Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Acta Obstetricia et ...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Article . 2019 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Operator experience affects the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury in vacuum extraction deliveries

Authors: Sandra Bergendahl; Petra Lindberg; Sophia Brismar Wendel;

Operator experience affects the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury in vacuum extraction deliveries

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionDelivery by vacuum extraction is a major risk factor for obstetric anal sphincter injury. The aim of this study was to assess risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury in vacuum extraction in nulliparous women, specifically operator‐related factors. A secondary aim was to assess other complications of vacuum extraction that are dependent on operator experience.Material and methodsA historical cohort study of nulliparous women with a live single fetus ≥34 weeks, delivered by vacuum extraction at a teaching hospital in Sweden in 1 year (2013), using data from medical records. Risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury was assessed for obstetricians (reference), gynecologists, and residents, and adjusted for maternal, fetal, procedure‐related, and operator‐related covariates using unconditional logistic regression. Results are presented as prevalence and crude and adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% CI.ResultsIn total, 323 nulliparous women delivered by vacuum extraction were included. Obstetric anal sphincter injury occurred in 57 (17.6%) women. Fifteen (11.5%) obstetric anal sphincter injuries occurred in vacuum extractions performed by obstetricians, 10 (13.5%) by gynecologists (aOR 1.84, 95% CI 0.72‐4.70), and 32 (26.9%) by residents (aOR 5.13, 95% CI 2.20‐11.95). Maternal height ≤155 cm (aOR 4.63, 95% CI 1.35‐15.9) and conversion to forceps (aOR 19.4, 95% CI 1.50‐252) increased the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury. Operator gender, night shift work, or being a frequent operator did not affect the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury. Postpartum hemorrhage and fetal complications did not differ between operator categories.ConclusionsThe adjusted risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury in nulliparous women was five times higher in vacuum extractions performed by residents compared with those performed by obstetricians. Vacuum extractions performed by gynecologists did not carry an increased risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury. Experience in years of training, rather than frequency of the procedure, seemed to have the highest impact on reducing obstetric anal sphincter injury in vacuum extractions, which indicates a need for increased training and supervision.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Sweden, Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical, Anal Canal, Internship and Residency, Risk Assessment, Obstetric Labor Complications, Obstetrics, Parity, Pregnancy, Risk Factors, Prevalence, Humans, Female, Clinical Competence, Needs Assessment

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    17
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
17
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
gold