The association of vacuum-assisted delivery and shoulder dystocia among macrosomic newborns: a retrospective study.
Birthweight
Macrosomia
Operative delivery
Risk factors
Shoulder dystocia
Vacuum
Journal
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2021
07 2021
Historique:
received:
05
06
2020
accepted:
15
12
2020
pubmed:
21
1
2021
medline:
29
10
2021
entrez:
20
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Although shoulder dystocia (ShD) is associated with fetal macrosomia and vacuum-assisted delivery (VAD), the independent role of the latter in the occurrence of ShD is yet to be completely elucidated, as it is difficult to study its true independent contribution to ShD formation in the presence of many confounding factors. Therefore, we aimed to study whether VAD is independently associated with an increased risk for ShD among macrosomic newborns. A retrospective cohort study from a single tertiary medical center including all women who delivered vaginally a macrosomic infant during 2011-2020. We allocated the study cohort into two groups: (1) VAD (2) spontaneous vaginal deliverys, and analyzed risk factors for ShD. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify determinants independently associated with ShD occurrence. Of 2,664 deliveries who met the study inclusion criteria, 118 (4.4%) were VAD. The rate of ShD in the entire cohort was 108/2664 (4.1%). The following factors were more frequent among the VAD group: no previous vaginal delivery [odds ratio (OR) 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-4.0, p < 0.001)], prolonged second stage (OR 11.9; 95% CI 8.1-17.6, p < 0.01), induction of labor (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.5-3.8, p < 0.01) and ShD (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.0-4.1, p = 0.04). ShD was associated with higher rates of maternal height < 160 cm (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.3-3.1, p < 0.01), pregestational diabetes (OR 7.2; 95% CI 2.0-26.8, p = 0.01), hypertensive disorder (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.1-6.2, p = 0.02) and higher birthweight (mean 4,124 vs. 4,167 g, p < 0.01). On multivariate regression analysis, the following factors remained independently associated with ShD occurrence: increased birthweight (aOR 1.0; 95% CI 1.0-1.0, p < 0.01), pregestational diabetes (aOR 5.3; 95% CI 1.1-25.0, p = 0.03), while maternal height was negatively associated with ShD (aOR 0.9; 95% CI 0.9-0.9, p < 0.01). In deliveries of neonates above 4000 g, VAD did not independently increase the risk of ShD occurrence. Therefore, when expeditious delivery of a macrosomic infant is required, VAD is a viable option.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33471217
doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05941-4
pii: 10.1007/s00404-020-05941-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
117-123Références
Bulletins—Obstetrics CoP (2017) Practice bulletin No 178: shoulder dystocia. ObstetGynecol 129(5):e123–e133
Gherman RB, Chauhan SP, Lewis DF (2012) A survey of central association members about the definition, management, and complications of shoulder dystocia. ObstetGynecol 119(4):830–837
Nesbitt TS, Gilbert WM, Herrchen B (1998) Shoulder dystocia and associated risk factors with macrosomic infants born in California. Am J ObstetGynecol 179(2):476–480
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70382-5
Mehta SH, Bujold E, Blackwell SC, Sorokin Y, Sokol RJ (2004) Is abnormal labor associated with shoulder dystocia in nulliparous women? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 190(6):1604–1607
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.03.067
Hansen A, Chauhan SP (2014) Shoulder dystocia: definitions and incidence. SeminPerinatol 38(4):184–188
Dall’Asta A, Ghi T, Pedrazzi G, Frusca T (2016) Does vacuum delivery carry a higher risk of shoulder dystocia? Review and meta-analysis of the literature. Eur J ObstetGynecolReprodBiol 204:62–68
Levin G, Meyer R, Yagel S, David M, Yinon Y, Rottenstreich A (2020) Which way is better to deliver the very heavy baby: mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal outcome. Arch GynecolObstet 3:2–23
Vidarsdottir H, Geirsson RT, Hardardottir H, Valdimarsdottir U, Dagbjartsson A (2011) Obstetric and neonatal risks among extremely macrosomic babies and their mothers. Am J ObstetGynecol 204(5):423.e1–6
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.12.036
Tsur A, Batsry L, Toussia-Cohen S, Rosenstein MG, Barak O, Brezinov Y et al (2019) Development and validation of a machine learning model for prediction of shoulder dystocia. Ultrasound ObstetGynecol 2:110–129
Sheiner E, Levy A, Hershkovitz R, Hallak M, Hammel RD, Katz M et al (2006) Determining factors associated with shoulder dystocia: a population-based study. Eur J ObstetGynecolReprodBiol 126(1):11–15
Kolderup LB, Laros RK, Musci TJ (1997) Incidence of persistent birth injury in macrosomic infants: association with mode of delivery. Am J ObstetGynecol 177(1):37–41
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70435-6
Herzberg S, Kabiri D, Mordechai T, Haj Yahya R, Chill H, Levitt L et al (2017) Fetalmacrosomia as a risk factor for shoulder dystocia during vacuum extraction. J MaternFetal Neonatal Med 30(15):1870–1873
doi: 10.1080/14767058.2016.1228060
Cheng YW, Norwitz ER, Caughey AB (2006) The relationship of fetal position and ethnicity with shoulder dystocia and birth injury. Am J ObstetGynecol 195(3):856–862
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.017
Revicky V, Mukhopadhyay S, Morris EP, Nieto JJ (2012) Can we predict shoulder dystocia? Arch GynecolObstet 285(2):291–295
Overland EA, Vatten LJ, Eskild A (2012) Risk of shoulder dystocia: associations with parity and offspring birthweight. A population study of 1 914 544 deliveries. ActaObstetGynecol Scand. 91(4):483–488
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01354.x
Carpenter MW, Coustan DR (1982) Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes. Am J ObstetGynecol 144(7):768–773
doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(82)90349-0
Salomon LJ, Alfirevic Z, Da Silva CF, Deter RL, Figueras F, Ghi T et al (2019) ISUOG practice guidelines: ultrasound assessment of fetal biometry and growth. Ultrasound ObstetGynecol 53(6):715–723
Hadlock FP, Harrist RB, Carpenter RJ, Deter RL, Park SK (1984) Sonographic estimation of fetal weight. The value of femur length in addition to head and abdomen measurements. Radiology 150(2):535–540
doi: 10.1148/radiology.150.2.6691115
Chauhan SP, Laye MR, Lutgendorf M, McBurney JW, Keiser SD, Magann EF et al (2014) A multicenter assessment of 1,177 cases of shoulder dystocia: lessons learned. Am J Perinatol 31(5):401–406
doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1350056
Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Saade GR, Suarez V, Clark SL (2007) Prediction of shoulder dystocia using multivariate analysis. Am J Perinatol 24(1):5–10
doi: 10.1055/s-2006-954956
Åberg K, Norman M, Pettersson K, Ekéus C (2016) Vacuum extraction in fetalmacrosomia and risk of neonatal complications: a population-based cohort study. ActaObstetGynecolScand 95(10):1089–1096
Overland EA, Spydslaug A, Nielsen CS, Eskild A (2009) Risk of shoulder dystocia in second delivery: does a history of shoulder dystocia matter? Am J ObstetGynecol 200(5):506.e1–6
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.12.038
Gudmundsson S, Henningsson AC, Lindqvist P (2005) Correlation of birth injury with maternal height and birthweight. BJOG 112(6):764–767
doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00545.x
Mazouni C, Porcu G, Cohen-Solal E, Heckenroth H, Guidicelli B, Bonnier P et al (2006) Maternal and anthropomorphic risk factors for shoulder dystocia. ActaObstetGynecolScand 85(5):567–570
ACOG (2017) Practice, bulletin, No, 178 shoulder dystocia. ObstetGynecol 129(5):e123–e133
Levy A, Sheiner E, Hammel RD, Hershkovitz R, Hallak M, Katz M et al (2006) Shoulder dystocia: a comparison of patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Arch GynecolObstet 273(4):203–206
Malinowska-Polubiec A, Romejko-Wolniewicz E, Szostak O, Dobrowolska-Redo A, Tolloczko J, Zareba-Szczudlik J et al (2014) Shoulder dystocia in diabetic and non-diabetic pregnancies. NeuroEndocrinolLett 35(8):733–740
Secher AL, Bytoft B, Tabor A, Damm P, Mathiesen ER (2015) Fetalsonographic characteristics associated with shoulder dystocia in pregnancies of women with type 1 diabetes. ActaObstetGynecolScand 94(10):1105–1111