Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted vaginal delivery.
BACKGROUND
Proponents of vacuum delivery argue that it should be chosen first for assisted vaginal delivery, because it is less likely to injure the mother.


OBJECTIVE
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of vacuum extraction compared to forceps, on failure to achieve delivery and maternal and neonatal morbidity.


METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register. Date of last search: February 1999.


METHODS
Acceptably controlled comparisons of vacuum extraction and forceps delivery.


METHODS
Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.


RESULTS
Ten trials were included. The trials were of reasonable quality. Use of the vacuum extractor for assisted vaginal delivery when compared to forceps delivery was associated with significantly less maternal trauma (odds ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.50) and with less general and regional anaesthesia. There were more deliveries with vacuum extraction (odds ratio 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 2.19). Fewer caesarean sections were carried out in the vacuum extractor group. However the vacuum extractor was associated with an increase in neonatal cephalhaematomata and retinal haemorrhages. Serious neonatal injury was uncommon with either instrument.


CONCLUSIONS
Use of the vacuum extractor rather than forceps for assisted delivery appears to reduce maternal morbidity. The reduction in cephalhaematoma and retinal haemorrhages seen with forceps may be a compensatory benefit.
Johanson
R B
RB
Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust, Maternity Hospital, Newcastle Road, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK, ST4 6QG. rbj@kogs.demon.co.uk
Menon
B K
BK
D005113:Extraction, Obstetrical; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D009772:Obstetrical Forceps; D011247:Pregnancy; D014620:Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical