Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Forceps Application with Intrapartum Ultrasonography

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Labor Management

  • 676 Accesses

Abstract

The rate of operative vaginal deliveries ranges from 10% to 15% in countries such as the UK and Spain to 3.1% in the USA (with 0.5% using forceps). This decrease in the rate of operative vaginal deliveries in the US and South American countries has produced a significant increase in the rate of cesarean section births (greater than 35%) without an improvement in neonatal outcomes [1, 2].

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 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wegner E, Berghella V. Operative vaginal delivery. Up to date Apr 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organization. WHO statement on caesarean section rates. OMS: WHO/RHR/15.02; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Blanchette H. The rising cesarean delivery rate in America: what are the consequences? Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(3):687–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin no. 154: operative vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(5):e56e65.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Operative vaginal delivery. Green-top guideline No. 26. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_26.pdf. Updated Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Accessed 8 Jan 2019.

  6. Prosego. Parto instrumental. Septiembre 2013. https://www.prosego.com. Accessed 8 Jan 2019.

  7. Ghi T, Eggebø T, Lees C, Kalache K, Rozenberg P, Youssef A, Salomon LJ, Tutschek B. ISUOG practice guidelines: intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52(1):128–39.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dupuis O, Ruimark S, Corrine D, Simone T, Andre D, Rene-Charles R. Fetal head position during the second stage of labor: comparison of digital and vaginal examination and transabdominal ultrasonographic examination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;123:193–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Akmal S, Kametas N, Tsoi E, Hargreaves C, Nicolaides KH. Comparison of transvaginal digital examination with intrapartum sonography to determine fetal head position before instrumental delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21:437–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chou MR, Kreiser D, Taslimi MM, Druzin ML, El-Sayed YY. Vaginal versus ultrasound examination of fetal occiput position during the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:521–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ramphul M, Kennelly M, Murphy DJ. Establishing the accuracy and acceptability of abdominal ultrasound to define the foetal head position in the second stage of labour: a validation study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;164:35–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ghi T, Farina A, Pedrazzi A, Rizzo N, Pelusi G, Pilu G. Diagnosis of station and rotation of the fetal head in the second stage of labor with intrapartum translabial ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:331–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tutschek B, Torkildsen EA, Eggebo TM. Comparison between ultrasound parameters and clinical examination to assess fetal head station in labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:425–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sherer DM, Abulafia O. Intrapartum assessment of fetal head engagement: comparison between transvaginal digital and transabdominal ultrasound determinations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21:430–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dupuis O, Silveira R, Zentner A, Dittmar A, Gaucherand P, Cucherat M, Redarce T, Rudigoz RC. Birth simulator: reliability of transvaginal assessment of fetal head station as defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists classification. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:868–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mola GD, Amoa AB, Edilyong J. Factors associated with success or failure in trials of vacuum extraction. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;42:35–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vacca A, Keirse MJNC. Instrumental vaginal delivery. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJN, editors. Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989. p. 1216–33.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dupuis O, Silveira R, Dupont C, Mottolese C, Kahn P, Dittmar A, Rudigoz RC. Comparison of “instrument-associated” and “spontaneous” obstetric depressed skull fractures in a cohort of 68 neonates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:165–70. 59

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramphul M, Kennelly MM, Burke G, Murphy DJ. Risk factors and morbidity associated with suboptimal instrument placement at instrumental delivery: observational study nested within the instrumental delivery & ultrasound randomised controlled trial ISRCTN 72230496. BJOG. 2015;122:558–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Donnelly V, Fynes M, Campbell D, Johnson H, O’Connell PR, O’Herlihy C. Obstetric events leading to anal sphincter damage. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:955–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. MacLennan AH, Taylor AW, Wilson DH, Wilson D. The prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery. BJOG. 2000;107:1460–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Olagundoye V, MacKenzie IZ. The impact of a trial of instrumental delivery in theatre on neonatal outcome. BJOG. 2007;114:603–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E, Gilbert WM. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1709–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Alexander JM, Leveno KJ, Hauth J, Landon MB, Thom E, Spong CY, Varner MW, Moawad AH, Caritis SN, Harper M, Wapner RJ, Sorokin Y, Miodovnik M, O’Sullivan MJ, Sibai BM, Langer O, Gabbe SG, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Fetal injury associated with cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:885–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Patel R, Verity L, Swingler R. Cohort study of operative delivery in the second stage of labor and standard of obstetric care. BJOG. 2003;110:610–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Baskett TF. Operative vaginal delivery—an historical perspective. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;56:3–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Johanson RB, Menon BK. Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000224. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;11:CD000224.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Friedman AM, Ananth CV, Prendergast E, et al. Evaluation of third-degree and fourth-degree laceration rates as quality indicators. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:927.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Caudwell-Hall J, Kamisan Atan I, Martin A, Guzmán Rojas R, Langer S, Shek K, Dietz HP. Intrapartum predictors of maternal levator ani injury. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(4):426–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. García Mejido JA, Suárez Serrano CM, Fernéndez Palacín A, Aquise Pino A, Bonomi Barby MJ, Sainz Bueno JA. Evaluation of levator ani muscle throughout the different stages of labor by transperineal 3D ultrasound. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(7):1776–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sainz JA, Fernández-Palacín A, Borrero C, Aquise A, Ramos Z, García-Mejido JA. Intra and interobserver variability of intrapartum transperineal ultrasound measurements with contraction and pushing. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;12:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Molina FS, Terra R, Carrillo MP, Puertas A, Nicolaides KH. What is the most reli- able ultrasound parameter for assessment of fetal head descent? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36:493–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sainz JA, Fernández-Palacín A, Borrero C, Aquise A, Ramos Z, García-Mejido JA. Intra and interobserver variability of intrapartum transperineal ultrasound measurements with contraction and pushing. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;38(3):333–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Henrich W, Dudenhausen J, Fuchs I, Kämena A, Tutschek B. Intrapartum translabial ultrasound (ITU): sonographic landmarks and correlation with successful vacuum extraction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;28(6):753–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tutschek B, Braun T, Chantraine F, Henrich W. Computed tomography and ultrasound to determine fetal head station. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:279–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kahrs BH, Usman S, Ghi T, Youssef A, Torkildsen EA, Lindtjørn E, Østborg TB, Benediktsdottir S, Brooks L, Harmsen L, Romundstad PR, Salvesen KA, Lees CC, Eggebø TM. Sonographic prediction of outcome of vacuum deliveries: a multicenter, prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:69.e1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Maticot-Baptista D, Ramanah R, Collin A, Martin A, Maillet R, Riethmuller D. Ultra- sound in the diagnosis of fetal head engagement. [a preliminary French prospective study]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2009;38:474–80.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Sainz JA, Borrero C, Aquise A, Serrano R, Gutiérrez L, Fernández-Palacín A. Utility of intrapartum transperineal ultrasound to predict cases of failure in vacuum extraction attempt and need of cesarean section to complete delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(8):1348–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Carseldine WJ, Phipps H, Zawada SF, Campbell NT, Ludlow JP, Krishnan SY, De Vries BS. Does occiput posterior position in the second stage of labor increase the operative delivery rate? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;53:265–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pearl ML, Roberts JM, Laros RK, Hurd WW. Vaginal delivery from the persistent occiput posterior position. Influence on maternal and neonatal morbidity. J Reprod Med. 1993;38:955–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Malvasi A, Stark M, Ghi T, Farine D, Guido M, Tinelli A. Intrapartum sonography for fetal head asynclitism and transverse position: sonographic signs and comparison of diagnostic performance between transvaginal and digital examination. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25:508–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Maged AM, Soliman EM, Abdellatif AA, Nabil M, Said OI, Mohesen MN, Raslan AN, Elbaradie SMY. Measurement of the fetal occiput-spine angle during the first stage of labor as predictor of the progress and outcome of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(14):2332–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cunningham GF LK, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Rouse DJ, Spong CY. Labor and delivery. In Williams obstetrics, 23rd edn, Licht J (ed). Appleton & Lange: Stamford, CT, 2010; 374–577.

    Google Scholar 

  44. García-Mejido JA, Borrero C, Pamela V, Aquise A, Serrano R, Sainz JA. Utility of intrapartum transabdominal ultrasound for the correct placement of vacuum during assisted delivery. Curr Women’s Health Rev. 2014;10:33–7.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ghi T, Dall’Asta A, Masturzo B, Tassis B, Martinelli M, Volpe N, Prefumo F, Rizzo G, Pilu G, Cariello L, Sabbioni L, Morselli-Labate AM, Todros T, Frusca T. Randomised Italian sonography for occiput POSition trial ante vacuum (R.I.S.POS.T.A.). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;52(6):699–705.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ramphul M, Ooi PV, Burke G, Kennelly MM, Said SA, Montgomery AA, Murphy DJ. Instrumental delivery and ultrasound: a multicentre randomised controlled trial of ultrasound assessment of the fetal head position versus standard care as an approach to prevent morbidity at instrumental delivery. BJOG. 2014;121:1029–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Cuerva MJ, Bamberg C, Tobias P, Gil M, De la Calle M, Bartha JL. Intrapartum ultrasound, a predictive method for complicated operative forceps delivery in non-occiput posterior deliveries. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:687–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sainz JA, García-Mejido JA, Aquise A, Bonomi MJ, Borrero C, De La Fuente P, Fernández-Palacín A. Intrapartum transperineal ultrasound used to predict cases of complicated operative (vacuum and forceps) deliveries in nulliparous women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(12):1490–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sainz JA, García-Mejido JA, Aquise A, Borrero C, Bonomi MJ, Fernández-Palacín A. A simple model to predict the complicated operative vaginal deliveries using vacuum or forceps. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(2):193.e1–193.e12.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Weerasekera DS, Premaratne S. A randomised prospective trial of the obstetric forceps versus vacuum extraction using defined criteria. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;22:344–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bultez T, Quibel T, Bouhanna P, Popowski T, Resche-Rigon M, Rozenberg P. Angle of fetal head progression measured using transperineal ultrasound as a predictive factor of vacuum extraction failure. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48:86–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lipschuetz M, Cohen SM, Israel A, et al. Sonographic large fetal head circumference and risk of cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:339.e1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  53. García-Mejido JA, de la Fuente-Vaquero P, Aquise-Pino A, Castro-Portillo L, Fernández-Palacín A, Sainz-Bueno JA. Can we predict levator ani muscle avulsion in instrumental deliveries through intrapartum transperineal ultrasound? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(19):3137–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sainz JA, Martín-Martínez A, González-Diaz E, Fernández-Fernández C, Ortega I, Medina M, Fernández-Corona A, Fernández-Palacín A, García-Mejido JA. Influence of the disengagement of the forceps in levator ani muscle injuries in instrumental delivery: a multicenter study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98:1413. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13682.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Friedman T, Eslick GD, Dietz HP. Delivery mode and the risk of levator muscle avulsion: a meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(6):901–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. García-Mejido JA, Fernández-Palacín A, Bonomi Barby MJ, Castro L, Aquise A, Sainz JA. A comparable rate of levator ani muscle injury in operative vaginal delivery (forceps and vacuum) according to the characteristics of the instrumentation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98(6):729–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Valme University Hospital, Seville, Spain

    José Antonio Sainz Bueno, Carlota Borrero Gonzalez & Jose Antonio García Mejido

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    José Antonio Sainz Bueno & Carlota Borrero Gonzalez

Authors
  1. José Antonio Sainz Bueno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlota Borrero Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jose Antonio García Mejido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Antonio Sainz Bueno .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Santa Maria Hospital, GVM Care and Research, Bari, Italy

    Antonio Malvasi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bueno, J.A.S., Borrero Gonzalez, C., Mejido, J.A.G. (2021). Forceps Application with Intrapartum Ultrasonography. In: Malvasi, A. (eds) Intrapartum Ultrasonography for Labor Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57595-3_32

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57595-3_32

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57594-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57595-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation