Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analgesia for Dystocia and Instrumental Vaginal Delivery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Epidural Labor Analgesia

  • 1558 Accesses

Abstract

Dystocia can be described by a number of other terms, including failed induction of labor, active phase arrest of dilatation, and second-stage arrest of descent, but these terms relate more to the timing of the diagnosis rather than the cause. Dystocia is the leading indication listed for cesarean section in nulliparous patients and conversely is very uncommon among multiparous patients. Rates of dystocia vary markedly among practitioners, hospitals, states, regions of the country, and among countries, which is more likely a result of differences in labor management strategies rather than to differences in patient characteristics. It is commonly believed that the frequency of cesarean section for dystocia has risen dramatically nowadays and that this is a major reason for the rise in the primary cesarean delivery rate, which has also favored the rise in repeat cesareans being performed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Friedman EA (1995) Primigravidlabor: a graphicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol 6:567–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang J, Troendle JF, Yancey MK (2002) Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:824–828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2009) ACOG Practice Bulletin, vol 114, 2 part 1

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hubscher CH, Berkley KJ (1995) Spinal and vagal influences on the responses of rat solitary nucleus neurons to stimulation of uterus, cervix and vagina. Brain Res 702:251–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Temple JL, Bradshaw HB, Wood E, Berkley KJ (1999) Effects of hypogastricneurectomy on escape responses to uterine distention in the rat. Pain Suppl 6:S13–S20

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wuitchik M, Bakal D, Lipshitz J (1989) The clinical significance of pain and cognitive activity in latent labor. Obstet Gynecol 73:35–42

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hess PE, Pratt SD, Lucas TP et al (2001) Predictors of breakthrough pain during labor epidural analgesia. Anesth Analg 93:414–418

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Alexander JM, Sharma SK, McIntire DD et al (2001) Intensity of labor pain and cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg 92:1524–1528

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Panni MK, Segal S (2003) Local anesthetic requirements are greater in dystocia than in normal labor. Anesthesiology 98:957–963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mc Grady E, Litchfield K (2004) Epidural analgesia in labour. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain 4:114–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cambic CR, Wong CA (2010) Labour analgesia and obstetric outcomes. Br J Anaesth 105:i50–i60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yancey MK, Pierce B, Schweitzer D, Daniels D (1999) Observations on labor epidural analgesia and operative delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180:353–359

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Impley L, Robson M, MacQuillan K (2000) Epidural analgesia need not increase operative delivery rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182:358–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Segal S, Su M, Gilbert P (2000) Effect of a rapid change in availability of epidural analgesia on the cesarean delivery rate: a meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:974–978

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sharma SK, McIntire DD, Wiley J, Leveno KJ (2004) Labor analgesia and cesarean delivery: an individual patient meta-analysis of nulliparous women. Anesthesiology 100:142–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Halpern SH, Leighton BL, Ohlsson A, Barrett JFR, Rice A (1998) Effect of epidural versus parenteral opioid analgesia o the progress of labor. A meta-analysis. JAMA 280:2105–2110

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2003) Dystocia and augmentation of labor. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 49, December 2003. Obstet Gynecol 102:1445–1454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cheek TG, Samuels P, Miller F, Tobin M (1996) Normal saline i.v. fluid load decreases uterine activity in active labour. Br J Anaesth 77:632–635

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Comparative Obstetric Mobile Epidural Trial (COMET) Study Group UK (2001) Effect of low-dose mobile versus traditional epidural techniques on mode of delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 358:19–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Heesen M, Van de Velde M, Klohr S et al (2014) Meta-analysis of the success of the block following combined spinal-epidural vs epidural analgesia during labour. Anaesthesia 69:64–71

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Marucci M, Cinnella G, Perchiazzi G, Brienza N, Fiore T (2007) Patient-requested neuraxial analgesia for labor: impact on rates of cesarean and instrumental vaginal delivery. Anesthesiology 106:1035–1045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wong CA, Scavone BM, Peaceman AM, McCarthy RJ, Sullivan JT, Diaz NT, Yaghmour E, Marcus RJ, Sherwani SS, Sproviero MT, Yilmaz M, Patel R, Robles C, Grouper S (2005) The risk of cesarean delivery with neuraxial analgesia given early versus late in labor. N Engl J Med 352:655–665

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang F, Shen X, Guo X, Peng Y, Gu X, Labor Analgesia Examining Group (2009) Epidural analgesia in the latent phase of labor and the risk of cesarean delivery: a five-year randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology 4:871–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Torvaldsen S, Roberts CL, Bell JC, Raynes-Greenow CH (2004) Discontinuation of epidural analgesia late in labour for reducing the adverse delivery outcomes associated with epidural analgesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004457

    Google Scholar 

  25. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2000) Operative vaginal delivery. ACOG Practice Bulletin No 17. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  26. Macones GA, Hankins GD, Spong CY et al (2008) The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 112:661–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (2011) Green-top guidelines n 26. Operative vaginal delivery

    Google Scholar 

  28. Akmal S, Kametas N, Tsoi E et al (2003) Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intra partum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21:437–440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Clark SL, Belfort MA, Hankins GD et al (2007) Variation in the rates of operative delivery in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196:526e.1–526e.5

    Google Scholar 

  30. EURO-PERISTAT (2008) EURO-PERISTAT Project, with SCPE, EUROCAT, EURONEOSTAT. European Perinatal Health Report. www.europeristat.com

  31. Hehir MP, Reidy FR, Wilkinson MN et al (2013) Increasing rates of operative vaginal delivery across two decades: accompanying outcomes and instrument preferences. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 171:40–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ et al (2013) Births: final data for 2011. Natl Vital Stat Rep 1:69–72

    Google Scholar 

  33. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RANZCOG) (2012) College Statement: C-Obs 16. Instrumental vaginal delivery

    Google Scholar 

  34. Okunwobi-Smith Y, Cooke I, MacKenzie IZ (2000) Decision to delivery intervals for assisted vaginal vertex delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 107:467–471

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lomas J, Enkin M (1991) Variations in operative delivery rates. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC (eds) Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth, vol II. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1182–1195

    Google Scholar 

  36. Johanson R, Menon V (2010) Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000446

    Google Scholar 

  37. Johanson RB, Rice C, Doyle M et al (1993) A randomized prospective study comparing the new vacuum extractor policy with forceps delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 100:524–530

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. O’Mahony F, Hofmeyr GJ, Menon V (2010) Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (11):CD005455. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005455

  39. O’Grady JP, Pope CS, Patel SS (2000) Vacuum extraction in modern obstetric practice: a review and critique. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 12:475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hayman R, Gilby J, Arulkumaran S (2002) Clinical of a “hand pump” vacuum delivery device. Obstet Gynecol 100:1190–1195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Attilakos G, Sibanda T, Winter C et al (2005) A randomized controlled trial of a new handheld vacuum extraction device. BJOG 112:1510–1515

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Groom KM, Jones BA, Miller N et al (2006) A prospective randomized controlled trial of the Kiwi Omnicup versus conventional ventouse cups for vacuum assisted vaginal delivery. BJOG 113:183–189

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Baskett TF, Fanning CA, Young DC (2008) A prospective observational study of 1000 vacuum assisted deliveries with the Omnicup devise. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 30:573–580

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wen S, Liu S, Kramer M et al (2001) Comparison of maternal and infant outcomes between vacuum extraction and forceps deliveries. Am J Epidemiol 153:103–107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Johnson JH, Figueroa R, Garry D et al (2004) Immediate maternal and neonatal effects of forceps and vacuum assisted deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 103:513–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Fitzpatrick M, Behan M, O’Connell PR et al (2003) Randomized clinical trial to assess anal spincter function following forceps or vacuum assisted vaginal delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 110:424–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Vayssiere C, Beucher G, Dupuis O et al (2011) Instrumental delivery: clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 159:43–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Johanson RB, Heycock E, Carter J et al (1999) Maternal and child health after assisted vaginal delivery: five­year follow up of a randomised controlled study comparing forceps and ventouse. BJOG 106:544–549

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Sultan AH, Johanson RB, Carter JE (1998) Occult anal sphincter trauma following randomized forceps and vacuum delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 61:113–119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hehir MP, Reidy FR, Wilkinson MN et al (2013) Increasing rates of operative vaginal delivery across two decades: accompanying outcomes and instrument preference. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Repr Biol 171:40–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Brennan DJ, Murphy M, Robson MS et al (2011) The singleton, cephalic, nulliparous woman after 36 weeks of gestation: contribution to overall cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 117:273–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L et al (2001) Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet 358:1203–1207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Chalmers JA, Chalmers I (1989) The obstetric vacuum extractor is the instrument of first choice for operative delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 96:505–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hodnett ED, Gates S, Hofmeyr GJ et al (2007) Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD003766

    Google Scholar 

  55. Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E et al (1999) Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med 341:1709–1714

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Murphy DJ, Macleod M, Bahl R et al (2011) A cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of sequential instruments at operative vaginal delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 156:41–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Nikpoor P, Bain E (2013) Analgesia for forceps delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (9):CD008878

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ahlberg M, Saltvedt S, Ekeus C (2013) Insufficient pain relief in vacuum extraction deliveries: a population-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 92:306–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, Città di Roma Hospital, Via Maidalchini 20, Rome, 00152, Italy

    Giorgio Capogna & Michela Camorcia

Authors
  1. Giorgio Capogna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michela Camorcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giorgio Capogna .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept of Anesthesiolgy, Città di Roma Hospital, Rome, Italy

    Giorgio Capogna

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Capogna, G., Camorcia, M. (2015). Analgesia for Dystocia and Instrumental Vaginal Delivery. In: Capogna, G. (eds) Epidural Labor Analgesia. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13890-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13890-9_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-13889-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-13890-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation