Skip to main content

Forceps and vacuum: one goal, two entities

Abstract

Damage to the pelvic floor during pregnancy and vaginal delivery is an inevitable consequence of the natural birthing process. As this damage is associated with functional and anatomical problems in later life, minimizing pelvic floor damage during pregnancy and vaginal delivery may serve as an important factor in the prevention of these unwanted sequelae. Operative vaginal delivery using forceps or vacuum extractor is common practice to achieve or expedite vaginal birth for maternal or fetal indications such as maternal exhaustion or fetal distress. However, operative vaginal delivery is associated with more extensive damage to the pelvic floor and perineal structures with forceps carrying a stronger risk compared to vacuum. The evidence on this subject is discussed with possible suggestions to minimize pelvic floor damage as much as possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Macfarlane AJ, Blondel B, Mohangoo AD, Cuttini M, Nijhuis J, Novak Z, et al. Wide differences in mode of delivery within Europe: risk-stratified analyses of aggregated routine data from the euro-Peristat study. BJOG. 2016;123:559–68.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Operative Vaginal Birth. ACOG practice bulletin, number 219. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(4):e149–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, Mola G, Visser GH, Homer CS, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1349–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Anonymous. Hospital episode statistics NHS maternity statistics–England. Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2015.

  5. 5.

    O’Mahony F, Hofmeyr GJ, Menon V. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;11:CD005455.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Friedman T, Eslick GD, Dietz HP. Delivery mode and the risk of levator muscle avulsion: a meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2019;30:901–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    van Gruting MA, van Delft KWM, Sultan AH, Thakar R. The natural history of levator ani muscle avulsion 4 years following childbirth. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.23120.

  8. 8.

    Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell D, Edozien L, Mahmood T, Adams E, Richmond D, et al. Third- and fourth-degree perineal tears among primiparous women in England between 2000 and 2012: time trends and risk factors. BJOG. 2013;120:1516–25.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    van Bavel J, Hukkelhoven CWPM, de Vries C, Papatsonis DNM, de Vogel J, Roovers JWR, et al. The effectiveness of mediolateral episiotomy in preventing obstetric anal sphincter injuries during operative vaginal delivery: a ten-year analysis of a national registry. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(3):407–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3422-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Rortveit G, Daltveit AK, Hannestad YS, Hunskaar S, Norwegian EPINCONT Study. Urinary incontinence after vaginal delivery or cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:900–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    MacArthur C, Wilson D, Herbison P, Lancashire RJ, Hagen S, Toozs-Hobson P, et al. Urinary incontinence persisting after childbirth: extent, delivery history, and effects in a 12–year longitudinal cohort study. BJOG. 2016;123:1022–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Handa VL, Blomquist JL, McDermott KC, Friedman S, Muñoz A. Pelvic floor disorders after vaginal birth: effect of episiotomy, perineal laceration, and operative birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(2 Pt 1):233–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318240df4f.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    MacArthur C, Wilson D, Herbison P, Lancashire R, Hagen S, Toozs-Hobson P, et al. On behalf of the ProLong study group. Faecal incontinence persisting after childbirth: a 12 year longitudinal study. BJOG. 2013;120:169–79.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bols EM, Hendriks EJ, Berghmans BC, Baeten CG, Nijhuis JG, de Bie RA. A systematic review of etiological factors for postpartum fecal incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(3):302–14. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016340903576004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Jangö H, Langhoff-Roos J, Rosthøj S, et al. Long-term anal incontinence after obstetric anal sphincter injury—does grade of tear matter? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:232.e1-10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Mous M, Muller S, de Leeuw J. Long-term effects of anal sphincter rupture during vaginal delivery: faecal incontinence and sexual complaints. BJOG. 2008;115:234–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Glazener C, Elders A, MacArthur C, et al. Childbirth and prolapse: long-term associations with the symptoms and objective measurement of pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG. 2013;120(2):161–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Abdel-Fattah M, Familusi A, Fielding S, Ford J, Bhattacharya S. Primary and repeat surgical treatment for female pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in parous women in the UK: a register linkage study. BMJ Open. 2011;1(2):e000206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Leijonhufvud MD, Lundholm C, Cnattinguius S, et al. Risks of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse surgery in relation to mode of child- birth. AmJ Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:70e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Weemhoff M, Vergeldt T, Notten K, et al. Avulsion of puborectalis muscle and other risk factors for cystocele recurrence: a 2-year follow-up study. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Murphy DJ, Strachan BK. Bahl R, on behalf of the Royal College of obstetricians Gynaecologists. Assisted vaginal birth. BJOG. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16092.

  22. 22.

    Gauthaman N, Henry D, Ster IC, Khunda A, Doumouchtsis SK. Kielland's forceps: does it increase the risk of anal sphincter injuries? An observational study. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(10):1525–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Seijmonsbergen-Schermers AE, van den Akker T, Rydahl E, Beeckman K, Bogaerts A, Binfa L, et al. Variations in use of childbirth interventions in 13 high-income countries: a multinational cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(5):e1003103. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Hull PM, Thomas K, Skinner E, Dawes A, Christensen P. Re: assisted vaginal birth: green-top guideline no. 26: Montgomery is missing from RCOG's assisted vaginal birth guideline. BJOG. 2020;127(10):1297–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Dickinson JE. Obstetric perineal trauma. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013 Feb;53(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Willem de Leeuw.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

Both authors have no disclosures with regard to this paper.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Leeuw, J.W., Daly, J.O. Forceps and vacuum: one goal, two entities. Int Urogynecol J 32, 2349–2352 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04866-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Forceps
  • Vacuum
  • OASIS
  • Urinary incontinence
  • Anal incontinence
  • Prolapse