Download PDF
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2014; 74(2): 146-151
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1360343
Original Article
GebFra Science
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Comparison of Obstetric Efficacy and Safety of the Kiwi OmniCup with Conventional Vacuum Extraction

Vergleich der geburtshilflichen Effektivität und Sicherheit des Kiwi OmniCup mit der konventionellen Vakuumextraktion
W. Siggelkow
1   Department of Gynaecology, Diakonische Dienste Hannover GmbH, Hannover
,
N. Schwarz
2   Erlangen University Hospital, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erlangen
,
M. W. Beckmann
2   Erlangen University Hospital, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erlangen
,
S. Kehl
2   Erlangen University Hospital, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erlangen
,
F. Faschingbauer
2   Erlangen University Hospital, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erlangen
,
R. L. Schild
3   Department of Obstetrics and Perinatal Medicine, Diakonische Dienste Hannover GmbH, Hannover
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 16 April 2013
revised 26 November 2013

accepted 09 January 2014

Publication Date:
26 February 2014 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare the safety and efficacy of the Kiwi OmniCup system with conventional vacuum delivery.
Methods: A retrospective study of operative vaginal deliveries was done for 4682 births. The procedures included 217 operative vaginal deliveries (4.6 %), 79 of which were done using conventional vacuum extraction (37 %) and 138 using the Kiwi system (63 %).
Results: Use of the Kiwi system was associated with a significant reduction in episiotomies (61 vs. 76 % in the control group; p < 0.05). The rates of successful completion of birth were comparable for the two systems (94 % with the Kiwi system and 99 % with conventional vacuum delivery). Cup detachment occurred significantly more often in the Kiwi group (p < 0.005), requiring a change to a different method of birth significantly more often. It was necessary to change the procedure significantly more often from the mid-pelvis (p < 0.05). The incidence of maternal and foetal injuries was similar for the two systems.
Conclusions: With regard to obstetric efficacy and safety and foetal and maternal injuries, the Kiwi system is an acceptable alternative to the conventional vacuum cup. The advantages of the Kiwi system are its significantly lower episiotomy rate and its ease and rapidity of use.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung: In der vorliegenden Untersuchung werden die Sicherheit und Effektivität des Kiwi-OmniCup-Systems mit der konventionellen Vakuumentbindung verglichen.
Methodik: Es wurde eine retrospektive Untersuchung vaginal-operativer Entbindungen aus einer Gesamtzahl von 4682 Geburten vorgenommen. Von diesen Patientinnen hatten 217 eine vaginal-operative Entbindung (4,6 %), davon 79 mithilfe konventioneller Vakuumextraktion (37 %) und 138 mit dem Kiwi-System (63 %).
Ergebnisse: Der Einsatz des Kiwi-Systems ging mit einer signifikanten Reduktion der Episiotomien einher (61 vs. 76 % in der Kontrollgruppe, p < 0,05). Der Anteil erfolgreich zu Ende gebrachter Entbindungen war vergleichbar für beide Systeme (94 % mit dem Kiwi-System und 99 % mit konventioneller Vakuumentbindung). Ein Abreißen der Glocke trat signifikant häufiger in der Kiwi-Gruppe auf (p < 0,005) und zog somit signifikant häufiger den Wechsel auf einen anderen Geburtsmodus nach sich. Eine solche Notwendigkeit zum Verfahrenswechsel trat signifikant häufiger von der Beckenmitte auf (p < 0,05). Mütterliche wie kindliche Verletzungen traten in beiden Systemen mit gleicher Inzidenz auf.
Schlussfolgerungen: Das Kiwi-System stellt hinsichtlich der geburtshilflichen Effektivität wie auch der Sicherheit im Hinblick auf fetale und mütterliche Verletzungen eine adäquate Alternative zur konventionellen Vakuumglocke dar. Das Kiwi-System sticht im Vergleich durch seine signifikant geringere Episiotomierate und die einfache und zügige Handhabung hervor.

Key words

birth - birth trauma - delivery

Schlüsselwörter

Geburt - Geburtstrauma - Geburtshilfe
 

  • References

  • 1 Franz HBG, Erxleben C, Franz A et al. Prevention of labour-associated pelvic floor injuries – what is known for sure. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2012; 72: 804-808
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Drife JO. Choice and instrumental delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 103: 608-611
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hayman R, Gilby J, Arulkumaran S. Clinical evaluation of a ‘hand pump vacuum delivery device. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100: 1190-1195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Baskett TF, Fanning CA, Young DC. A prospective observational study of 1000 vacuum assisted deliveries with the OmniCup device. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2008; 30: 573-580
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Berg D, Geiger W, Hickl EJ et al. Empfehlungen zur Dokumentation der Geburt – Das Partogramm; AWMF 015/017. Online: http://www.awmf-online.de
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dudenhausen J, Hopp H, Schneider KTM et al. Vaginal-operative Entbindungen; AWMF 015/023. Online: http://www.awmf-online.de
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ismail NA, Saharan WS, Zaleha MA et al. Kiwi Omnicup versus Malmstrom metal cup in vacuum assisted delivery: a randomized comparative trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2008; 34: 350-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chalmers JA, Chalmers I. The obstetric vacuum extractor is the instrument of first choice for operative vaginal delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 505-506
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Johanson RB, Rice C, Doyle M et al. A randomised prospective study comparing the new vacuum extractor policy with forceps delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993; 100: 524-530
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Johanson RB, Menon BK. Vacuum extraction versus forceps for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (2) CD000224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Towner D, Castro MA, Eby-Wilkens E et al. Effect of mode of delivery in nulliparous women on neonatal intracranial injury. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1709-1714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Patel R et al. Cohort study of operative delivery in the second stage of labour and standard of obstetric care. BJOG 2003; 110: 610-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Groom KM, Jones BA, Miller N et al. A prospective randomised controlled trial of the Kiwi Omnicup versus conventional ventouse cups for vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery. BJOG 2006; 113: 183-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bird GC. The importance of flexion in vacuum extractor delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1976; 83: 194-200
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bird GC. The use of the Malmström vacuum extractor in operative obstetrics. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1966; 6: 242-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Attilakos G, Sibanda T, Winter C et al. A randomised controlled trial of a new handheld vacuum extraction device. BJOG 2005; 112: 1510-1515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Murphy DJ, Liebling RE, Verity L et al. Early maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with operative delivery in second stage of labour: a cohort study. Lancet 2001; 358: 1203-1207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bofill JA, Rust OA, Schorr SJ et al. A randomized prospective trial of the obstetric forceps versus the M-cup vacuum extractor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 1325-1330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 McQuivey RW. Vacuum-assisted delivery: a review. J Mater Fetal Neonatal Med 2004; 16: 171-179
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Jhawar BS, Ranger A, Steven D et al. Risk factors for intracranial hemorrhage among full-term infants: a case–control study. Neurosurgery 2003; 52: 581-590
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gardella C, Taylor M, Benedetti T et al. The effect of sequential use of vacuum and forceps for assisted vaginal delivery on neonatal and maternal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185: 896-902
    Google Scholar
  • 22 de Leeuw JW, Struijk PC, Vierhout ME et al. Risk factors for third degree perineal ruptures during delivery. BJOG 2001; 108: 383-387
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Youssef R, Ramalingam U, Macleod M et al. Cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of episiotomy at instrumental vaginal delivery. BJOG 2005; 112: 941-945
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Vacca A. Vacuum-assisted delivery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 16: 17-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Vacca A. Handbook of Vacuum Delivery in obstetric Practice. 2nd. ed. Brisbane: Vacca Research; 2003: 35-67
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Friedman EA, Sachtleben-Murray MR, Dahrouge D et al. Long-term effects of labor and delivery on offspring: a matched-pair analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 150: 941-945
    PubMedGoogle Scholar