Which technique is better to place a manoeuvrable vacuum extractor cup on the flexion point? Vacca vs. Bird technique

Marcos Javier Cuerva 1 , Jose Ángel Espinosa 2 , Silvia Barras 3 , Silvia Gonzalez-Cerron 4 , Faride Ojeda 2 ,  and Marta Cortés 1
  • 1 Department of Obstetrics, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain
  • 2 Department of Affective Childbirth (UPA), Hospital San Francisco de Asís, Madrid, Spain
  • 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Universitario Infanta Cristina, Madrid, Spain
  • 4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain
Marcos Javier Cuerva, Jose Ángel Espinosa
  • Department of Affective Childbirth (UPA), Hospital San Francisco de Asís, Madrid, Spain
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
, Silvia Barras
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Universitario Infanta Cristina, Madrid, Spain
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
, Silvia Gonzalez-Cerron
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
, Faride Ojeda
  • Department of Affective Childbirth (UPA), Hospital San Francisco de Asís, Madrid, Spain
  • Search for other articles:
  • degruyter.comGoogle Scholar
and Marta Cortés

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to compare the vacuum extractor cup application technique described by Bird vs. the technique described by Vacca on a simulation model.

Methods

Six obstetricians participated in the study. Each obstetrician performed eight vacuum assisted deliveries using the Bird technique and eight vacuum assisted deliveries using the Vacca 5-Steps technique.

Results

A total of 96 vacuum assisted deliveries were performed. The mean distance from the centre of the cup to the flexion point was 1.78±0.96 cm for the Bird technique and 1.05±0.60 cm for the Vacca technique (p<0.001). The lateral distance (over the parietal bone) was 1.16±0.69 cm for the Bird technique and 0.66±0.52 cm for the Vacca technique (p<0.001). The vertical distance (towards the frontal or occipital bone) was 1.12±1.02 cm for the Bird technique and 0.67±0.55 cm for the Vacca technique (p=0.009). In occipito anterior positions, there were no significant differences between both techniques.

Conclusions

The Vacca technique was better in transverse and posterior positions.

  • 1.

    Mola, GDL, Kuk, JM. A randomised controlled trial of two instruments for vacuum-assisted delivery (Vacca Re-Usable OmniCup and the Bird anterior and posterior cups) to compare failure rates, safety and use effectiveness. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2010;50:246–52. https://doi.org/1111/j.1479-828x.2010.01166.x.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Kahrs, BH, Usman, S, Ghi, T, Youssef, A, Torkildsen, EA, Lindtjørn, E, et al. Fetal rotation during vacuum extractions for prolonged labor: a prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018;97:998–1005. https://doi.org/1111/aogs.13372.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Baskett, TF, Fanning, CA, Young, DC. A prospective observational study of 1000 vacuum assisted deliveries with the OmniCup device. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2008;30:573–80. https://doi.org/1016/s1701-2163(16)32890-0.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Bird, GC. The importance of flexion in vacuum extractor delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1976;83:194–200. https://doi.org/1111/j.1471-0528.1976.tb00808.x.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Vacca, A. Operative vaginal delivery: clinical appraisal of a new vacuum extraction device. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2001;41:156–160. https://doi.org/1111/j.1479-828x.2001.tb01200.x.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Vacca, A. Handbook of vacuum delivery in obstetric practice, 3rd ed. Brisbane: Vacca Research; 2009.

  • 7.

    Satin, AJ. Simulation in obstetrics. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:199–209. https://doi.org/1097/aog.0000000000002682.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Ghi, T, Eggebø, T, Lees, C, Kalache, K, Rozenberg, P, Youssef, A, et al. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: intrapartum ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;52:128–139. https://doi.org/1002/uog.19072.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Ismail, NAM, Saharan, WSL, Zaleha, MA, Jaafar, R, Muhammad, JA, Razi, ZRM. Kiwi Omnicup versus Malmstrom metal cup in vacuum assisted delivery: a randomized comparative trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2008;34:350–53. https://doi.org/1111/j.1447-0756.2007.00701.x.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Equy, V, David-Tchouda, S, Dreyfus, M, Riethmuller, D, Vendittelli, F, Cabaud, V, et al. Clinical impact of the disposable ventouse iCup® versus a metallic vacuum cup: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:332. https://doi.org/1186/s12884-015-0771-1.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Vacca, A. Vacuum-assisted delivery: An analysis of traction force and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;46:124–7. https://doi.org/1111/j.1479-828x.2006.00540.x.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Baskett, TF. Operative vaginal delivery - An historical perspective. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2019;56:3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.08.002.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

The Journal of Perinatal Medicine is a truly international forum covering the entire field of perinatal medicine. It is an essential news source for all those obstetricians, neonatologists, perinatologists and allied health professionals who wish to keep abreast of progress in perinatal and related research.

Search