Rotational forceps: Should these procedures be abandoned?

被引：10

作者：

Park, JS

Robinson, JN

Norwitz, ER

机构：

[1] Columbia Univ, Columbia Presbyterian Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Maternal Fetal Med, New York, NY 10032 USA

[2] Seoul Natl Univ, Coll Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Seoul, South Korea

[3] Harvard Univ, Brigham & Womens Hosp, Sch Med,Div Maternal Fetal Med, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Biol, Boston, MA 02115 USA

来源：

SEMINARS IN PERINATOLOGY | 2003年 / 27卷 / 01期

关键词：

D O I：

10.1053/sper.2003.50017

中图分类号：

R71 [妇产科学];

学科分类号：

100211 ;

摘要：

Forceps delivery remains an important part of the obstetric armamentarium. When applied by practitioners skilled in their use, forceps delivery can quickly and safely deliver a fetus at risk. Unfortunately, forceps can also be an instrument of harm for the women on her infant. This is particularly true of rotational forceps. The goal of this monograph is to review in detail the indications, contraindications, technique, as well as risks and complications of forceps delivery, with particular attention to rotational forceps. We conclude by asking the question: Should rotational forceps be abandoned altogether? Copyright 2003, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

引用

页码：112 / 120

页数：9

共 49 条

[1]

*AM COLL OBST GYN, 1988, 59 ACOG

[2]

*AM COLL OBSTET GY, 2000, PRACT B, V17

[3] Risk of new-onset urinary incontinence after forceps and vacuum delivery in primiparous women [J].

Arya, LA ;

Jackson, ND ;

Myers, DL ;

Verma, A .

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2001, 185 (06) :1318-1323

[4] Intrapartum risk factors for newborn encephalopathy: the Western Australian case-control study [J].

Badawi, N ;

Kurinczuk, JJ ;

Keogh, JM ;

Alessandri, LM ;

O'Sullivan, F ;

Burton, PR ;

Pemberton, PJ ;

Stanley, FJ .

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1998, 317 (7172) :1554-1558

[5] A COMPARISON OF THE MORBIDITY OF MIDFORCEPS AND CESAREAN DELIVERY [J].

BASHORE, RA ;

PHILLIPS, WH ;

BRINKMAN, CR .

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1990, 162 (06) :1428-1435

[6] A randomized prospective trial of the obstetric forceps versus the M-cup vacuum extractor [J].

Bofill, JA ;

Rust, OA ;

Schorr, SJ ;

Brown, RC ;

Martin, RW ;

Martin, JN ;

Morrison, JC .

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1996, 175 (05) :1325-1330

[7] Forceps and vacuum delivery: A survey of North American residency programs [J].

Bofill, JA ;

Rust, OA ;

Perry, KG ;

Roberts, WE ;

Martin, RW ;

Morrison, JC .

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1996, 88 (04) :622-625

[8] FOLLOW-UP OF BABIES DELIVERED IN A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED COMPARISON OF VACUUM EXTRACTION AND FORCEPS DELIVERY [J].

CARMODY, F ;

GRANT, A ;

MUTCH, L ;

VACCA, A ;

CHALMERS, I .

ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 1986, 65 (07) :763-766

[9] IMMEDIATE MATERNAL AND NEONATAL EFFECTS OF LOW-FORCEPS DELIVERY ACCORDING TO THE NEW CRITERIA OF THE AMERICAN-COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS COMPARED WITH SPONTANEOUS VAGINAL DELIVERY IN TERM PREGNANCIES [J].

CARMONA, F ;

MARTINEZROMAN, S ;

MANAU, D ;

CARARACH, V ;

IGLESIAS, X .

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1995, 173 (01) :55-59

[10] Obstetric attending physician characteristics and their impact on vacuum and forceps delivery rates: University of California at San Francisco experience from 1977 to 1999 [J].

Chang, ALS ;

Noah, MS ;

Laros, RK .

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 186 (06) :1299-1303

← 1 2 3 4 5 →