Analgesia for forceps delivery

Use of pudendal nerve block among midwives in Norway: A national cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Pudendal nerve block (PNB) is an effective analgesic during the second stage of labor and for suturing. With the introduction of epidural and spinal analgesia, PNB use decreased considerably. Most midwives receive some teaching on PNB during their midwifery education. The aim of this study was to examine the use of PNB by midwives in Norway.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study, in January 2020, using an electronic questionnaire which was distributed to approximately 1500 midwives.

RESULTS

A total of 527 midwives responded to the questionnaire (35%). Less than half (44.6%) of the midwives used PNB, of whom only half (123/235) used it frequently (at least once a month). The use of PNB was most common at specialized obstetric units with ≥1500 births per year. Midwives who reported good theoretical knowledge and practical skills of PNB used it significantly more often than midwives not reporting these (p<0.001). Reasons for not using PNB were: the lack of practice and experience (72.6%), and never having been taught (42.8%). Midwives reported needing training (83%) and clinical support to start using PNB (43%).

CONCLUSIONS

Few midwives use PNB regularly. To increase the use of PNB, midwifery education needs to include both theoretical and practical skills teaching. Midwives with insufficient knowledge and skills require the same teaching and training. In the clinical area, midwives require clinical support and supervision to practice and gain experience. Women are not offered PNB as long as midwives are not confident in providing this method of pain relief.

Effect of New Peripudendal Block (PPB) in the Second Stage of Labour on Perineal Relaxation and on the Reduction of Episiotomy Rate: A Randomized Control Trial

Methods

In a prospective randomized study, we examined the extent to which the PPB we developed changed the rate of episiotomies, injury rates.

Results

A total of 333 primiparas and 324 multiparas were included in the study. In the case of primiparas, we used the PPD procedure in 133 cases, while in the case of multiparas, we used it in 103 cases. The rate of episiotomy in primiparas was 89/133 (66.9%) with PPD and 181/200 (90.5%) without PPD (p < 0.02). In multiparas, the episiotomy rate was 30/103 (29.1%) with PPD and 140/221 (63.3%) without PPD (p < 0.02). In the case of primiparas, the rate of perineal injury and lesion was 33/133 (24.8%) with PPD, while without PPD it was 12/200 (6.0%). Examining the need for all surgical care (due to episiotomy and/or injury), a total of 103/133 cases of operative surgery were required with PPD (77/4%) while 183/200 cases were required without PPD (91.5%)(p < 0.02). In the case of multiparas, the rate of perineal injury and lesion was 11/103 (10.7%) with PPD, while without PPD it was 9/221 (4.1%). In the case of multiparas, a total of 41/103 cases required surgical care with PPD (39.8%), while without PPD, 147/221 cases required surgical care (66.5%)(p < 0.02).

Conclusion

The PPB is simpler, requires less medication, can be easily mastered, and perineal relaxation can also be observed, reducing the need for an episiotomy.

Instruments for assisted vaginal birth

BACKGROUND

Assisted vaginal births are carried out to expedite birth for the benefit of mothers and babies but are sometimes associated with significant morbidity for both. Various instruments are available, broadly divided into forceps and vacuum cups, and choice may be influenced by clinical circumstances, operator preference, experience and availability.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the different instruments in terms of success in achieving a vaginal birth, and the risk of morbidity for mother and baby.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (14 May 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials of assisted vaginal birth using different instruments. The review did not include quasi-randomised trials, cluster-randomised trials or cross-over designs. The review included trials for which abstracts alone were available as long as there was sufficient information to assess eligibility.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.  The main outcomes assessed included failed delivery with allocated instrument, any maternal trauma, third- and fourth-degree tears, postpartum haemorrhage, any neonatal trauma, low Apgar and low umbilical artery pH.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 studies involving a total of 5754 women.  Risk of bias criteria were largely assessed as 'unclear', due to a lack of detail in trial reports. Blinding would have been challenging for all trials due to their inability to conceal the type of instrument used from either the woman or the operator, which is reflected in the risk of bias assessment. Any type of forceps versus any type of vacuum cup (12 studies, 3129 women) Forceps may be less likely to fail in achieving vaginal birth: risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.88; 11 studies, 3080 women; low certainty. 'Any maternal trauma' may be slightly more likely with forceps: odds ratio (OR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.40; 5 studies, 1356 women; low certainty; and third- or fourth-degree tears may also be more likely with forceps: RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.55; 9 studies, 2493 women; low certainty. There is no evidence of a difference in the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) between the two groups: RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 4.95; 2 studies, 523 women; low certainty, because the evidence is very imprecise due to a very wide CI.  More women in the forceps group reported requiring pain relief. There is probably no evidence of difference in rates of low Apgar: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.51; 7 studies, 1644 women; moderate certainty; or low umbilical artery pH in the forceps group compared to any vacuum: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.93; 2 studies, 789 women; low certainty; both of these outcomes are imprecise and have wide CIs that include both benefit and harm. There were also lower rates of fetal trauma with 'any forceps' (cephalhematoma, retinal haemorrhage and jaundice). The composite outcome of 'any neonatal trauma' was not reported. Low-cavity forceps versus any vacuum cup (2 studies, 218 women) We included two small studies with 218 participants in this comparison, but we judged most of the evidence as very low certainty, hence it was not feasible to make judgements on the difference in the rates of failed delivery, any maternal trauma or third- and fourth- degree tears. PPH and low umbilical artery pH were not reported. Soft vacuum cup versus any rigid cup (9 studies, 1148 women) Failed delivery may be more likely in the soft vacuum cup group: RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.17; 9 studies, 1148 women; low certainty. There may be no difference in the rates of 'any maternal trauma': OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.67; 2 studies, 348 women; low certainty, but the confidence interval is wide, indicating possible benefit or harm. There may be no difference in the rates of third- or fourth-degree tears: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.44; 4 studies, 619 women; low certainty. There is probably no difference in the rates of PPH: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.61; 5 studies, 737 women; moderate certainty between the soft and rigid cup groups.   There may be little or no difference in the incidence of low Apgar scores: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.37; 9 studies, 1148; low certainty; or low umbilical artery pH: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.36; 1 study, 100 women; low certainty. Handheld vacuum versus any vacuum cup (4 studies, 968 women) There may be no difference in the rates of failures with allocated instrument: RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.25; 4 studies, 962 women; low certainty, any maternal trauma: OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.88; 2 studies; 394 women; low certainty, PPH: RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.92; 1 study, 164 women; low certainty, low umbilical artery pH: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.59; 1 study, 164 women; low certainty, or low Apgar scores: RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.61; 3 studies, 784 women; low certainty) between the two groups. There is probably no difference in the rates of third- or fourth-degree tears between the 'handheld vacuum' and 'any vacuum cup' groups: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.12; 4 studies, 962 women; moderate certainty.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides low-certainty evidence that forceps may be more likely to achieve vaginal birth and have lower rates of fetal trauma, but at a greater risk of perineal trauma and higher pain relief requirements compared with vacuum cups. There was low-certainty evidence that rigid vacuum cups may be more likely to achieve a vaginal birth than soft cups but with more fetal trauma, whilst handheld vacuum cups had similar success rates compared to other cups. There was no evidence of a difference in the rates of third- or fourth-degree tears or postpartum haemorrhages between types of cups, but wide confidence intervals around the estimates indicate further research is needed in this area.

Regional anaesthesia for labour, operative vaginal delivery and caesarean delivery: a narrative review

This narrative review discusses recent evidence surrounding the use of regional anaesthesia in the obstetric setting, including intrapartum techniques for labour and operative vaginal delivery, and caesarean delivery. Pudendal nerve blockade, ideally administered by an obstetrician, should be considered for operative vaginal delivery if neuraxial analgesia is contraindicated. Regional techniques are increasingly utilised in clinical practice for caesarean delivery to minimise opioid consumption, reduce pain, improve postpartum recovery and facilitate earlier discharge as part of enhanced recovery protocols. The evidence surrounding transversus abdominis plane and quadratus lumborum blockade supports their use when: long-acting neuraxial opioids cannot be administered due to contraindications; if emergency delivery necessitates general anaesthesia; or as a postoperative rescue technique. Current data suggest quadratus lumborum blockade is no more effective than transversus abdominis plane blockade after caesarean delivery. Transversus abdominis plane blockade, wound catheter insertion and single shot wound infiltration are all effective techniques for reducing postoperative opioid consumption, with transversus abdominis plane blockade favoured, followed by wound catheters and then wound infiltration. Ilio-inguinal and iliohypogastric, erector spinae plane and rectus sheath blockade all require further studies to determine their efficacy for caesarean delivery in the presence or absence of long-acting neuraxial opioids. Future studies are needed to: compare approaches for individual techniques; determine which combinations of techniques and dosing regimens result in optimal analgesic and recovery outcomes following delivery; and elucidate the populations that benefit most from regional anaesthesia in the obstetric setting.