Contributing factors in forceps associated pelvic floor trauma.
Birth trauma
Forceps
Head circumference
Levator avulsion
Pelvic organ prolapse
Journal
International urogynecology journal
ISSN: 1433-3023
Titre abrégé: Int Urogynecol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101567041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
09
10
2018
accepted:
02
01
2019
pubmed:
23
1
2019
medline:
1
12
2020
entrez:
23
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Levator avulsion occurs in 10-35% of women after a first vaginal delivery, with forceps being the main risk factor. Three mechanisms have been proposed to account for the high risk of trauma: the additional space requirement, increased speed of distension, and/ or greater force. This study examines the additional space requirements associated with forceps to determine any associated increase in avulsion risk. This was an in vitro simulation study of spatial requirements for delivery of a fetal head by forceps, with mathematical modelling of spatial requirements using data from a local observational study. A balloon device was used to model head circumferences through the range of expected measurements at term, with measurements taken after application of three different types of forceps. Each measurement was performed in triplicate. On average, forceps increased the circumference of the fetal head by 1.01 cm for Wrigley's, 1.04 cm for Kielland's, and 1.64 cm for Neville-Barnes forceps, resulting in an estimated increase in the diameter of the fetal head by 0.32 cm, 0.33 cm, and 0.52 cm, respectively. This increase was linear throughout the tested range. In 534 singleton pregnancies at term, we determined an odds ratio (OR) of 1.11 per centimeter head circumference for avulsion. Hence, the additional space requirement due to forceps explains ORs of 1.11, 1.12, and 1.19 for avulsion, depending on forceps type. The effect of forceps on avulsion risk is not fully explained by the increase in space requirement alone. Other factors, such as shortened time to maximum distension and/or increased peak force applied may contribute to the excess risk.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30666429
doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-03869-1
pii: 10.1007/s00192-019-03869-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
167-171Références
Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Jun;22(6):699-704
pubmed: 21107811
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015 Jan;94(1):8-12
pubmed: 25233861
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Apr;199:49-54
pubmed: 26897398
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Dec;128(6):1447-1448
pubmed: 27875462
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep;128(3):436-439
pubmed: 27500345
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jul;130(1):151-158
pubmed: 28594775
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Oct;130(4):910
pubmed: 28937553
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Jun;97(6):751-757
pubmed: 29393505
Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2009;11:163-76
pubmed: 19591614
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010 Oct;36(5):1080-6
pubmed: 20722985
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Feb;47(2):224-7
pubmed: 25807920
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Dec;38(6):701-6
pubmed: 21837763
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994 Jan;101(1):22-8
pubmed: 8297863
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Apr;202(4):321-34
pubmed: 20350640
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Aug;199(2):198.e1-5
pubmed: 18513684
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jul;201(1):91.e1-7
pubmed: 19481726
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015 Aug;55(4):309-14
pubmed: 25537397
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2006 Apr;274(1):34-6
pubmed: 16408184
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Oct;46(4):487-95
pubmed: 25920322
Reprod Health. 2013 Aug 20;10:42
pubmed: 23962177
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Oct;28(5):441-8
pubmed: 27454848
Int Urogynecol J. 2018 Jan;29(1):13-21
pubmed: 28921033
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013 Jun;53(3):220-30
pubmed: 23452259
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Apr;96(4):426-431
pubmed: 28117880
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011 Dec;159(2):305-9
pubmed: 21968031