Perinatal and maternal outcome in ventouse versus forceps delivery

Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 345-347

  Mustafa, Rubina ^a   Mustafa, Rozina ^a  

^a BAQAI MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Pakistan)

Author keywords

Cephalic; Delivery; Instruments; Maternal health; Outcome assessment; Perinatal morbidity; Vacuum extraction

Indexed keywords

ADULT; APGAR SCORE; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FORCEPS DELIVERY; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMAN; INFANT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATERNAL MORBIDITY; NEWBORN; NEWBORN MORBIDITY; PAKISTAN; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; VACUUM EXTRACTION;

EID: 0036622745     PISSN: 1022386X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Johanson RB, Heycock E, Carter J, Sultan AH, Walklate K, Jones PW. Maternal and child health after assisted vaginal delivery: five year follow-up of a randomized controlled study comparing forceps and ventouse. Br J Obstet Gynaeco1 1999; 106:544-9.
2. Vacuum versus forceps, (editorial). Lancet 1984;144.
3. Haire MF, Boehm FH. Forceps and vacuum extraction. In: Rivlin ME, Morrison JC, Bates GW, (edi). Manual of clinical problems in obstetrics and gynecology. Boston USA. Little Brown 1990; p: 149.
4. Lucas MJ. The role of vacuum extraction in modern obstetrics. C1in Obstet Gynecol 1994; 37: 794-805.
5. Casey BM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. The continuing value of the Apgar scores for the assessment of newborn infants. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:519-20.
6. Gei AF, Belfort MA. Forceps-assisted vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1999; 26:345-70.
7. Lasbrey AH. A study of the relative merits and scope of vacuum extraction as opposed to forceps delivery. S Afr J Obstet Gynaecol 1964; 2:1-3.
8. Ehlers N. Retinal haemorrhages in the newborn:a comparison of delivery by forceps and by vacuum extractor. Acta Ophthalmol 1974; 52:73-82.
9. Carter J. The vacuum extractor. In: Studd J, (edi). Progress in obstetrics and gynecology. Vol. 8. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1990;107-26.
10. Loghis C. Comparison of assisted deliveries by forceps and silicone rubber cup vacuum extractor. Proc 13th World Cong Gynaecol Obstet (FIGO), Singapore. 1991; (Abstract 64).
11. Johanson. A randomized prospective study comparing the new vacuum extractor policy with forceps delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100:524-30.
12. Carter J, Gudgeon CW. Vacuum extraction and forceps delivery in a district hospital. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 27:117-19.
13. Fall O, Ryden G, Finnstrom K, Finnstrom O, Leijon I. Forceps or vacuum extractor ? A comparison of effects on the newborn infant. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand 1986; 65:75-80.
14. Chalmers JA, Chalmers I. The obstetric vacuum extractor is the instrument of first choice for operative vaginal delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaeco1 1989; 96:505-7.
15. Carmody F. Follow-up of babies delivered in a randomized comparison of vacuum extraction and forceps delivery. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand 1986; 65:763-6.