Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T22:04:04.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 2 - Indications and Assessment for Assisted Vaginal Birth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2024

By
Deirdre Murphy  and
Meenakshi Ramphul
Edited by
George Attilakos ,
Sharon Jordan ,
Michele Mohajer ,
Glen Mola ,
Stephen O'Brien  and
Dimitrios Siassakos
George Attilakos
Affiliation:
University College London
Sharon Jordan
Affiliation:
Southmead Hospital, Bristol
Michele Mohajer
Affiliation:
Shropshire Women and Children’s Centre
Glen Mola
Affiliation:
University of Papua New Guinea
Stephen O'Brien
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Dimitrios Siassakos
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access

Summary

The decision whether or not to recommend an assisted vaginal birth (AVB) is a complex one. Decision-making about the most appropriate mode of birth needs to take account of the key elements for a safe AVB which are that it needs to be conducted under optimal circumstances, in the most appropriate place and by a competent operator. Safety issues need to be balanced with the aim of providing a positive birth experience for the mother and her partner. The risks of maternal and neonatal morbidity are increased with AVBs, although with appropriate case selection and careful practice these risks are low. Careful attention needs to be paid to the indication for AVB and to clinical assessment prior to any attempt at a procedure.

Type
Chapter
Information
ROBuST: RCOG Assisted Birth Simulation Training
Course Manual
 , pp. 10 - 23
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Demissie, K, Rhoads, GG, Smulian, JC et al. Operative vaginal delivery and neonatal and infant adverse outcomes: population based retrospective analysis. BMJ. 2004;329(7456):24–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Murphy, D, Liebling, R, Verity, L, Swingler, R, Patel, R. Cohort study of the early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in the second stage of labour. Lancet. 2001(358):1203–7.Google Scholar
Bahl, R, Strachan, B, Murphy, DJ. Outcome of subsequent pregnancy three years after previous operative delivery in the second stage of labour: cohort study. BMJ. 2004;328(7435):311.Google ScholarPubMed
DiMatteo, MR, Morton, SC, Lepper, HS et al. Cesarean childbirth and psychosocial outcomes: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 1996;15(4):303–14.Google ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, F, Leveno, K, Bloom, S et al. Williams Obstetrics. 23rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2009.Google Scholar
Murphy, DJ, Strachan, BK, Bahl, R on behalf of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Assisted Vaginal Birth. BJOG. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16092Google Scholar
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice Bulletin 17. Operative Vaginal Delivery. Washington DC: ACOG, 2000.Google Scholar
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Intrapartum Care. Clinical guideline 55. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2007.Google Scholar
Murphy, D, Liebling, R, Patel, R, Verity, L, Swingler, R. Cohort study of operative delivery in the second stage of labour and standard of obstetric care. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;(110):610–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Akmal, S, Tsoi, E, Kametas, N, Howard, R, Nicolaides, KH. Intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2002;12(3):172–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dupuis, O, Ruimark, S, Corinne, D et al. Fetal head position during the second stage of labor: comparison of digital vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasonographic examination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;123(2):193–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Souka, AP, Haritos, T, Basayiannis, K, Noikokyri, N, Antsaklis, A. Intrapartum ultrasound for the examination of the fetal head position in normal and obstructed labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003;13(1):59–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherer, DM, Miodovnik, M, Bradley, KS, Langer, O. Intrapartum fetal head position II: comparison between transvaginal digital examination and transabdominal ultrasound assessment during the second stage of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19(3):264–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Kreiser, D, Schiff, E, Lipitz, S et al. Determination of fetal occiput position by ultrasound during the second stage of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2001 August;10(4):283–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Zahalka, N, Sadan, O, Malinger, G et al. Comparison of transvaginal sonography with digital examination and transabdominal sonography for the determination of fetal head position in the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(2):381–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chou, R, Kreiser, D, Taslimi, M, Druzin, M, El-Sayed, Y. Vaginal versus ultrasound examination of fetal occiput position during the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:521–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rozenberg, P, Porcher, R, Salomon, LJ et al. Comparison of the learning curves of digital examination and transabdominal sonography for the determination of fetal head position during labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(3):332–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Ramphul, M, Murphy, DJ. Establishing the accuracy and acceptability of abdominal ultrasound to define the fetal head position in the second stage of labour: a validation study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012.Google Scholar
Dupuis, O, Silveira, R, Zentner, A et al. Birth simulator: reliability of transvaginal assessment of fetal head station as defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists classification. AJOG. 2005;192(3):868–74.Google ScholarPubMed
Awan, N, Rhoades, A, Weeks, AD. The validity and reliability of the StationMaster: a device to improve the accuracy of station assessment in labour. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;145(1):65–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramphul, M, Ooi, PV, Burke, G et al. Instrumental delivery and ultrasound: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of ultrasound assessment of the fetal head position versus standard care as an approach to prevent morbidity at instrumental delivery. BJOG 2014;121:1029–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popowski, T, Porcher, R, Fort, J, Javoise, S, Rozenberg, P. Influence of ultrasound determination of fetal head position on mode of delivery: a pragmatic randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46:520–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Sananes, NP, Kasbaoui, S, Severac, F et al. 96: ultrasound measurement of the perineum-fetal head distance as a predictive factor of difficult vaginal operative delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:S69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasbaoui, S, Séverac, F, Aïssi, G et al. Predicting the difficulty of operative vaginal delivery by ultrasound measurement of fetal head station. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:507.Google ScholarPubMed
Bultez, T, Quibel, T, Bouhanna, P et al. Angle of fetal head progression measured using transperineal ultrasound as a predictive factor of vacuum extraction failure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 48:86–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, D, Macleod, M, Bahl, R, Strachan, B. A cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of sequential instruments at operative vaginal delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;156(1):41–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okunwobi-Smith, Y, Cooke, I, MacKenzie, IZ. Decision to delivery intervals for assisted vaginal vertex delivery. BJOG. 2000;107(4):467–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Mahony, F, Hofmeyr, GJ, Menon, V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010(11):CD005455.Google Scholar
Attilakos, G, Sibanda, T, Winter, C, Johnson, N, Draycott, T. A randomised controlled trial of a new handheld vacuum extraction device. BJOG 2005;112(11):1510–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Groom, KM, Jones, BA, Miller, N, Paterson-Brown, S. A prospective randomised controlled trial of the Kiwi Omnicup versus conventional ventouse cups for vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery. BJOG 2006;113(2):183–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Murphy, DJ, Koh, DK. Cohort study of the decision to delivery interval and neonatal outcome for emergency operative vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(2):145 e1–7.Google ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×