Clinical impact of the disposable ventouse iCup® versus a metallic vacuum cup: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Véronique Equy, Sandra David-Tchouda, Michel Dreyfus, Didier Riethmuller, Françoise Vendittelli, Victoire Cabaud, Bruno Langer, Jennifer Margier, Jean-Luc Bosson, Jean-Patrick Schaal, Véronique Equy, Sandra David-Tchouda, Michel Dreyfus, Didier Riethmuller, Françoise Vendittelli, Victoire Cabaud, Bruno Langer, Jennifer Margier, Jean-Luc Bosson, Jean-Patrick Schaal

Abstract

Background: Assisted vaginal delivery by vacuum extraction is frequent. Metallic resterilizible metallic vacuum cups have been routinely used in France. In the last few years a new disposable semi-soft vacuum extraction cup, the iCup, has been introduced. Our objective was to compare maternal and new-born outcomes between this disposable cup and the commonly used Drapier-Faure metallic cup.

Methods: This was a multicenter prospective randomized controlled open clinical trial performed in the maternity units of five university hospitals and one community hospital in France from October 2009 to February 2013. We included consecutive eligible women with a singleton gestation of at least 37 weeks who required vacuum assisted delivery. Women were randomized to vacuum extraction using the iCup or usual Drapier-Faure metallic cup. The primary outcome was a composite criterion including both the risk of cup dysfunction and the most frequent maternal and neonatal harms: the use of other instruments after attempted vacuum extraction, caesarean section after attempted vacuum extraction, three detachments of the cup, caput succedaneum, cephalohaematoma, episiotomy and perineal tears.

Results: 335 women were randomized to the disposable cup and 333 to extraction using the metallic cup. There was no significant difference between the two groups for the primary outcome. However, failed instrumental delivery was more frequent in the disposable cup group, mainly due to detachment: 35.6 % vs 7.1 %, p < 0.0001. Conversely, perineal tears were more frequent in the metallic cup group, especially third or fourth grade perineal tears: 1.7 % versus 5.0 %, p = 0.003. There were no significant differences between the two groups concerning post-partum haemorrhage, transfer to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or serious adverse events.

Conclusions: While the disposable cup had more detachments and extraction failures than the standard metallic cup, this innovative disposable device had the advantage of fewer perineal injuries.

Trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov : NCT01058200 on Jan. 27 2010.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow chart of the new disposable cup

References

    1. Mangin M, Ramanah R, Aouar Z, Courtois L, Collin A, Cossa S, et al. Operative delivery data in France for 2007: results of a national survey within teaching hospitals. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2010;39(2):121–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2010.01.002.
    1. Schaal JP, Equy V, Hoffman P. Comparison vacuum extractor versus forceps. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2008;37(supll8):S231–43. doi: 10.1016/S0368-2315(08)74761-6.
    1. O'Mahony F, Hofmeyr GJ, Menon V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;11:CD005455.
    1. Vayssière C, Beucher G, Dupuis O, Feraud O, Simon-Toulza C, Sentilhes L, et al. Instrumental delivery: clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;159(1):43–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.06.043.
    1. Riethmuller D, Ramanah R, Maillet R, Schaal JP. Vacuum extractors: description, mechanics, indications and contra-indications. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2008;37(Suppl 8):S210–21. doi: 10.1016/S0368-2315(08)74759-8.
    1. Vacca A. Operative vaginal delivery: clinical appraisal of a new vacuum extraction device. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;41:156–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2001.tb01200.x.
    1. Vacca A. Vacuum-assisted delivery: an analysis of traction force and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;46(2):124–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006.00540.x.
    1. Hayman R, Gilby J, Arulkumaran S. Clinical evaluation of a “hand pump” vacuum delivery device. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(6):1190–5. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(02)02384-0.
    1. Machin D, Campbell MJ. Statistical Tables for Design of Clinical Trials. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1987.
    1. Fleiss JL, Tytun A, Ury SHK. A simple approximation for calculating sample sizes for comparing independent proportions. Biometrics. 1980;36:343–6. doi: 10.2307/2529990.
    1. Hammarstrom M, Csemiczky G, Belfrage P. Comparison between the conventional Malmstrom extractor and a new extractor with Silastic cup. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986;65(7):791–2. doi: 10.3109/00016348609161502.
    1. Thiery M, Van Den Broecke R, Kermans G, Parewijck W, Dhont M, Vanlancker M, et al. A randomized study of two cups for vacuum extraction. J Perinat Med. 1987;15(2):129–36. doi: 10.1515/jpme.1987.15.2.129.
    1. Cohn M, Barclay C, Fraser R, Zaklama M, Johanson R, Anderson D, et al. A multicentre randomized trial comparing delivery with a silicone rubber cup and rigid metal vacuum extractor cups. BJOG. 1989;96(5):545–551. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1989.tb03253.x.
    1. Chenoy R, Johanson R. A randomized prospective study comparing delivery with metal and silicone rubber vacuum extractor cups. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992;99(5):360–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb13748.x.
    1. Loghis C, Pyrgiotis E, Panayotopoulos N, Batalias L, Salamalekis E, Zourlas PA. Comparison between metal cup and silicone rubber cup vacuum extractor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1992;45(3):173–6. doi: 10.1016/0028-2243(92)90079-E.
    1. Kuit JA, Eppinga HG, Wallenburg HC, Huikeshoven FJ. A randomized comparison of vacuum extraction delivery with a rigid and a pliable cup. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;82(2):280–4.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00729.x.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00834.x.
    1. Ismail NA, Saharan WS, Zaleha MA, Jaafar R, Muhammad JA, Razi ZR. Kiwi omniCup versus malmstrom metal cup in vacuum assisted delivery: a randomized comparative trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2008;34(3):350–3. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2007.00701.x.
    1. Mola GD, Kuk JM. A randomised controlled trial of two instruments for vacuum-assisted delivery (Vacca Re-Usable OmniCup and the Bird anterior and posterior cups) to compare failure rates, safety and use effectiveness. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;50:246–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2010.01166.x.
    1. Velemir L, Vendittelli F, Bonnefoy C, Accoceberry M, Savary D, Gallot D. Learning curve of vacuum extraction in residency: a preliminary study. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2009;38:421–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2009.04.004.
    1. Eskander R, Beall M, Ross MG. Vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery simulation-quantitation of subjective measures of traction and detachment forces. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25(10):2039–41. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2012.675374.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する