ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of Operative Vaginal Delivery Practices and Maternal-Neonatal Outcomes.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Operative vaginal deliveries (OVDs), including vacuum and forceps-assisted births, are essential interventions for prolonged second-stage labor or fetal compromise. Despite declining global rates, adherence to clinical guidelines and proper documentation remains crucial for maternal and neonatal safety. This audit aimed to evaluate operative vaginal delivery practices at Bedford Hospital, including adherence to Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and local guideline recommendations and associated maternal and neonatal outcomes. The audit also aimed to identify areas for improvement to enhance patient safety and quality of care. Methodology A retrospective audit included all women (n = 62) undergoing attempted OVDs from September to December 2024. Data were extracted from electronic maternity records and NerveCenter, assessing instrument type, success rate, decision-to-delivery interval, documentation (consent, indication, debrief), consultant presence, antibiotic and venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, maternal complications, and neonatal outcomes. Audit standards were based on RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 26 and local protocols. Results Monthly OVD rates ranged from 9/225 (4%) in September, 16/211 (7.58%) in October, 25/198 (12.6%) in November, to 12/224 (5.36%) in December, with a total of 62/858 (7.2%) OVDs and a 100% procedural success rate. Indications for instrumental delivery were documented in 60/62 (96.8%) cases, and consent was documented in 96.8% of cases, either written (for theatre deliveries) or verbal (for delivery-suite births). Vacuum and forceps were used equally (29/62, 46.8% each), with 4/62 (6.4%) sequential instrument cases. Registrars performed 57/62 (91.9%) deliveries, with consultants present in 22/62 (35.5%) cases. Maternal outcomes included 4/62 (6.45%) third-degree perineal tears and 8/62 (12.9%) cases of blood loss >1,000 mL, including 2/62 (3.2%) massive obstetric hemorrhages (1,940-2,200 mL). Neonatal outcomes were generally favorable, with 2/62 (3.2%) special care baby unit admissions, 4/62 (6.5%) shoulder dystocia events, and 2/62 (3.2%) low APGAR scores (<5 at birth or <7 at five minutes). Areas for improvement were identified in post-procedure debriefing (10/62, 16.1%), antibiotic prophylaxis (44/62, 70.9%), and postnatal VTE assessment (56/62, 90.3%). Conclusions OVDs in this cohort were performed safely with high success rates and appropriate indications. Rare but significant complications highlight the need for timely escalation, senior review, structured debriefing, and ongoing audit to optimize maternal and neonatal safety and maintain guideline adherence.
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.