Vacuum Extraction

Author: John P O'Grady, MD, MA; Chief Editor: Thomas Chih Cheng Peng, MD

Updated: Sep 12, 2012

In the Elements of Physics in 1831, Neil Arnott, MD, wrote, "The simple contrivance now described, and which may be called a pneumatic tractor, seems well suited to various purposes of surgery."

Vacuum extraction (VE) has deep historical roots. The origin of vacuum extraction is in 哘upping,?a therapeutic technique used long before Hippocrates. In cupping, a metal or glass cup was heated over an open flame, then applied to a lesion or skin puncture. As the cup cooled, a vacuum developed, extracting blood or other fluids. Cupping also occasionally was used for a number of surgical procedures, such as raising depressed skull fractures.

The use of cupping to assist delivery began in the early 18th century. Obstetric use proved problematic. Delivery assistance required a vaginal application of the cup and periodic reinforcement of the vacuum. In order to make the cranial vacuum cup practical, a technology to generate a vacuum on demand was needed. This technology was not to come for another 100 years.

James Young Simpson invented the first practical vacuum extractor in 1849 (see Picture 1). Simpson, a professor of obstetrics in Edinburgh, was a clinician and obstetric innovator who was famous for his forceps design and the introduction of chloroform into obstetrical practice. Simpson experimented with vacuum devices, producing a working delivery instrument in the late 1840s that he successfully employed. However, his interest soon moved to other obstetric issues and his 贈 ir tractor?fell from popular attention. In the decades that followed the creation of Simpson 旧 instrument, a number of vacuum delivery devices were invented and tested by various clinicians, but none achieved popularity.

The immediate antecedent to modern extractors was the stainless steel cup device, introduced by Malmstrom in the late 1950s. This device entered US practice late in the 1960s; however, because of technical problems with the original design and case reports of severe fetal complications, interest promptly waned. Within the last several years following the introduction of disposable soft-cup extractors and improved rigid cup designs, VE has experienced a revival. This renewed interest also has led to a more scientific study of vacuum technique, improving both the success and safety of VE.

At present, both forceps and the vacuum extractor are in widespread use. Controversy continues concerning if and when to conduct operative vaginal deliveries and which instrument is best. This and related issues are of importance because VE currently is employed in about 6% of all births in the US (nearly 50,000 operations per year).

Despite the growing popularity of VE, forceps remains the instrument of choice for many older clinicians for reasons of medical conservatism, inclination, and original training. The future for all instrumental delivery remains unclear, as adequate training in all aspects of these operations is increasingly difficult to obtain because of the retirement of classically trained obstetricians; the inability to conduct training operations; a malevolent medico-legal climate; and changes in practice, including the high frequency of cesarean delivery.

VE is popular because of its reputation for ease of use, lower maternal morbidity, and safety. However, the sporadic but continuous reports of severe neonatal complications associated with VE should serve to remind practitioners of the need for rigorous adherence to proven techniques and limited indications to best assure success while avoiding injury.

PREREQUISITES, INDICATIONS, AND CONTRAINDICATIONS

In general, VE operations have similar indications as operations with forceps.

Mandatory prerequisites

Informed consent

An informed consent is a process, not simply a signed form. For instrumental delivery, a proper informed consent includes an explanation of the need for the operation, a discussion of risks and benefits, and a presentation of alternative modes of treatment. Furthermore, the parturient must have the opportunity to ask questions. In its entirety, the consent process may strike the clinician as being excessively time consuming and unrealistic, especially in the face of urgency.

Obviously, in most instances, a bedside consent process is abbreviated. In all situations but extreme emergencies, there should at least be sufficient time to briefly describe the proposed operation and to indicate the limits of effort intended to the patient.

Because of the difficulties of obtaining bedside consents from laboring patients, discussing possible obstetric interventions with families at an earlier time during the pregnancy is prudent; thus, when these data are presented during labor at the time of intervention, they are not entirely new or unanticipated.

Prepared physician

The clinician must have knowledge of the instrument chosen and of VE indications and proven techniques. Specifically, this preparation includes the willingness to abandon an operation if it proves difficult.

Prepared patient

Prior to considering an extraction, the patient should have ruptured membranes; an empty bladder by Cred? catheterization, or spontaneous voiding; full cervical dilation; an engaged fetal head; and no suspicion of feto-pelvic disproportion.

Acceptable analgesia/anesthesia

While some operative VE deliveries can be conducted under a local and vocal?with a willing gravida, most parturients find operative vaginal procedures uncomfortable. Either a regional (eg, pudendal block) or a major conduction anesthetic (eg, epidural, spinal) may be required.

　

Indications

Prolonged second stage of labor

Clinical studies before the 1970s suggested that the risk of fetal morbidity and mortality was higher with a prolonged second stage of labor; however, studies involving almost 36,000 parturients found no direct relationship between the length of the second stage and infant mortality or morbidity. These data indicate that a prolonged second stage, according to American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) criteria, is not an indication for immediate operative intervention unless the maternal or fetal status becomes bothersome or progress ceases.

Do not ignore tardy progress. Poor progress requires caution because cranial malpositioning, deflection, asymmetries, or true feto-pelvic disproportion could be present. The safety of an extended second stage depends upon close maternal or fetal monitoring, with judicious intervention as required. Therefore, an extended second stage is a relative, but not absolute, indication for obstetric intervention.

Shortening of the second stage of labor

On occasion, shortening the second stage of labor is appropriate. Maternal disorders (eg, cardiac, cerebrovascular, or neuromuscular conditions) in which voluntary expulsive efforts are contraindicated or impossible exist. Additional situations that may lead to intervention include the vastly overdiagnosed condition of maternal exhaustion or the uncommon instances of overly dense epidural analgesia.

Presumed fetal jeopardy/fetal distress

While a potentially distressed infant is a classic indication for operative intervention, this is the setting in which extra caution is indicated. Operative heroics have no place in obstetric management. The means for diagnosis of presumed fetal jeopardy are imperfect, except in extreme instances such as fixed bradycardia or cord prolapse. When prompt delivery is indicated, station and position of the fetal head, the feto-pelvic relationship, operator skill, and judgment of the degree of jeopardy dictate the mode of delivery. For most practitioners, cord prolapse, abruptio placentae, or persistent bradycardia at a high station, even at full dilation with an engaged head, are best managed by cesarean delivery.

Nonetheless, expedited vaginal delivery using vacuum extraction (or forceps) is appropriate in carefully selected cases of rapidly progressing labor when pelvic adequacy is good, the parturient is willing and able to assist, and an experienced surgeon is present. Many of these applications are best conducted as trials, as described below.

Trials of instrumental delivery

A trial of instrumental delivery is an operation in which delivery is indicated and the vaginal route remains a possibility, but the outcome is uncertain. In this type of procedure, the most experienced clinician remains at the perineum, encouraging maternal efforts of bearing down and assisting with an instrument, while other personnel simultaneously prepare for an urgent cesarean delivery. If the extraction does not proceed easily with descent of the presenting part beginning subsequent to the initial traction effort, the attempt at instrumentation is abandoned and a cesarean delivery is performed.

　

Contraindications to vacuum extraction

Operator inexperience

Inability to achieve a proper application

Inadequate trial of labor

Uncertainty concerning fetal position/station

Suspicion of feto-pelvic disproportion

High fetal head

Malpositioning (eg, breech, face, brow)

Known or suspected fetal coagulation defect

Prior failed forceps

Relative contraindications

Prematurity (fetuses <36 wk gestation)

Prior scalp sampling

Definitions

The ACOG has established standard definitions for instrumental delivery operations (see Picture 2). These definitions include outlet, low, and mid pelvic operations and depend upon assessment of fetal position and station. While the ACOG guidelines originally were written for forceps procedures, the same descriptions may be applied to vacuum extraction operations with minor modifications.

DESIGN OF THE VACUUM EXTRACTOR

Available vacuum extraction instrumentation

In the US, vacuum extractors are of 2 basic designs, employing either a rigid or a flexible vacuum cup of varying composition (eg, polyethylene, silastic plastic, stainless steel). All of the cups have several standard features, including the following:

　

A mushroom-shaped cup with a fixed internal vacuum grid or guard An attached vacuum pump or a vacuum port to permit a vacuum hose attachment A handle, wire, or chain for traction

Rigid-cup designs include the classic Malmstrom stainless steel vacuum cup and various modifications of this instrument, such as the Bird cup. Rigid plastic cups designed for use with deflexed or posterior positioned heads also are available. Many other modified rigid-cup types exist, varying in details of cup design and in arrangement of the traction attachment site or the vacuum port.

Soft-cup extractors include the infrequently used cone-shaped silastic cup, the Kobayashi device, and various other disposable polyethylene or combined polyethylene-silastic cup designs. Limited data exist comparing the clinical utility or the relative risk of use of the currently popular soft cup VE designs.

Comparison of instruments

In general, the soft or flexible vacuum cups have a higher incidence of failure than either rigid vacuum cups (plastic or metal) or forceps due to their higher frequency of detachments. However, soft vacuum cups also produce less fetal cosmetic injury (principally scalp injury) than rigid cups. This lack of injury most likely reflects the inability of soft cups to generate the same degree of scalp traction as rigid cups.

There are design issues to consider. The relatively rigid rod connecting the handle and cup in most plastic extractor designs precludes accurate placement of the instrument on deflexed or posterior heads; this contributes to failure. However, high success rates with a rigid but plastic "M" cup (similar to the original Malmstr stainless steel cup) recently have been reported in operations involving these common cranial malpresentations. The newly introduced KIWI extractor, consisting of a rigid plastic Malmstrom-type cup attached by a wire to a unique combined handle/pump, is especially useful for cases involving cranial deflexion/malpositioning.

VACUUM EXTRACTION TECHNIQUE

Technique is vitally important to the safety and success of VE operations. A proper vacuum extraction depends upon (1) the accuracy of cup application, (2) the traction technique, (3) the fetal cranial position and station at the time of application, (4) the cup design, and (5) the feto-pelvic relationship.

After the prerequisites for VE operation are met, the position, station, and attitude of the fetal head is verified by pelvic examination and an instrument is chosen. Thereafter, several specific steps are taken, including the following: 　

Ghosting: A ghost or phantom application is performed prior to the attempt at cup insertion. In ghosting, the surgeon holds the vacuum cup in front of the perineum in the same angle and position expected once the extractor has correctly been applied to the fetal head. This application is an exact parallel to the ghosting or phantom application procedure followed for a forceps operative delivery. The phantom application/ghosting procedure forces an additional check of fetal position and station, establishes the correct instrument orientation, and demands that the surgeon mentally review the planned operation. If uncertainty exists concerning either the position or station of the presenting part, repeat pelvic examination or perform abdominal and/or transperineal realtime ultrasound scanning.

　

Insertion: The cup is lubricated with sterile lubricant or surgical soap. If a soft cup is employed, it is partially collapsed by the hand of the operator and then introduced through the labia. Rigid cups are turned sideways, the labia are gently spread, and the device is slipped into the vagina. To ensure precise application to the fetal head, the following points are important:

Check the application: When correctly applied, the vacuum cup is positioned centrally over the point of cranial flexion, or the pivot point. When the vector of traction force is directed through this pivot point, the fetal head is flexed and neither twisted obliquely nor extended as the extraction proceeds. Anatomically, the pivot point is an imaginary spot over the sagittal suture of the fetal skull, located approximately 6 cm posterior to the center of the anterior fontanelle or 1-2 cm anterior to the posterior fontanelle.

When correctly positioned, the edge of a standard 60-mm cup lies approximately 3 cm or 2 fingerbreadths behind the center of the anterior fontanelle in the midline over the sagittal suture. Thus, in VE operations, the anterior fontanelle becomes the reference point for checking the instrument application because access to the posterior fontanelle is partially blocked once the extractor cup is in place, rendering this familiar landmark unusable.

The farther the cup is placed from the midsagittal position on the fetal head over the cranial pivot or flexion point, the greater the failure rate. Oblique applications result in cranial deflexion or asymmetry as traction is applied. This increases the work of extraction by presenting a larger cranial diameter to the birth canal than would occur had the application been correct.

Once an approximate cup application is established, partial vacuum sufficient to fix the cup to the fetal head is applied. A careful check of cup placement follows (eg, midsagittal, over pivot point, no maternal tissue included). Once the surgeon is convinced of an appropriate placement, full vacuum is applied (ie, 550-600 mm Hg) and traction follows, paralleling contractions.

　

Traction: The pull on the traction handle must follow a specific vector of force, causing the fetal head to transverse the normal pelvic curve. Traction efforts are timed to coincide with uterine contractions. The vacuum pump is actuated until the appropriate degree of vacuum is present. Tension on the extractor handle is allowed to build gradually, paralleling the uterine contractions. As the contraction wanes, the tension on the extractor progressively is relaxed. At the discretion of the surgeon, the vacuum can either be maintained or reduced to less than 200 mm Hg between contractions. Both techniques are acceptable.

During traction, the best technique for the surgeon is to place the nondominant hand within the vagina, placing the thumb on the extractor cup and 1 or more fingers on the fetal. When positioned like this, the surgeon follows the descent of the presenting part and can better judge the appropriate angle for traction while gauging the relative position of the cup edge to the scalp, helping to detect cup separation while limiting unnecessary rocking motions or torque. Descent must begin with the initial traction effort; failure to achieve station mandates prompt reassessment of the procedure.

Current data permit the settling of at least one old issue. Two common VE techniques, continuous vacuum throughout the procedure versus intermittent vacuum with the vacuum released between contractions, have been studied in a randomized trial. No differences between groups with regard to the speed of delivery, rates of instrument failure, or maternal or fetal outcomes exist. The use of either technique becomes the discretion of the surgeon.

For standard VE procedures, the authors' general recommendations include (1) limit the number of tractions to 4 or 5, (2) limit unintended cup detachments or 屶 op-offs?to 2 or 3, (3) require advancement of the presenting part with the initial traction, (4) restrict the overall duration of the procedure to less than 30 minutes (some propose 20 min). These recommendations are based on large clinical series that reported a low incidence of injury when these limitations were followed. Lastly, detailed documentation of the operative delivery in the medical record, including the aforementioned points is paramount.

The limits to effort

Studies performed with forceps, rigid-cup extractors, and soft cup extractors essentially have the same findings. Approximately 85% of births requiring VE are delivered with 4 or fewer than 4 pulls. Thus, if a prolonged extraction with any instrument occurs, carefully consider if progress truly is taking place. Procedures leading to multiple cup pop-offs or procedures requiring a large number of traction efforts are best abandoned because it is believed that this practice risks injury as the accoucheur strains to overcome disproportion. Recognize that optimistic beliefs in continued but very slow progress may represent no progress at all, only a growing caput. However, the rule of reason also must apply. If cranial delivery is imminent, do not abandon a procedure in favor of a cesarean delivery simply because the fourth or fifth pull has occurred.

Special applications

A number of clinicians have used the vacuum extractor to assist in cesarean delivery. At surgery, a thin lower-uterine segment, combined with a narrow deep pelvis, predisposes the infant to laceration or extension when manual extraction of the fetal head is performed. The question here is one of practicality. Deep fetal heads usually are best elevated from below by an assistant, obviating a need for the application of any instrument. Yet, on occasion, the engaged fetal head can be grasped with the ventouse and the infant can be extracted, limiting trauma to the mother or infant. The flexible or semirigid cups are best for this application; however, no data suggesting any advantage to VE exist, as opposed to forceps for this indication. A better use for VE is for fetal heads that remain high in the uterus when fundal pressure fails to promptly dislodge them. In this setting, VE (or forceps) can easily be applied, leading to prompt delivery and avoiding the need for a breech extraction.

Sequential instrument use

Sequential instrument use (forceps operations followed by VE or vice versa) is problematic. Occasional papers involving small patient numbers and uncontrolled technique repeated in previous years suggested that sequential instrument use is safe; however, recent studies have reported that sequential operations are associated with an increased risk for fetal intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), exceeding the risk when either forceps or VE are used alone. ICH is 3.4 times (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7, 6.6) more likely to result from sequential procedures than from a VE operation alone. Similar data concerning an enhanced risk from combined

procedures come from review of the 1998 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory paper on VE and other birth injury reviews.

Some believe that the risk is one of degree. When one type of instrument fails, no absolute prohibition to trying a different device exists; however, such applications must be restricted to highly experienced physicians who have a clear understanding that the risk of birth injury can be increased in such operations. Injuries from multiple instrument use most likely occur when a degree of unrecognized feto-pelvic disproportion is present and when, despite difficulty, the clinician cannot refrain from pursuing vaginal operative delivery.

Thus, case choice is critical. Obviously, the best cases in which to change instruments are those in which a technical problem, such as a malfunctioning hand pump, is suspected. The least desirable cases are those in which multiple tractions/pop-offs occur following appropriate technique without descent of the presenting part, causing an inadequate or inconsistent vacuum.

BIRTH INJURIES

Neonatal injury

The reported incidence of severe fetal injury or death from VE is low, ranging from 0.1-3 cases per 1,000 extraction procedures. Vacuum use results in shearing forces to the scalp, leading to the common, but clinically unimportant, cephalohematomas and the relatively rare, but potentially life-threatening, subgaleal hemorrhages. Scalp bruising or lacerations and retinal hemorrhages are additional, but minor and clinically insignificant, risks of extraction procedures.

Subgaleal/subaponeurotic hemorrhage

The most feared complication of VE is hemorrhage in the SG subgaleal (SG)/subaponeurotic space from rupture of the emissary veins. This condition can be life threatening, with a mortality rate reported as high as 22.8%. Approximately half of all SG hemorrhages are related to VE. The remainder of SG hemorrhages is associated with forceps operations; less commonly, they occur following spontaneous deliveries. The reported incidence of SG hemorrhages ranges from 6-50 per 1,000 VE operations. These rates almost certainly are overestimates and do not reflect the rates of injury in modern practice when soft-cup extractors are used and strict protocols for application are followed.

In the experience of the authors, SG bleeding is rare unless excessive force and/or multiple instrumentation has been performed. This complication was not observed in the cases included in recent vacuum extraction meta-analyses. This documents the rarity of severe scalp injuries while emphasizing the importance of following strict technical guidelines when performing vacuum extractions/operations. Nonetheless, notifying pediatric personnel whenever an extraction is performed is suggested, regardless of the immediate condition of the child because SG hemorrhage may not be clinically apparent until some hours postpartum.

Scalp bruising/lacerations

Ecchymoses and, uncommonly, scalp slough or lacerations can follow VE. Most of these injuries occur when the recommended limits to total cup applications are exceeded (30 min is

the maximum). Also, recall that the ventouse is not a rotating instrument. Attempts at cup rotation simply foster cup displacement or scalp injury. Under traction, the fetal head should rotate automatically as descent occurs. If the clinician feels an obligation to assist or hasten this process, then manual rotation of the head (not the cup) can accompany the extraction. Normally, this is not required.

　

Long-term neonatal outcomes

The few available studies evaluating long-term neurological sequelae of instrumental delivery have found no differences among children delivered spontaneously and children delivered by either VE or forceps. Cohorts of 295 and 302 children delivered by VE-assisted procedures versus spontaneous deliveries, respectively, were studied when the participants were aged 10 years. These children scored similarly in scholastic performance, speech, ability for self-care, and neurologic status. Follow-up studies of infants who were vacuum extracted were performed when the children were aged 9 months and 5 years; no differences in cognitive development were found between children delivered with VE and forceps. These studies, though relatively small in numbers, provide reassurance of VE safety.

　

Maternal injury

Vacuum extraction has a low rate of maternal injury in comparison to forceps operations or cesarean delivery. However, maternal injuries do occur, and this trauma cannot be disregarded in the evaluation of the risk of the procedure.

Lacerations

Maternal perineal lacerations are common complications of all operative vaginal deliveries. Many tears accompany episiotomy. The reported incidence of severe laceration (ie, third-degree and fourth-degree laceration) during VE procedures ranges from 10-30%. Women who sustain vaginal lacerations in a previous delivery are at a significantly greater risk for repeat laceration in subsequent deliveries. Women at greatest risk are those who experienced a laceration in the first delivery followed by a subsequent delivery combining both instrumentation and episiotomy.

This is one area in which the vacuum extractor has a clear advantage. Forceps operations are more likely to result in anal sphincter trauma than vacuum extractions. In pooled data from 8 randomized trials studying maternal delivery trauma, a 6% decrease (95% CI -.10, -.02) in anal sphincter trauma occurred if VE, and not forceps, was employed.

Stress urinary and anal incontinence

Delivery trauma is suspected to predispose the patient to subsequent pelvic floor dysfunction; however, recent data indicate that the long-term effects of operative vaginal delivery on rectal and/or urinary incontinence are more complex than originally believed. Although severe perineal lacerations are more frequent with forceps operations compared to operations with VE, recent studies evaluating remote outcomes (9 mo to 5 y) show no long-term differences

between stress urinary and anal incontinence of mothers delivering with the aid of VE and those delivering with the aid of forceps. As an example, in a 5-year follow-up of 228 women who randomly delivered an infant by forceps or VE, no differences were found in urinary or bowel dysfunction between the groups.

A prospective observational study involving 278 women found an initial association between instrumental delivery (both forceps and VE procedures) and anal incontinence at 5 months after delivery but no association at 9 months after delivery. Clinically detected sphincter tears were more likely to result in involuntary loss at 9 months after delivery.

In another prospective survey of 1008 women at 34 weeks gestation, which was repeated 8 weeks postpartum, no difference in noted stress urinary incontinence was found between women who had normal vaginal delivery and women who had instrumental delivery. These studies also noted a high incidence of incontinence occurring spontaneously during pregnancy.

Interpretation of all these data is problematic. The suggestion is that vaginal childbirth is a major culprit, but not the sole culprit, of long-term perinatal dysfunction. Not surprisingly, the greater the degree of perineal trauma, the more likely are residual sphincteric abnormalities.

Long-term follow-up studies controlling for prepartum pelvic support status, eg, preexisting rectal dysfunction and/or urinary incontinence, length of labor, anesthesia, clinically observed perineal trauma, and delivery method, are required before changes in current practice can be recommended.

CHOICE OF INSTRUMENT

Debate among clinicians persists concerning which instrument is best, either the vacuum extractor or the forceps. A number of factors are involved, including the following:

Anesthesia: In general, low or outlet VE operations are less uncomfortable for the mother than forceps procedures. A meta-analysis observed a significant reduction in the requirement for anesthesia with VE operations in comparison to forceps deliveries. With a willing parturient, uncomplicated VE occasionally can be performed with local/pudendal anesthesia. Instrument failure: A VE operation has a higher failure rate than a forceps operation. The relative risk of failure with VE versus forceps operations is 1.69 (95% CI 1.31, 2.19). The higher VE failure rate is concerning in the light of recent data regarding the risks of sequential instrument use, especially the increased risk of ICH, which can follow clinical failure with a vacuum instrument. Serious birth injury: A recent study collected mode of delivery and birth injury data on more than 580,000 live-born singletons with a birth weight of 2500-4000 g. Infants delivered by VE had a significantly higher rate of ICH (including subdural and other cerebral bleeds), brachial plexus injuries, convulsions, and central nervous system depression; furthermore, they had a higher need for mechanical ventilation versus infants delivered spontaneously. However, there were no significant differences in these rates for the more severe neonatal injuries, including ICH, among infants delivered by cesarean during labor (0.25 per 1,000) versus infants delivered by either VE (0.15 per 1,000) or forceps (0.26 per 1,000).

Not surprisingly, facial nerve (VII) palsies were more common following forceps operations (4.5 per 1,000) than VE procedures (0.46 per 1,000). These data implicate labor and vaginal

delivery, as opposed to the specific delivery instrument, in the etiology of many sustainable birth injuries, at least in large population statistical studies.

Clinical practice

The accoucheur must carefully consider the fetal condition, available resources, extent of analgesia, likelihood of maternal cooperation, and personal skill level when choosing the instrument for operative vaginal delivery. When an urgent delivery is required and a vaginal operative delivery trial is elected, greater success and less danger result when instruments are chosen based on operator experience and skill in the setting equipped for urgent cesarean if necessary.

In presumed fetal jeopardy at a low station (+2/5 +/- cm), many prefer to apply forceps rather than the vacuum. However, prospective trials demonstrate no differences in either the safety or speed between these instruments. Thus, either the ventouse or forceps is appropriate in these urgent cases, depending upon the comfort level of the clinician.

When the situation is without exigency, other issues deserve consideration. The forces of labor normally result in cranial molding and the formation of caput. The combination of molding and caput succedaneum formation can obscure landmarks to such a degree that even an experienced clinician can have difficulty in assessing fetal position and station. Careful attention to palpation of the cranial fontanelles, suture lines, orbital ridges, or the fetal ear helps establish the correct cranial orientation and station.

In difficult cases, real-time ultrasound scanning is useful in evaluating fetal cranial positioning and, to some extent, station, particularly in occiput posterior positions. Visualization of the fetal orbits, cranial anatomy, position of the fetal spine, and other anatomic landmarks are helpful.

The instrument chosen should best fit the clinical situation. Certain vacuum cup designs have special advantages in particular circumstances.

Choice of instrument for cephalic presentations

Outlet operations/low-pelvic operations (rotation <450: With adequate analgesia, the vacuum extractor and forceps are equivalent instruments. If a VE is chosen, any instrument can successfully be applied.

Low-pelvic operations (rotation >450 and midpelvic operations: Procedures that do not involve significant cranial asynclitism are equally well managed by any vacuum instrument. For asynclitic heads in transverse position, the appropriate cup choices include an occiput posterior (OP) metal cup (eg, Bird design, O’Neil design) and a plastic OP design. Forceps also may be used for these positions, but operations involving VE and forceps are restricted to the experienced physician only.

If extraction is performed with a direct OP cup, appropriate choices include an OP metal cup (eg, Bird design, O'Neil design) or a plastic OP design (eg, KIWI, Mityvac. Forceps also may be applied to OP either for a direct "face to pubes" pull or a rotation. Both the pull and a rotation can prove difficult and risk maternal soft-tissue injury. Again, these procedures are restricted to the experienced surgeon only.

Breech presentation

A vaginal breech delivery is a clear indication for the application of forceps. In a breech presentation, VE is contraindicated. Either Piper or Kjelland forceps are appropriate for the after-coming head.

Multiple gestations

The delivery of a second cephalic-presenting twin is a potential indication for the use of a vacuum extractor. Such applications are usually easy because of dilation of the birth canal following the delivery of the first infant. Normally, any standard extractor design is appropriate.

Prematurity (<36 week)

The use of any instrument to assist delivery of a premature infant is controversial. Older data suggests that gentle assisted delivery of the fetal head on the perineum using a classic forceps may reduce cranial trauma. However, this traditional application generally has unimpressive literature support. As the inherent risks of fetal intracranial or scalp hemorrhage are believed to be greater in premature infants than in full-term infants, the vacuum extractor is relatively contraindicated for application to infants younger than 36 weeks. However, as data on this issue are limited or anecdotal, this contraindication is relative. In summary, remain cautious about applying delivery instruments to premature infants because the risks/benefits are not well established. If an extractor is chosen, a soft-cup design is preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

The vacuum extractor is an effective and safe device for assisted vaginal delivery and an important addition to the obstetrical armamentarium. Treat this instrument with respect in order to maximize the possibilities of its success while limiting the risks of maternal and fetal injury.

The following conclusions are derived from an analysis of the literature, as interpreted by the authors. The level of recommendations follows that prompted by the ACOG and is based on the highest level of evidence found in the data. The level of recommendation that follows each statement parallels that promoted by the ACOG and is based on the highest level of evidence found in the data. Recommendations are graded according to the following categories:

　

Level A: Recommendations are based on good and consistent scientific evidence.

　

Level B: Recommendations are based on limited or inconsistent scientific evidence.

　

Level C: Recommendations are based primarily on consensus and expert opinion.

　

Recommendation type A: Serious fetal injuries, while possible with either the VE or forceps, are rare.

　

Recommendation type B: Intracranial hemorrhage may result from the events of labor, leading to the dystocia requiring operative intervention rather than being due to the instrument assisting delivery. This assumes medically appropriate use of the instrument. A second stage of labor that is considered prolonged by standard criteria alone is no longer an absolute indication for immediate operative delivery. The small but real risk for SG hemorrhage following extraction operations emphasizes the absolute requirement for a cautious approach to VE operations and involvement of the pediatrician to assure appropriate postoperative observation of suspect cases. Perineal trauma has the potential to injure pelvic nerves or fascial support or disrupt the anal sphincter, resulting in permanent pelvic floor dysfunction; however, the implications of maternal birth canal injuries from spontaneous and instrumentally assisted deliveries remain unsettled.

These data, while incomplete, prompt care in all deliveries and special caution in instrumental deliveries to limit the performance of episiotomy and to avoid perineal injury when possible. The likelihood of serious infant injury probably is increased when either the forceps or a vacuum extractor is attempted following a failed operation with the alternative instrument. Sequential instrument use is restricted to selected cases conducted by highly experienced surgeons only.

　

Recommendation type C: Trials of instrumental delivery following an adequate trial of labor continue to have a place in clinical practice. However, these trials are appropriate only in the hands of the experienced, in situations when the possibility of success is believed to be high, and only when concomitant preparations for a possible cesarean delivery are underway.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahuga G, Willoughby M, Kerr M: Massie subaponeurotic Haemorrhage in infrants

born by vacuum extraction. Br Med J 1969; 3: 743-745. Albers LL, Schiff M, Gorwoda JG: The length of active labor in normal pregnancies.

Obstet Gynecol 1996 Mar; 87(3): 355-9[Medline].

American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. In: ACOG Practice Bulletin. 17: June 2000.

Berkus MD, Ramamurthy RS, O'Connor PS: Cohort study of silastic obstetric vacuum cup deliveries: I. Safety of the instrument. Obstet Gynecol 1985 Oct; 66(4): 503-9[Medline].

Berkus MD, Ramamurthy RS, O'Connor PS: Cohort study of Silastic obstetric vacuum cup deliveries: II. Unsuccessful vacuum extraction. Obstet Gynecol 1986 Nov; 68(5): 662-6[Medline].

Bofill JA, Rust OA, Schorr SJ: A randomized prospective trial of the obstetric forceps versus the M- cup vacuum extractor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996 Nov; 175(5): 1325-30[Medline].

Bofill JA, Rust OA, Schorr SJ: A randomized trial of two vacuum extraction techniques. Obstet Gynecol 1997 May; 89(5 Pt 1): 758-62[Medline].

Carley ME, Turner RJ, Scott DE: Obstetric history in women with surgically corrected adult urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1999 Feb; 6(1): 85-9[Medline].

Chan CC, Malathi I, Yeo GS: Is the vacuum extractor really the instrument of first choice? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1999 Aug; 39(3): 305-9[Medline].

Cohen WR: Influence of the duration of second stage labor on perinatal outcome and puerperal morbidity. Obstet Gynecol 1977 Mar; 49(3): 266-9[Medline].

Curtin SC, Park MM: Trends in the attendant, place, and timing of births, and in the use of obstetric interventions: United States, 1989-97. Natl Vital Stat Rep 1999 Dec 2; 47(27): 1-12[Medline].

Dell DL, Sightler SE, Plauche WC: Soft cup vacuum extraction: a comparison of outlet delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1985 Nov; 66(5): 624-8[Medline].

Drife JO: Choice and instrumental delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996 Jul; 103(7): 608-11[Medline].

Eason E, Labrecque M, Wells G: Preventing perineal trauma during childbirth: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2000 Mar; 95(3): 464-71[Medline].

Ezenagu LC, Kakaria R, Bofill JA: Sequential use of instruments at operative vaginal delivery: is it safe? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999 Jun; 180(6 Pt 1): 1446-9[Medline].

Foldspang A, Mommsen S, Djurhuus JC: Prevalent urinary incontinence as a correlate of pregnancy, vaginal childbirth, and obstetric techniques. Am J Public Health 1999 Feb; 89(2): 209-12[Medline].

Fortune PM, Thomas RM: Sub-aponeurotic haemorrhage: a rare but life-threatening neonatal complication associated with ventouse delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999 Aug; 106(8): 868-70[Medline].

Gray DL, Nelson DM: Cord blood acid-base status in neonates delivered by Silastic vacuum cup extraction: comparison with forceps and spontaneous deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 1988 Jan; 71(1): 76-80[Medline].

Groutz A, Fait G, Lessing JB: Incidence and obstetric risk factors of postpartum anal incontinence. Scand J Gastroenterol 1999 Mar; 34(3): 315-8[Medline].

Hillier CE, Johanson RB: Worldwide survey of assisted vaginal delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1994 Nov; 47(2): 109-14[Medline].

Hughes CA, Harley EH, Milmoe G: Birth trauma in the head and neck. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999 Feb; 125(2): 193-9[Medline].

Johanson R, Menon V: Soft versus rigid vacuum extractor cups for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2): CD000446[Medline].

Johanson R, Pusey J, Livera N: North Staffordshire/Wigan assisted delivery trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989 May; 96(5): 537-44[Medline].

Johanson RB, Menon BK: Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2): CD000224[Medline].

Johanson RB, Heycock E, Carter J: Maternal and child health after assisted vaginal delivery: five-year follow up of a randomised controlled study comparing forceps and ventouse. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999 Jun; 106(6): 544-9[Medline].

Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Martin DP: Association between method of delivery and maternal rehospitalization. JAMA 2000 May 10; 283(18): 2411-6[Medline].

Mason L, Glenn S, Walton I: The prevalence of stress incontinence during pregnancy and following delivery. Midwifery 1999 Jun; 15(2): 120-8[Medline].

Meniru GI: An analysis of recent trends in vacuum extraction and forceps delivery in the United Kingdom. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996 Feb; 103(2): 168-70[Medline].

Menticoglou SM, Manning F, Harman C: Perinatal outcome in relation to second-stage duration. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995 Sep; 173(3 Pt 1): 906-12[Medline].

Ng PC, Siu YK, Lewindon PJ: Subaponeurotic haemorrhage in the 1990s: a 3-year surveillance. Acta Paediatr 1995 Sep; 84(9): 1065-9[Medline].

O'Grady JP: Instrumental delivery: A critique of current practice. In Nichols D, ed. Gynecologic, Obstetric, and Related Surgery. Mosby; 2000: 1081-1105.

O'Grady JP: Vacuum extraction in modern obstetric practice. New York: The Parthenon Publishing Group; 1995.

Payne TN, Carey JC, Rayburn WF: Prior third- or fourth-degree perineal tears and recurrence risks. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999 Jan; 64(1): 55-7[Medline].

Peleg D, Kennedy CM, Merrill D: Risk of repetition of a severe perineal laceration. Obstet Gynecol 1999 Jun; 93(6): 1021-4[Medline].

Plauche WC: Subgaleal hematoma. A complication of instrumental delivery. JAMA 1980 Oct 3; 244(14): 1597-8[Medline].

Poma PA: Vanishing forceps delivery. Am J Perinatol 1999; 16(5): 227-31[Medline].

Robinson JN, Norwitz ER, Cohen AP: Episiotomy, operative vaginal delivery, and significant perinatal trauma in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999 Nov; 181(5 Pt 1): 1180-4[Medline].

Samuelsson E, Ladfors L, Wennerholm UB: Anal sphincter tears: prospective study of obstetric risk factors. BJOG 2000 Jul; 107(7): 926-31[Medline].

Sjostedt JE: The vacuum extractor and forceps in obstetrics. A clinical study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1967; 46 Suppl 10: Suppl 10:1-208[Medline].

Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Bartram CI: Anal sphincter trauma during instrumental delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1993 Dec; 43(3): 263-70[Medline].

Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E: Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med 1999 Dec 2; 341(23): 1709-14[Medline].

Vacca A, Grant A, Wyatt G: Portsmouth operative delivery trial: a comparison vacuum extraction and forceps delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983 Dec; 90(12): 1107-12[Medline].

Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC: Report of final natality statistics, 1996. Mon Vital Stat Rep 1998 Jun 30; 46(11 Suppl): 1-99[Medline].

Williams MC, Knuppel RA, O'Brien WF: A randomized comparison of assisted vaginal delivery by obstetric forceps and polyethylene vacuum cup. Obstet Gynecol 1991 Nov; 78(5 Pt 1): 789-94[Medline].

Zetterstrom JP, Lopez A, Anzen B: Anal incontinence after vaginal delivery: a prospective study in primiparous women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999 Apr; 106(4): 324-30[Medline].