Obstetrics & Gynecology Track the topics, authors and articles important to you
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Obstetrics & Gynecology 1997;89:758-762
© 1997 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bofill, J.
Right arrow Articles by Morrison, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bofill, J.
Right arrow Articles by Morrison, J.

Articles

A randomized trial of two vacuum extraction techniques

JA Bofill, OA Rust, SJ Schorr, RC Brown, WE Roberts, and JC Morrison

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether two techniques of vacuum extraction delivery-continuous vacuum and intermittent vacuum-have different effects on maternal-fetal outcomes. METHODS: Patients to be delivered by vacuum extraction were randomized to receive continuous or intermittent vacuum. All deliveries were performed using the M-cup. In the continuous group, the level of vacuum was brought to 600 mmHg between contractions and was maintained at that level until delivery of the infant. Active efforts were made to prevent fetal loss-of-station between contractions by maintaining traction. In the intermittent group, the level of vacuum was decreased to 100 mmHg between contractions and no effort was made to prevent fetal loss-of-station. RESULTS: A total of 322 patients were randomized: 164 in the continuous arm and 158 in the intermittent group. The continuous method did not effect delivery faster (continuous 167 +/- 175 seconds versus intermittent 167 +/- 150 seconds; P = .97), nor did it lead to a reduction in method failures (continuous 12, intermittent nine; P = .72). The intermittent method did not appear to offer any benefit to the neonate regarding cephalhematoma formation (continuous 20, intermittent 17; P = .686) or any other measure of neonatal outcome. Maternal lacerations and episiotomy extensions were evenly distributed between the groups. Overall, the efficacy rate of the vacuum cup was 93.5% and the cephalhematoma rate was 11.5%. CONCLUSION: No differences in maternal or fetal outcome could be demonstrated if the level of vacuum was decreased between contractions or if an effort was made to prevent fetal loss-of-station. The clinical results obtained in this trial using the M-cup are similar to the published results with the stainless-steel Malmstrom cup.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.