Mid forceps did not cause “compromised babies” – “compromise” caused forceps: an approach toward safely lowering the cesarean delivery rate*

References

• Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, et al. Births: final data for 2018 National Vital Statistics Reports. 68, No 13, Hyattsville MD National Center for Health Statistics 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJK. Births: provisional data for 2019. National vital statistics rapid release report No. 008. National Center for Health Statistics; May 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/index.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson C, Betran AP, Opondo C, et al. Trends in caesarean section rates between 2007 and 2013 in obstetric risk groups inspired by the Robson classification: results from population-based surveys in a low-resource setting. BJOG. 2019;126(6):690–700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey PE. The disappearing art of instrumental delivery: time to reverse the trend. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;91(1):89–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boatin AA, Cullinane F, Torloni MR, et al. Audit and feedback using the Robson classification to reduce caesarean section rates: a systematic review. BJOG. 2018;125(1):36–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dildy GA, Belfort MA, Clark SL. Obstetric forceps: a species on the brink of extinction. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(3):436–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muraca GM, Skoll A, Lisonkova S, et al. Perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality among term singletons following midcavity operative vaginal delivery versus caesarean delivery. BJOG. 2018;125(6):693–702.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Corston JM. The end results in children delivered by mid or high forceps. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954;67(2):263–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cosgrove RA, Weaver OS. Weaver, 0S: An analysis of 1,000 consecutive mid forceps operations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1957;73(3):556–568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLee J. The prophylactic forceps operation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1920;1(1):34–44.
   Google Scholar
• Dennen EH. A classification of forceps operations according to station of head in pelvis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1952;63(2):272–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broman SH, Nichols PL, Kennedy WA. Preschool IQ: prenatal and early development correlates. Hillsdale, New Jersey: L. Eelbaum Associates; 1975.
   Google Scholar
• Chiswick ML, James DK. Kielland's forceps: association with neonatal morbidity and mortality. Br Med J. 1979;1(6155):7–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman EA, Niswander KR, Sachtleben MR, et al. Dysfunctional labor. X. Immediate results to infant. Obstet Gynecol. 1969;33(6):776–784.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman EA, Niswander KR, Sachtleben MR, et al. Dysfunctional labor. VIII. Relative accuracy of clinical and graphic diagnostic methods. Obstet Gynecol. 1969;33:145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman EA, Sachtleben MR. Caudal anesthesia. Obstet Gynecol. 1959;13(4):442–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman EA, Sachtleben MR. High risk labor. J Reprod Med. 1971;7:52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman EA, Sachtleben MR, Bresky PA. Dysfunctional labor. XII. Long-term effects on infant. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977;127(7):779–783.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuldner RV. Labor complication and cerebral palsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1957;74(1):159–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker BE, Benaron HBW. The unrelated effects of prolonged labor with forceps, precipitate labor with spontaneous delivery, and natural labor with spontaneous delivery on the child. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1953;66(3):540–550.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anspach BM. The trend of modern obstetrics-what is the danger? How can it be changed? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1923;6(5):566–574.
   Google Scholar
• Frey HA, Liu X, Lynch CD, et al. An evaluation of fetal heart rate characteristics: a case control series. BJOG. 2018;125(11):1480–1487.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oskoui M, Coutinho F, Dykeman J, et al. An update on the prevalence of cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013;55(6):509–519.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darney PD, Nakamura-Pereira M, Regan L, et al. Maternal mortality in the United States compared with Ethiopia, Nepal, Brazil, and the United Kingdom: contrasts in reproductive health policies. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(6):1362–1366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boerma T, Ronsmans C, Melesse DY, et al. Optimising caesarean section use 1: global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341–1348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandall J, Tribe RM, Avery L, et al. Interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections in healthy women and babies. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1349–1357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Betrán AP, Temmerman M, Kingdon C, et al. Optimising caesarean section use 2 Short-term and long-term effects of caesarean section on the health of women and children. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1358–1368.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser GHA, Ayres-de-Campos D, Barnea ER, et al. FIGO position paper: how to stop thecaesarean section epidemic. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1286–1287.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiklund I, Malata AM, Cheung NF, et al. Appropriate use of caesarean section globally required a different approach. Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1288–1289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WHO. Recommendations to reduce unnecessary caesarean sections. Geneva Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Eden RD, Evans MI, Britt DW, et al. Safely lowering the emergency Cesarean and operative vaginal delivery rates using the Fetal Reserve Index. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;33:1475–1479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt DW, Evans MI, Schifrin BS, et al. Refining the prediction and prevention of emergency operative deliveries with the Fetal Reserve Index. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2019;46(3):157–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden RD, Evans MI, Evans SM, et al. Reengineering electronic fetal monitoring interpretation: using the Fetal Reserve Index to anticipate the need for emergent operative delivery. Reprod Sci. 2018;25(4):487–497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden RD, Evans MI, Evans SM, et al. The "Fetal Reserve Index": re-engineering the interpretation and responses to fetal heart rate patterns. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2018;43(2):90–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans MI, Britt DW, Eden RD, et al. The Fetal Reserve Index significantly outperforms ACOG category system in predicting cord blood base excess and pH: a methodological failure of the category system. Reprod Sci. 2019;26(6):858–863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans MI, Eden RD, Britt DW, et al. Re-engineering the interpretation of electronic fetal monitoring to identify reversible risk for cerebral palsy: a case control series. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(15):2561–2569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans M, Eden R, Britt D, et al. Reconceptualizing fetal monitoring. Eur J Gyn Obstet. 2019;1:10–17.
   Google Scholar
• Eden RD, Evans MI, Britt DW, et al. Combined prenatal and postnatal prediction of early neonatal compromise risk. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. DOI:10.1080/14767058.2019.1676714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans MI, Britt DW, Eden RD, et al. Earlier and improved screening for impending fetal compromise. J Mat Fet Neonat Med.DOI:10.1080/14767058.2020.1811670
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt DW. A conceptual introduction to modeling. 3rd ed. In: Erlbaum L, Mahwah NJ, Gordis L, editors. Epidemiology. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Gordis L. 2004. Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders.
   Google Scholar
• Sainz JA, Garcia-Mejido A, Aquise A, et al. A simple model to predict the complicated operative vaginal deliveries using vacuum or forceps. Am J. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(2):193.e1-12–193.e12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modanlou H, Yeh SY, Siassi B, et al. Direct monitoring of arterial blood pressure in depressed and normal newborn infants during the first hour of life. J Pediatr. 1974;85(4):553–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modanlou H, Yeh SY, Hon EH, et al. Fetal and neonatal biochemistry and Apgar scores. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1973;117(7):942–951.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modanlou H, Yeh SY, Hon EH. Fetal and neonatal acid-base balance in normal and high-risk pregnancies: during labor and the first hour of life. Obstet Gynecol. 1974;43(3):347–353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsikouras P, Koukouli Z, Niesigk B, et al. Predictive value of fetal scalp pH and base excess for fetal acidosis and poor neonatal outcome. J Matern Fet Neo Med. 2018;31(23):3166–3171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayres-De-Campos D, Arulkumaran S, FIGO Intrapartum Fetal Monitoring Expert Consensus Panel. FIGO FIGO consensus guidelines on intrapartum fetal monitoring: Physiology of fetal oxygenation and the main goals of intrapartum fetal monitoring. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;131(1):5–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satin AJ. Simulation in obstetrics. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(1):199–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bardos J, Loudon H, Rekawek P, et al. Association between senior obstetrician supervision of resident deliveries and mode of delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(3):486–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bligard KH, Lipsey KL, Young OM. Simulation training for operative vaginal delivery among obstetrics and gynecology residents: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(Suppl 1):16S–21S.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dietz HP. Obstetric forceps: a species on the brink of extinction and forceps, simulation, and social media and simulation training for forceps-assisted vaginal delivery and rates of maternal perineal trauma. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):1447–1448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Operative vaginal birth: ACOG practice bulletin, number 219. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(4):e149–e159.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Richardson DA, Evans MI, Cibils LA. Midforceps delivery: a critical review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;145(5):621–631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Main E, Morton C, Hopkins D, et al. Cesarean deliveries, outcomes, and opportunities for change in California: toward a public agenda for maternity care safety and quality: California Maternal Quality Collaborative; 2011. www.cmqcc.org.
   Google Scholar
• Mello MM, Chandra A, Gawande AA, et al. National costs of the medical liability system. Health Aff. 2010;29(9):1569–1577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown HC, Paranjothy S, Dowswell T, et al. Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low-risk women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD004907.
   Google Scholar
• Bohren MA, Hofmeyr GJ, Sakala C, et al. Continuous support for women during childbirth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD003766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truven Health Analytics. The cost of having a baby in the United States. Truven health analytics market scan study© 2013. Ann Arbor, MI: Truven Health Analytics.
   Google Scholar
• Capitation and risk sharing models. https://www.ashp.org/-/media/assets/pharmacy-practice/resource-centers/ambulatory-care/capitated-and-risk-sharing-models-faq.ashx?la=en&hash=0E437D17E9E4FC115BEB9EDFE9709FE0FA24D66C.
   Google Scholar
• Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, et al. Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1181–1193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ACOG/SMFM. Obstetric care consensus: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:693–711.
   Google Scholar
• Evans MI. Overcoming militant mediocrity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(6):656–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans MI, Richardson DA, Sholl JS, et al. Cesarean section: assessment of the convenience factor. J Reprod Med. 1984;36:1341–1348.
   Google Scholar
• Lagrew DC, Low KL, Brennan R, et al. National partnership for maternal safety: consensus bundle on safe reduction of primary cesarean births-supporting intended vaginal births. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(3):503–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith H, Peterson N, Lagrew D, et al. Toolkit to support vaginal birth and reduce primary cesareans: a quality improvement toolkit: California Maternal Quality Care Collborative. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Santo S, Ayres-De-Campos D, Costa-Santos C, FM-Compare Collaboration, et al. Agreement and accuracy using the FIGO, ACOG and NICE cardiotocography interpretation guidelines. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(2):166–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen WR, Friedman EA. Obstetric practice guidelines: labor’s lost love? J Matern Fet Neonat Med. 2019;32(9):1567–1570.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen WR, Friedman EA. Misguided guidelines for managing labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):753.e1–e3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leveno KJ, Nelson DB, McIntire DD. Second stage labor: how long is too long? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(4):484–489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindqvist PG, Biasoletto G. RE: admission cardiotocography versus intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart in low-risk pregnancy during evaluation for possible labour admission-a multicentre randomised trial: the ADCAR trial: is admission cardiotocography effective? The result of a randomized controlled trial. BJOG. 2019;126(3):428–429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ransom SB, Studdert DM, Dombrowski MP, et al. Reduced medicolegal risk by compliance with obstetrical clinical pathways: a case-control study. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(4):751–755.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar