ArticleJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2025
Selection of the apposite vacuum extractor during operative delivery: A biomechanical study.
Article in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOperative delivery is a technique used during vaginal or cesarean birth to facilitate the patient's labor course through the assistance of a vacuum extractor. This method is increasingly used compared with forceps. This study aimed to investigate the forced effects of vacuum extractors comprising vacuum cups with different thicknesses on the fetal head and the vacuum extractor during vacuum-assisted delivery and to determine the optimal thickness for reducing the failure rate and minimizing neonatal and maternal morbidity.
methodsA biomechanical model was developed to examine the impact of vacuum cups with varying thicknesses. This simulation three-dimensional (3D) geometry model was used to evaluate hemispherical-shaped vacuum extractors made of silicone rubber having a similar cup diameter of 70 mm with varying thicknesses (1-5 mm), which were applied to the three models (flat surfaces, hemispherical balls, and fetal head). Under one boundary condition and two different loading conditions, finite element analysis was utilized to simulate the force of vacuum extractors on the fetal head during the process of operative delivery. The main observation indicators were the reaction forces of the constructed model, and von Mises stress on both the vacuum extractors and fetal head.
resultsFor the reaction forces on each axis, we found that the sum of the reaction force values on each axis was increased as the thickness of the vacuum extractor was increased, regardless of the surface type. In addition, the reaction force of the fixed-support end was increased with the increased thickness of the vacuum extractor. The von Mises stress distributions of vacuum extractors comprising vacuum cups with different thicknesses, revealed that the thinner the cup, the greater the von Mises stress exerted on the extractor itself regardless of the surface type. The distribution of von Mises stress on the skull structure of the fetal head showed that the thinner the cup, the greater the von Mises stress exerted on the skull structure regardless of the surface type.
conclusionA thinner vacuum extractor cup may result in greater injury to the fetus; hence, a thicker vacuum extractor cup is preferably utilized during vacuum-assisted operative delivery. Using a thicker vacuum extractor should yield a higher successful delivery rate and reduce fetal injury.
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.