A prospective randomised controlled trial of the Kiwi Omnicup versus conventional ventouse cups for vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery

被引:59
作者
Groom, KM [1 ]
Jones, BA [1 ]
Miller, N [1 ]
Paterson-Brown, S [1 ]
机构
[1] Queen Charlottes & Chelsea Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, London W12 0HS, England
关键词
instrumental delivery; Kiwi Omnicup; randomised controlled trial; ventouse;
D O I
10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00834.x
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: To evaluate the performance and safety of the Kiwi Omnicup and compare it to conventional vacuum cups in routine clinical practice. Design: A randomised controlled trial of the Kiwi Omnicup versus conventional vacuum cups. Setting: Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital, a tertiary referral hospital in London from April 2001 to March 2004. Population: Women requiring assisted vaginal delivery by ventouse. Methods: Women were randomised to the Kiwi Omnicup (n = 206) or conventional vacuum cups (n = 198). Data regarding maternal demographics, labour, mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal outcome were collected. Main outcome measure: Failure of delivery with instrument of first choice. Results: The Kiwi Omnicup was less successful at delivery with instrument of first choice than the conventional ventouse, failure rate 30.1 versus 19.2% (RR 1.58; 95% CI 1.10-2.24). It was associated with a greater number of cup detachments (mean 0.68 compared with 0.28, with 44% compared with 18% having at least one detachment [P < 0.0001]). There was no difference in the incidence of severe maternal trauma, and there were no cases of serious neonatal injury. Conclusions: The Kiwi Omnicup is less successful than conventional ventouse in achieving vaginal delivery, but its safety profile is comparable.
引用
收藏
页码:183 / 189
页数:7
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery [J].
Akmal, S ;
Kametas, N ;
Tsoi, E ;
Hargreaves, C ;
Nicolaides, KH .
ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 21 (05) :437-440
[2]  
Attilakos G, 2004, J OBSTET GYNAECOL, V24, pS23
[3]  
BERKUS MD, 1986, OBSTET GYNECOL, V68, P662
[4]   IMPORTANCE OF FLEXION IN VACUUM EXTRACTOR DELIVERY [J].
BIRD, GC .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1976, 83 (03) :194-200
[5]   A randomized prospective trial of the obstetric forceps versus the M-cup vacuum extractor [J].
Bofill, JA ;
Rust, OA ;
Schorr, SJ ;
Brown, RC ;
Martin, RW ;
Martin, JN ;
Morrison, JC .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1996, 175 (05) :1325-1330
[6]   THE OBSTETRIC VACUUM EXTRACTOR IS THE INSTRUMENT OF 1ST CHOICE FOR OPERATIVE VAGINAL DELIVERY [J].
CHALMERS, JA ;
CHALMERS, I .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1989, 96 (05) :505-506
[7]  
Cotzias Christina S., 1998, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Abingdon), V18, P318
[8]   Clinical evaluation of a "Hand pump" vacuum delivery device [J].
Hayman, R ;
Gilby, J ;
Arulkumaran, S .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 100 (06) :1190-1195
[9]   NORTH-STAFFORDSHIRE WIGAN ASSISTED DELIVERY TRIAL [J].
JOHANSON, R ;
PUSEY, J ;
LIVERA, N ;
JONES, P .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1989, 96 (05) :537-544
[10]   Maternal and child health after assisted vaginal delivery: five-year follow up of a randomised controlled study comparing forceps and ventouse [J].
Johanson, RB ;
Heycock, E ;
Carter, J ;
Sultan, AH ;
Walklate, K ;
Jones, PW .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1999, 106 (06) :544-549