ArticlePloS one2021
Prospective assessment of vacuum deliveries from midpelvic station in a tertiary care university hospital: Frequency, failure rates, labor characteristics and maternal and neonatal complications.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prophylactic manual rotation of the fetal head (manual rotation alone) to reduce operative delivery and complications for mother and babies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Associations between term cesarean delivery in the first pregnancy and second-pregnancy preterm delivery.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMidpelvic vacuum extractions are controversial due to reports of increased risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity and high failure rates. Prospective studies of attempted midpelvic vacuum outcomes are scarce. Our main aims were to assess frequency, failure rates, labor characteristics, maternal and neonatal complications of attempted midpelvic vacuum deliveries, and to compare labor characteristics and complications between successful and failed midpelvic vacuum deliveries. STUDY
designClinical data were obtained prospectively from all attempted vacuum deliveries (n = 891) over a one-year period with a total of 6903 births (overall cesarean section rate 18.2% (n = 1258). Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test or Chi-square test for group differences were used as appropriate. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are given as indicated. The uni- and multivariable analysis were conducted both as a complete case analysis and with a multiple imputation approach. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsAttempted vacuum extractions from midpelvic station constituted 36.7% (n = 319) of all attempted vacuum extractions (12.9% (n = 891) of all births). Of these 319 midpelvic vacuum extractions, 11.3% (n = 36) failed and final delivery mode was cesarean section in 86.1% (n = 31) and forceps in the remaining 13.9% (n = 5). Successful completion of midpelvic vacuum by 3 pulls or fewer was achieved in 67.1%. There were 3.9% third-degree and no fourth-degree perineal tears. Cup detachments were associated with a significantly increased failure rate (adjusted OR 6.13, 95% CI 2.41-15.56, p< 0.001).
conclusionIn our study, attempted midpelvic vacuum deliveries had relatively low failure rate, the majority was successfully completed within three pulls and they proved safe to perform as reflected by a low rate of third-degree perineal tears. We provide data for nuanced counseling of women on vacuum extraction as a second stage delivery option in comparable obstetric management settings with relatively high vacuum delivery rates and low cesarean section rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.