Perinatal outcome after vacuum assisted delivery with digital feedback on traction force; a randomised controlled study

Stefhanie Romero, Kristina Pettersson, Khurram Yousaf, Magnus Westgren, Gunilla Ajne, Stefhanie Romero, Kristina Pettersson, Khurram Yousaf, Magnus Westgren, Gunilla Ajne

Abstract

Background: Low and mid station vacuum assisted deliveries (VAD) are delicate manual procedures that entail a high degree of subjectivity from the operator and are associated with adverse neonatal outcome. Little has been done to improve the procedure, including the technical development, traction force and the possibility of objective documentation. We aimed to explore if a digital handle with instant haptic feedback on traction force would reduce the neonatal risk during low or mid station VAD.

Methods: A two centre, randomised superiority trial at Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden, 2016-2018. Cases were randomised bedside to either a conventional or a digital handle attached to a Bird metal cup (50 mm, 80 kPa). The digital handle measured applied force including an instant notification by vibration when high levels of traction force were predicted according to a predefined algorithm. Primary outcome was a composite of hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, intracranial haemorrhage, seizures, death and/or subgaleal hematoma. Three hundred eighty low and mid VAD in each group were estimated to decrease primary outcome from six to 2 %.

Results: After 2 years, an interim analyse was undertaken. Meeting the inclusion criteria, 567 vacuum extractions were randomized to the use of a digital handle (n = 296) or a conventional handle (n = 271). Primary outcome did not differ between the two groups: (2.7% digital handle vs 2.6% conventional handle). The incidence of primary outcome differed significantly between the two delivery wards (4% vs 0.9%, p < 0.05). A recalculation of power revealed that 800 cases would be needed in each group to show a decrease in primary outcome from three to 1 %. This was not feasible, and the study therefore closed.

Conclusions: The incidence of primary outcome was lower than estimated and the study was underpowered. However, the difference between the two delivery wards might reflect varying degree of experience of the technical equipment. An objective documentation of the extraction procedure is an attractive alternative in respect to safety and clinical training. To demonstrate improved safety, a multicentre study is required to reach an adequate cohort. This was beyond the scope of the study.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03071783 , March 1, 2017, retrospectively registered.

Keywords: Haptic feedback; Neonatal outcome; Traction force; Vacuum assisted delivery.

Conflict of interest statement

GA, MW and KY are owners of Genit Innovation, which is developing the technical device described in this work. KP and SR have no competing interests to declare. All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Vacuum Extraction Intelligent Handle – 3 with tablet computer
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
CONSORT flow diagram of eligibility, randomisation, allocation and analysis. Available at www.consort-statement.org/consort-statement/flow-diagram

References

    1. Malmstrom T. Vacuum extractor, an obstetrical instrument. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1954;33(4):1–31.
    1. The Swedish National Board of Health. Welfare T. Statistikdatabas för graviditeter, förlossningar och nyfödda. 2016.
    1. Vacca A. Reducing the risks of a vacuum delivery. Fetal Med Rev. 2006;17(4):301–315. doi: 10.1017/S0965539506001823.
    1. Ekeus C, Wrangsell K, Penttinen S, Aberg K. Neonatal complications among 596 infants delivered by vacuum extraction (in relation to characteristics of the extraction) J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(18):2402–2408. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1344631.
    1. Levin G, Elchalal U, Yagel S, Eventov-Friedman S, Ezra Y, Sompolinsky Y, et al. Risk factors associated with subgaleal hemorrhage in neonates exposed to vacuum extraction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98(11):1464–1472. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13678.
    1. Ekeus C, Hogberg U, Norman M. Vacuum assisted birth and risk for cerebral complications in term newborn infants: a population-based cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014;14:36. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-36.
    1. Gebremariam A. Subgaleal haemorrhage: risk factors and neurological and developmental outcome in survivors. Ann Trop Paediatr. 1999;19(1):45–50. doi: 10.1080/02724939992626.
    1. Kuit AJ. Clinical and physical aspects of obstetric vacuum extraction [Thesis Rotterdam] 1997.
    1. Holland E. On cranial stress in the Foetus during labour and on the effects of excessive stress on the intracranial contents; with an analysis of eighty-one cases of torn Tentorium Cerebelli and subdural cerebral Haemorrhage. Trans Edinb Obstet Soc. 1920;40:112–143.
    1. O'Mahony F, Settatree R, Platt C, Johanson R. Review of singleton fetal and neonatal deaths associated with cranial trauma and cephalic delivery during a national intrapartum-related confidential enquiry. BJOG. 2005;112(5):619–626. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00508.x.
    1. Jeve YB, Navti OB, Konje JC. Comparison of techniques used to deliver a deeply impacted fetal head at full dilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2016;123(3):337–345. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13593.
    1. Berglund S, Grunewald C, Pettersson H, Cnattingius S. Severe asphyxia due to delivery-related malpractice in Sweden 1990-2005. BJOG. 2008;115(3):316–323. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01602.x.
    1. Bailit JL, Grobman WA, Rice MM, Wapner RJ, Reddy UM, Varner MW, et al. Evaluation of delivery options for second-stage events. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(5):638 e1–638e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.11.007.
    1. Son M, Roy A, Grobman WA. Attempted operative vaginal delivery vs repeat cesarean in the second stage among women undergoing a trial of labor after cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(4):407 e1–407 e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.013.
    1. Muraca GM, Sabr Y, Lisonkova S, Skoll A, Brant R, Cundiff GW, et al. Perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality after attempted operative vaginal delivery at midpelvic station. CMAJ. 2017;189(22):E764–EE72. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.161156.
    1. Muraca GM, Skoll A, Lisonkova S, Sabr Y, Brant R, Cundiff GW, et al. Perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality among term singletons following midcavity operative vaginal delivery versus caesarean delivery. BJOG. 2018;125(6):693–702. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14820.
    1. Pettersson K, Ajne J, Yousaf K, Sturm D, Westgren M, Ajne G. Traction force during vacuum extraction: a prospective observational study. BJOG. 2015;122(13):1809–1816. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13222.
    1. Pettersson K, Westgren M, Gotze-Eriksson R, Ajne G. Effect of team training and monitoring on the rate of failed mid and low cavity vacuum extraction: a hospital based intervention study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2257-z.
    1. Pettersson K, Yousaf K, Ranstam J, Westgren M, Ajne G. Predictive value of traction force measurement in vacuum extraction: development of a multivariate prognostic model. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0171938. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171938.
    1. Moolgaoker AS, Ahamed SO, Payne PR. A comparison of different methods of instrumental delivery based on electronic measurements of compression and traction. Obstet Gynecol. 1979;54(3):299–309.
    1. Issel EP. Mechanical action of obstetrical forceps on the fetal skull. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1977;99(8):487–497.
    1. Duchon MA, DeMund MA, Brown RH. Laboratory comparison of modern vacuum extractors. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;71(2):155–158.
    1. Svenningsen L. Birth progression and traction forces developed under vacuum extraction after slow or rapid application of suction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1987;26(2):105–112. doi: 10.1016/0028-2243(87)90044-X.
    1. Vladic-Stjernholm YW, Amer-Whålin I. Instrumental delivery by vacuum extraction: advice for clinical recommendations (in Swedish): Löf; 2017. Available from:
    1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists . Operative vaginal delivery. Green-top Guideline No 26. 2011.
    1. Muraca GM, Sabr Y, Lisonkova S, Skoll A, Brant R, Cundiff GW, et al. Morbidity and mortality associated with forceps and vacuum delivery at outlet, low, and Midpelvic Station. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019;41(3):327–337. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.06.018.
    1. Miller ES, Lai Y, Bailit J, Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, Varner MW, et al. Duration of operative vaginal delivery and adverse obstetric outcomes. Am J Perinatol. 2020;37(5):503–510. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1683439.
    1. Murphy DJ, 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):41–45. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.01.004.
    1. Al-Kadri H, Sabr Y, Al-Saif S, Abulaimoun B, Ba’Aqeel H, Saleh A. Failed individual and sequential instrumental vaginal delivery: contributing risk factors and maternal-neonatal complications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82(7):642–648. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.00162.x.
    1. Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(23):1709–1714. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199912023412301.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe