects models were used to pool risk ratios across studies and certainty of evidence was assessed using Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42023421890.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 observational studies. The overall rate of cervical laceration was 0.35% (990/284218 births) where 1.04% of forceps deliveries (456/43817) were complicated by cervical laceration compared to 0.22% of vacuum deliveries (534/240401). The risk of cervical laceration was 2–5 fold greater in forceps deliveries than in vacuum deliveries: pooled unadjusted risk ratio [RR] 4.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.56–14.98 among RCTs and pooled unadjusted RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.59–2.24 among observational studies. The overall quality of evidence was low to moderate mainly due to the lack of attention to confounding in the included literature. The GRADE assessment indicated that the certainty of evidence was very low for observational studies and moderate for RCTs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Low certainty of evidence indicates that forceps deliveries may be associated with an increased risk of cervical laceration compared to vacuum deliveries.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":6990,"journal":{"name":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","volume":"104 1","pages":"29-38"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/aogs.14969","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aogs.14969","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Cervical laceration is an obstetric injury associated with severe postpartum hemorrhage and subsequent spontaneous preterm birth. While operative vaginal delivery is a known risk factor for cervical laceration, it is unclear whether forceps and vacuum deliveries incur the same risk. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the risk of cervical laceration between operative instruments (forceps vs vacuum).

Material and Methods

Medline, Embase, Global Health, CENTRAL, Emcare, and Web of Science were searched from inception until August 2024 with terms related to operative vaginal delivery and cervical laceration. Studies comparing the risk of cervical laceration in individuals undergoing forceps or vacuum delivery were included. Two authors conducted screening, data extraction, and quality assessment of all studies. Random-effects models were used to pool risk ratios across studies and certainty of evidence was assessed using Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42023421890.

Results

Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 observational studies. The overall rate of cervical laceration was 0.35% (990/284218 births) where 1.04% of forceps deliveries (456/43817) were complicated by cervical laceration compared to 0.22% of vacuum deliveries (534/240401). The risk of cervical laceration was 2–5 fold greater in forceps deliveries than in vacuum deliveries: pooled unadjusted risk ratio [RR] 4.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.56–14.98 among RCTs and pooled unadjusted RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.59–2.24 among observational studies. The overall quality of evidence was low to moderate mainly due to the lack of attention to confounding in the included literature. The GRADE assessment indicated that the certainty of evidence was very low for observational studies and moderate for RCTs.

Conclusions

Low certainty of evidence indicates that forceps deliveries may be associated with an increased risk of cervical laceration compared to vacuum deliveries.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
产钳与真空助产的宫颈裂伤风险:系统回顾和荟萃分析
宫颈裂伤是一种产科损伤,与严重的产后出血和随后的自然早产有关。虽然阴道手术分娩是宫颈裂伤的已知风险因素,但目前还不清楚产钳和真空助产是否会产生同样的风险。本系统综述旨在比较不同手术器械(产钳与真空)造成宫颈裂伤的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.70%
发文量
180
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Published monthly, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica is an international journal dedicated to providing the very latest information on the results of both clinical, basic and translational research work related to all aspects of women’s health from around the globe. The journal regularly publishes commentaries, reviews, and original articles on a wide variety of topics including: gynecology, pregnancy, birth, female urology, gynecologic oncology, fertility and reproductive biology.
期刊最新文献
Maternal smoking during pregnancy and gestational diabetes mellitus: Interactions and independent associations on pregnancy duration and perinatal outcomes. "And then I got strangled": Dangerous trends of sexual choking among young people. Episiotomy is associated with a reduced risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury in nulliparous vacuum-assisted deliveries, particularly in high-risk cases. Estetrol-based combined oral contraceptives: A systematic review of clinical outcomes. Step-by-step combined surgical approach to successfully repair complex and challenging vesico-vaginal fistulas: Insights from a case series.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1