Vacuum Delivery in All-fours Position vs Traditional Position (VaDe-4)

November 4, 2022 updated by: Bianca Masturzo, Ospedale degli Infermi di Biella

All-fours Position vs Traditional Position in Women Undergoing Vacuum-assisted Delivery: the VaDe-4 Randomized Controlled Trial

The aim of the study is to investigate the safety, clinical efficacy and the maternal/neonatal outcomes of vacuum application in all-fours position compared with supine traditional position, in women undergoing vacuum-assisted delivery during the second stage of labor.

The main question it aims to answer are:

  • Does the rate of failure of vacuum delivery, measured as number of cup detachments and the need of emergency caesarean section is lower if vacuum delivery is performed on a woman in all-fours position?
  • Do maternal and fetal outcomes are better in case vacuum delivery in all-fours position?

Participants will be randomly enrolled at the admission in two different groups, Control and Experimental Group, and in case of need for vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery; women belonging to Control Group will undergo vacuum-assisted delivery in traditional supine position, while women in Experimental Group will experience vacuum application in all-fours position.

Researchers will compare the Group A, composed by women who undergo vacuum-delivery in traditional supine position, with Group B, in which women are in "all-fours" position, to see if hands-and-knees position provides better outcomes.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

In the last decades, a decrease in operative vaginal delivery (OVD) rates occurred, resulting in increase of caesarean sections (CS) during the second stage of labor. This attitude reflects Clinicians' worries about operative vaginal delivery morbidity, together with a consequent loss of clinical skills in this practice. However, vacuum delivery - when correctly performed - requires less analgesia and gives women higher chances to have a spontaneous vaginal birth in the following pregnancy, whereas emergency C-section is burdened by different maternal and fetal complications. Moreover, should fetal compromise be occurring, time to start the procedure is longer for CS than for vacuum application. Due to the whole of these reasons, operative vaginal delivery is included in the main international guidelines as the best option for the mother and baby, in case of arrest/delay of fetal head descent during second stage of labor, with fetal head at mid/low-pelvic station.

Although women in labor are usually asked to choose the position they prefer and to change position frequently to facilitate the alignment of the fetal head with the birth canal, the vacuum cup is usually applied to a woman lying in the "traditional" gynecological supine position.

Despite several demonstrated advantages, fewer women choose non-recumbent positions, and among them, the so-called "all-fours position" (or "hands-and-knees") which has the higher evidence of benefit. In all-fours, the woman is on her knees, leaning on her hands, with abdomen suspended and hips at right angles to the floor or bed. As demonstrated in different studies, the main advantage given by this posture is the increase of all posterior diameters of the pelvis. This finding implies not only an easier descent of the fetal head, helped by gravity, but also a wider space where fetal head could rotate in case of occiput posterior position, preventing fetal malposition. Additionally, this position lets the sacrum to have more posterior mobility (contra-nutation movement) furtherly widening the outlet no more constricted by the standing surface and reducing sacral pain due to bed-contact. Moreover, as the burden of trunk's weight on the sacrum is decreased in all-fours, women consider the hands-and-knees position a pain-relieving postural choice, especially during the first stage of labor. Regarding maternal outcomes, a recent large randomized controlled trial, involving 1400 women, demonstrated a lower incidence of second-degree perineal lacerations, episiotomy and perineal swelling in hands-and-knees position, and a lower risk of emergency CS, compared to other birth positions.

In the all-fours position, the vaginal space between the fetal head and the vaginal ostium is not influenced by body weight, resulting wider, visible, and easily explorable. Moreover, the risk of vacuum cup sliding is lower because the upward traction is allotted a wider space.

The widening of birth canal obtained with this technique has several, beneficial implications. First, the risk of vaginal tear is lower, since there is no redundant vaginal tissue that could be trapped inside the cup. Second, a wider space allows to constantly maintain the vacuum wire perpendicular to the cup, thus determining a lower risk of detachment, subsequent fetal scalp damage and cephalohematoma (e.g., in presence of caput succedaneum).

Also, this position allows a better propulsive pushing, thanks to a more efficient Valsalva maneuver, thus enabling the Clinician not to exert excessive traction on the fetal head.

Since OVD has a known increased risk of shoulder dystocia, adopting the all-fours position should be beneficial in preventing this fearsome complication, consistent with the point that the hands-and-knees posture is required to perform the Gaskin maneuver, a rescue procedure that easily releases the trapped shoulder by taking advantage of the greater posterior pelvic space in this position.

A potential disadvantage might be the inability of the woman to keep this position for longer than 10-15 minutes. Although OVD duration is routinely much shorter, it is of course mandatory that the timing of OVD performance be carefully monitored.

The investigators recently suggested the implementation of all-fours position in case of operative vaginal delivery and we published a video-simulation of vacuum application on a mannequin. At this time, no other prospective study so far assessed a putative effectiveness of an alternative positioning strategy during OVD for women with arrest of fetal head progression during the second stage of labor.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

250

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact Backup

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

16 years to 43 years (Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

Female

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • women
  • singleton
  • cephalic presentation
  • term pregnancy
  • second stage of labor
  • failure to progress
  • maternal weariness
  • need for operative vaginal delivery by vacuum extraction

Exclusion Criteria:

  • enrollment refusal
  • absence of consent
  • contraindication to operative vaginal delivery

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Traditional supine position
Participants enrolled in the Control Group undergo vacuum-assisted delivery in traditional supine position (supine with 90 degrees bended legs on footrests)
vacuum-assisted delivery
Experimental: All-fours position
Participants enrolled in Experimental Group experience vacuum application in all-fours position.
vacuum-assisted delivery

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Vacuum detachments
Time Frame: Day 0
Vacuum detachments (Yes/No)
Day 0
Rate of Emergency C-Section
Time Frame: Day 0
Emergency C-section (Yes/No)
Day 0

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Perineal tears
Time Frame: Day 1
Perineal tears (1st-3rd grade) (Yes/No and Grade: 1st/2nd/3rd grade)
Day 1
Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS)
Time Frame: Day 1
Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS, 4th grade) (Yes/No)
Day 1
Episiotomy
Time Frame: Day 1
Episiotomy (Yes/No)
Day 1
Blood loss
Time Frame: Day 1
Maternal blood loss (ml)
Day 1
Postpartum haemorrhage
Time Frame: Day 1
Postpartum haemorrhage defined as a blood loss of >1000milliliters (Yes/No)
Day 1
Necessity of Blood Transfusions
Time Frame: Day 3
Blood Transfusions (Yes/no and n. bagged blood infused)
Day 3
Maternal infections
Time Frame: Day 3
Maternal infections (endometritis, sepsis, hyperpyrexia) (Yes/No)
Day 3
Length of Hospital Stay
Time Frame: Day 30
Length of Hospital Stay (n. of days of hospitalization)
Day 30
Patient Satisfaction
Time Frame: Day 30
Short-form patient satisfaction questionnaire (PSQ-18) (18 and 90 are the minimum and maximum values, and higher scores mean a higher patient satisfaction).
Day 30
APGAR score
Time Frame: Day 0
APGAR score at 1 and 5 minutes (0-10)
Day 0
Neonatal acidosis
Time Frame: Day 0
pH < 7.10 at birth (Yes/No)
Day 0
Neonatal hypoglycaemia
Time Frame: Day 1
Neonatal Serum Glucose < 45 mg/dL (< 2.5 mmol/L) (Yes/No)
Day 1
Neonatal cephalohematoma
Time Frame: Day 1
Neonatal cephalohematoma (Yes/No)
Day 1
Neonatal scalp damages
Time Frame: Day 1
Neonatal scalp damages (Yes/No)
Day 1
Shoulder Dystocia
Time Frame: Day 0
Shoulder Dystocia (Yes/No)
Day 0
Admission to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU)
Time Frame: Day 30
Admission to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) (Yes/No)
Day 30
Need for Oxygen Supplementation
Time Frame: Day 30
Neonatal need for supplementary oxygen (yes/no) and days of use (days)
Day 30

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: bianca masturzo, Md, PhD, Ospedale degli Infermi di Biella

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Anticipated)

December 1, 2022

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

May 1, 2023

Study Completion (Anticipated)

December 31, 2023

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

October 19, 2022

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 4, 2022

First Posted (Actual)

November 10, 2022

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

November 10, 2022

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

November 4, 2022

Last Verified

November 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

Yes

IPD Plan Description

All collected IPD

IPD Sharing Time Frame

At the end of the study, for 6 months from the 1st Jan 2024 to 1st July 2024

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

Participants centers

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • Study Protocol
  • Clinical Study Report (CSR)

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

Yes

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

Yes

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Prolonged Second Stage of Labor

Clinical Trials on Vacuum application

3
Subscribe