An audit of the CaesAid vacuum-assisted delivery cup compared with forceps delivery of the fetal head in caesarean section

IF 0.4 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2019-08-27 DOI:10.7196/sajog.1377
N. Stolwijk, P. R. Jong
{"title":"An audit of the CaesAid vacuum-assisted delivery cup compared with forceps delivery of the fetal head in caesarean section","authors":"N. Stolwijk, P. R. Jong","doi":"10.7196/sajog.1377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Vacuum-assisted caesarean delivery may result in a quicker delivery of the fetal head than the use of forceps, and improve maternal and fetal outcomes. The new CaesAid vacuum-assisted delivery (VAD) cup was designed specifically for this use.  Objectives. To assess whether the CaesAid VAD cup influences the duration of fetal head delivery at caesarean section when compared with forceps, and whether there are differences in perioperative complications in the mother and fetus.  Methods. We carried out a retrospective clinical audit of 132 patients who underwent caesarean delivery at the Netcare Christiaan Barnard Memorial Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa, from April to November 2017, aided by either CaesAid VAD cup (C group, n =67) or forceps (F group, n =65).  Results. The uterine incision-to-delivery interval was significantly shorter ( p =0.001) in the C group than the F group (median 38 (interquartile range (IQR) 20) v. 60 (IQR 50) seconds, respectively). The maternal blood loss was lower in the C group than the F group (250 mL v. 288 mL; p =0.025). There was no significant difference in Apgar scores or admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit. Neonatal skin injuries were less common in the C group (no cases v. 8 in the F group; p =0.004).  Conclusion. The results of this audit suggest that the CaesAid VAD cup is a safe and efficient alternative to forceps for aiding the delivery of the fetal head at caesarean section. However, the routine use of vacuum cups is debatable. Further research could provide more insight into this procedure as a part of obstetric practice.","PeriodicalId":49579,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.7196/sajog.1377","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7196/sajog.1377","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Vacuum-assisted caesarean delivery may result in a quicker delivery of the fetal head than the use of forceps, and improve maternal and fetal outcomes. The new CaesAid vacuum-assisted delivery (VAD) cup was designed specifically for this use.  Objectives. To assess whether the CaesAid VAD cup influences the duration of fetal head delivery at caesarean section when compared with forceps, and whether there are differences in perioperative complications in the mother and fetus.  Methods. We carried out a retrospective clinical audit of 132 patients who underwent caesarean delivery at the Netcare Christiaan Barnard Memorial Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa, from April to November 2017, aided by either CaesAid VAD cup (C group, n =67) or forceps (F group, n =65).  Results. The uterine incision-to-delivery interval was significantly shorter ( p =0.001) in the C group than the F group (median 38 (interquartile range (IQR) 20) v. 60 (IQR 50) seconds, respectively). The maternal blood loss was lower in the C group than the F group (250 mL v. 288 mL; p =0.025). There was no significant difference in Apgar scores or admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit. Neonatal skin injuries were less common in the C group (no cases v. 8 in the F group; p =0.004).  Conclusion. The results of this audit suggest that the CaesAid VAD cup is a safe and efficient alternative to forceps for aiding the delivery of the fetal head at caesarean section. However, the routine use of vacuum cups is debatable. Further research could provide more insight into this procedure as a part of obstetric practice.
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
剖宫产中使用CaesAid真空助产杯与产钳娩出胎儿头的比较分析
背景。与使用产钳相比,真空辅助剖宫产可以更快地娩出胎儿头,并改善产妇和胎儿的结局。新的凯撒真空辅助分娩(VAD)杯是专门为这种使用而设计的。目标。评估与产钳相比,CaesAid VAD杯是否影响剖宫产时胎头娩出时间,以及母婴围手术期并发症是否存在差异。方法。我们对2017年4月至11月在南非开普敦Netcare克里斯蒂安巴纳德纪念医院(Netcare Christiaan Barnard Memorial Hospital)剖腹产的132例患者进行了回顾性临床审计,这些患者使用CaesAid VAD杯(C组,n =67)或产钳(F组,n =65)辅助。结果。C组子宫切开至分娩间隔明显短于F组(中位数38(四分位间距(IQR) 20)和60 (IQR 50)秒)(p =0.001)。C组产妇失血量低于F组(250 mL vs 288 mL;p = 0.025)。在阿普加评分或新生儿重症监护病房入院方面没有显著差异。C组新生儿皮肤损伤发生率较低(0例vs . F组8例;p = 0.004)。结论。本审计结果表明,CaesAid VAD杯是一种安全、有效的替代产钳辅助剖宫产胎儿头娩出的方法。然而,常规使用真空杯是有争议的。进一步的研究可以提供更多的深入了解这一程序作为产科实践的一部分。
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
South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: The SAJOG is a tri-annual, general specialist obstetrics and gynaecology journal that publishes original, peer-reviewed work in all areas of obstetrics and gynaecology, including contraception, urogynaecology, fertility, oncology and clinical practice. The journal carries original research articles, editorials, clinical practice, personal opinion, South Africa health-related news, obituaries and general correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Is medicine a process of scientific rigour? How to care for fetuses with prenatally diagnosed severe abnormalities Prevalence of and sociodemographic factors associated with antenatal depression among women in Limpopo Province, South Africa Age-related changes in serum anti-Müllerian hormone in women of reproductive age in Kenya An assessment of mismatch repair deficiency in ovarian tumours at a public hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa
×
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学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
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