Vacuum extraction or caesarean section in the second stage of labour: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prolonged second stage of labour is an important cause of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Vacuum extraction (VE) and second-stage caesarean section (SSCS) are the most commonly performed obstetric interventions, but the procedure chosen varies widely globally. OBJECTIVES: To compare maternal and perinatal morbidity, mortality and other adverse outcomes after VE versus SSCS. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE. Studies were critically appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. SELECTION CRITERIA: All artictles including women in second stage of labour, giving birth by vacuum extraction or cesarean section and registering at least one perinatal or maternal outcome were selected. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The chi-square test, Fisher exact's test and binary logistic regression were used and various adverse outcome scores were calculated to evaluate maternal and perinatal outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen articles were included, providing the outcomes for a total of 20 051 births by SSCS and 32 823 births by VE. All five maternal deaths resulted from complications of anaesthesia during SSCS. In total, 133 perinatal deaths occurred in all studies combined: 92/20 051 (0.45%) in the SSCS group and 41/32 823 (0.12%) in the VE group. In studies with more than one perinatal death, both conducted in low-resource settings, more perinatal deaths occurred during the decision-to-birth interval in the SSCS group than in the VE group (5.5% vs 1.4%, OR 4.00, 95% CI 1.17-13.70; 11% vs 8.4%, OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.85-2.26). All other adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes showed no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Vacuum extraction should be the recommended mode of birth, both in high-income countries and in low- and middle-income countries, to prevent unnecessary SSCS and to reduce perinatal and maternal deaths when safe anaesthesia and surgery is not immediately available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".