S'abonner

Twin vaginal delivery: innovate or abdicate - 27/09/17

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.041 
Sarah Rae Easter, MD a, Laura Taouk, Ms.BS b, Jay Schulkin, PhD b, Julian N. Robinson, MD a
a Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 
b Research Department, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC 

Abstract

Neonatal safety data along with national guidelines have prompted renewed interest in vaginal delivery of twins, particularly in the case of the noncephalic second twin. Yet, the rising rate of twin cesarean deliveries, coupled with the national decline in operative obstetrics, raises concerns about the availability of providers who are skilled in twin vaginal birth. Providers are key stakeholders for increasing rates of twin vaginal delivery. We surveyed a group of practicing obstetricians to explore potential barriers to the vaginal birth of twins with a focus on delivery of the noncephalic second twin. Among 107 responding providers, only 57% would deliver a noncephalic second twin by breech extraction. Providers who preferred breech extraction had a higher rate of maternal-fetal medicine subspecialty training (26.2% vs 4.3%; P<.01) and were more likely to be in an academic practice environment (36.1% vs 10.9%; P<.01) and to practice in high-volume centers that deliver >30 sets of twins annually (57.4% vs 34.8%; P=.02). Most providers (54.2%) were familiar with the findings from the recent randomized trial that demonstrated the safety of twin vaginal birth. However, knowledge of the trial was not associated statistically with a preference for breech extraction (62.3% vs 43.5%; P=.05). Providers who preferred breech extraction were more likely to agree with recent society guidelines that encourage the vaginal birth of twins (86.9% vs 63.0%; P<.01). In an adjusted analysis, the 46% of providers with a perceived need for more training were far less likely to prefer breech extraction for delivery of a noncephalic second twin (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.16–0.95). Furthermore, 57% of providers who would not offer their patient breech extraction would be willing to consult a colleague for support with a noncephalic twin delivery. These results suggest that scientific evidence and society opinion are likely insufficient to reverse the national trends that favor cesarean delivery for twins. Instead, implementation of provider training and support programs is critical for increasing the rates of twin vaginal birth. Changing our national landscape of vaginal twin delivery may require innovation. Without novel provider-focused strategies, we may relinquish passively the requisite skills for not only our patients but also for future generations of obstetricians.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : breech extraction, operative obstetrics, provider training, simulation, twins, vaginal delivery


Plan


 Supported by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (Title V, Social Security Act), Health Resources and Services Administration, and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) via grant number R60MC 05674.
 The funding source had no role in design, analysis, interpretation, drafting, or revision of this manuscript.
 The authors report no conflict of interest.
 The content of this article is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Association of American Medical Colleges.


© 2017  Elsevier Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 216 - N° 5

P. 484 - mai 2017 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • The systematic error in the estimation of fetal weight and the underestimation of fetal growth restriction
  • Justin R. Lappen, Stephen A. Myers
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Use of combined hormonal contraceptives among women with migraines and risk of ischemic stroke
  • Steven W. Champaloux, Naomi K. Tepper, Michael Monsour, Kathryn M. Curtis, Maura K. Whiteman, Polly A. Marchbanks, Denise J. Jamieson

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.