Assisted vaginal birth in 21st century: current practice and new innovations

Assisted vaginal birth rates are falling globally with rising cesarean delivery rates. Cesarean delivery is not without consequence, particularly when carried out in the second stage of labor. Cesarean delivery in the second stage is not entirely protective against pelvic floor morbidity and can lead to serious complications in a subsequent pregnancy. It should be acknowledged that the likelihood of morbidity for mother and baby associated with cesarean delivery increases with advancing labor and is greater than spontaneous vaginal birth, irrespective of the method of operative birth in the second stage of labor. In this article, we argue that assisted vaginal birth is a skilled and safe option that should always be considered and be available as an option for women who need assistance in the second stage of labor. Selecting the most appropriate mode of birth at full dilatation requires accurate clinical assessment, supported decision-making, and personalized care with consideration for the woman's preferences. Achieving vaginal birth with the primary instrument is more likely with forceps than with vacuum extraction (risk ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.88). Midcavity forceps are associated with a greater incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injury (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-2.55) but no difference in neonatal Apgar score or umbilical artery pH. The risk for adverse outcomes is minimized when the procedure is conducted by a skilled accoucheur who selects the most appropriate instrument likely to achieve vaginal birth with the primary instrument. Anticipation of potential complications and dynamic decision-making are just as important as the technique for safe instrument use. Good communication with the woman and the birthing partner is vital and there are various recommendations on how to achieve this. There have been recent developments (such as OdonAssist) in device innovation, training, and strategies for implementation at a scale that can provide opportunities for both improved outcomes and reinvigoration of an essential skill that can save mothers' and babies' lives across the world.

Head-to-perineum distance measured transperineally as a predictor of failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery

BACKGROUND

During the second stage of labor, in case of a need for a fetal extraction at midcavity, the choice of attempting the procedure between operative vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery is difficult. Moreover, guidelines on this subject are not clear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify antenatal and intrapartum parameters associated with a failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery and its association with maternal and neonatal adverse outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study conducted at a tertiary maternity hospital in France from January 2010 to December 2020. Women with singleton pregnancies under epidural analgesia with nonanomalous cephalic presenting fetuses and gestational ages at ≥37 weeks of gestation, who were submitted to midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery, were included. Following the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists definition, midcavity was defined as the presenting part of the fetus (ie, the fetal head) found at stations 0 and +1. For research purposes, all patients were submitted to transperineal ultrasound to evaluate the head-to-perineum distance, however, this measurement did not affect the decision to perform a midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery. The primary outcome of the study was failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery leading to cesarean delivery or the use of a different instrument to achieve vaginal delivery.

RESULTS

Overall, 951 cases of midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery were included in this study. Failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery occurred in 242 patients (25.4%). Factors independently associated with failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery included maternal height (adjusted odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-0.99; P=.002), duration of the active phase of the first stage of labor (adjusted odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.17; P<.001), nonocciput anterior fetal head position (adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.04; P=.02), z score of the head-to-perineum distance (adjusted odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.43; P=.01), and birthweight of >4000 g (adjusted odds ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-3.26; P=.003). Women submitted to a failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery were more likely to have a major postpartum hemorrhage (7.1% vs 2.0%; P<.001), whereas neonates were more likely to have an umbilical artery pH of <7.1 (30.5% vs 19.8%; P=.001), be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (9.6% vs 4.7%; P=.005), and have a severe caput succedaneum (14.9% vs 0.7%; P<.001). Subgroup analysis on all patients with a fetal head station of 0 found that the head-to-perineum distance was the only independent variable associated with failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery (adjusted odds ratio, 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.12; P<.001). The area under the receiving operating characteristic curve of the head-to-perineum distance in this subgroup population was 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.73; P<.001), and the optimal cutoff point of the head-to-perineum distance measurement discriminating between failed and successful midcavity vacuum-assisted deliveries was 55 mm. It was associated with a 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.95) sensitivity, 0.19 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.25) specificity, 0.36 (95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.42) positive predictive value, and 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.90) negative predictive value.

CONCLUSION

Study data showed that a high fetal head station, measured using the head-to-perineum distance, and a nonocciput anterior position of the fetal head are independently associated with failed midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery. The result supported the systematic assessment of the sonographic head station and position before performing a midcavity vacuum-assisted delivery.