Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Research

Ecological association between operative vaginal delivery and obstetric and birth trauma

Giulia M. Muraca, Sarka Lisonkova, Amanda Skoll, Rollin Brant, Geoffrey W. Cundiff, Yasser Sabr and K.S. Joseph
CMAJ June 18, 2018 190 (24) E734-E741; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.171076
Giulia M. Muraca
School of Population and Public Health (Muraca, Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Sabr, Joseph), University of British Columbia; BC Children’s and Women’s Hospital and Health Centre (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Brant, Cundiff, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarka Lisonkova
School of Population and Public Health (Muraca, Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Sabr, Joseph), University of British Columbia; BC Children’s and Women’s Hospital and Health Centre (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Brant, Cundiff, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amanda Skoll
School of Population and Public Health (Muraca, Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Sabr, Joseph), University of British Columbia; BC Children’s and Women’s Hospital and Health Centre (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Brant, Cundiff, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rollin Brant
School of Population and Public Health (Muraca, Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Sabr, Joseph), University of British Columbia; BC Children’s and Women’s Hospital and Health Centre (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Brant, Cundiff, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Geoffrey W. Cundiff
School of Population and Public Health (Muraca, Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Sabr, Joseph), University of British Columbia; BC Children’s and Women’s Hospital and Health Centre (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Brant, Cundiff, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yasser Sabr
School of Population and Public Health (Muraca, Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Sabr, Joseph), University of British Columbia; BC Children’s and Women’s Hospital and Health Centre (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Brant, Cundiff, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
K.S. Joseph
School of Population and Public Health (Muraca, Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Sabr, Joseph), University of British Columbia; BC Children’s and Women’s Hospital and Health Centre (Muraca, Lisonkova, Skoll, Brant, Cundiff, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Tables

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1:
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1:

    Temporal trends in obstetric trauma stratified by parity and obstetric history (A), stratified by mode of delivery among nulliparous women (B), among parous women without a previous cesarean delivery (C), among women with a previous cesarean delivery (D), among term, singleton deliveries, Canada, 2004–2014. Using the Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend in proportions, p < 0.001 for overall obstetric trauma trend among nulliparous and parous women (with and without a previous cesarean delivery); p < 0.001 for obstetric trauma trend among operative vaginal delivery in all 3 groups; p < 0.0001, 0.03, and 0.01 for obstetric trauma trend among spontaneous vaginal delivery in nulliparous women, parous women without cesarean delivery, and women with a previous cesarean delivery, respectively; and p = 0.2, 0.07 and < 0.0001 for these trends in cesarean delivery among the same 3 groups, respectively. Note: CD = cesarean delivery, OVD = operative vaginal delivery, SVD = spontaneous vaginal delivery.

  • Figure 2:
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2:

    Temporal trends in severe birth trauma stratified by parity and obstetric history (A), stratified by mode of delivery among nulliparous women (B), among parous women without a previous cesarean delivery (C), among women with a previous cesarean delivery (D), among term, singleton deliveries, Canada, 2004–2014. Using the Cochran-Armitage test for linear trend in proportions, p = 0.0001 for the trend in severe birth trauma in operative vaginal delivery among nulliparous women. All other p values for severe birth trauma trend > 0.05. Note: CD = cesarean delivery, OVD = operative vaginal delivery, SVD = spontaneous vaginal delivery.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1:

    Distribution of mode of delivery by maternal, obstetric and infant characteristics*

    Maternal, obstetric or infant characteristicNo. of spontaneous vaginal deliveries (%)No. of operative vaginal deliveries (%)Std. diff† operative vaginal delivery v. spontaneous vaginal deliveryNo. of cesarean deliveries (%)Std. diff† cesarean delivery v. spontaneous vaginal delivery
    Totals1 234 877 (63.7)207 675 (10.7)–496 361 (25.6)–
    Nulliparous women463 702 (37.6)152 632 (73.5)–223 438 (45.0)–
    Advanced maternal age (≥ 35 yr)38 215 (8.2)18 029 (11.8)0.1239 525 (17.7)0.29
    Hypertensive disorders27 171 (5.9)9785 (6.4)0.0222 852 (10.2)0.16
    Diabetes16 097 (3.5)6562 (4.3)0.0415 038 (6.7)0.15
    Induction of labour118 773 (25.6)44 658 (29.3)0.0873 761 (33.0)0.16
    Macrosomia (> 4000 g)35 791 (7.7)14 687 (9.6)0.0737 590 (16.8)0.28
    Parous women with no previous cesarean delivery732 448 (59.3)45 983 (22.1)–56 185 (11.3)–
    Advanced maternal age (≥ 35 yr)156 413 (21.4)12 742 (27.7)0.1518 258 (32.5)0.25
    Hypertensive disorders25 371 (3.5)1955 (4.3)0.043513 (6.3)0.13
    Diabetes34 580 (4.7)2783 (6.1)0.065108 (9.1)0.17
    Induction of labour173 213 (23.6)13 081 (28.5)0.1110 908 (19.4)–0.10
    Macrosomia (> 4000 g)101 343 (13.8)7247 (15.8)0.0610 318 (18.4)0.13
    Parous women with a previous cesarean delivery38 727 (3.1)9060 (4.4)–216 738 (43.7)–
    Advanced maternal age (≥ 35 yr)9611 (24.8)2333 (25.8)0.0268 361 (31.5)0.15
    Hypertensive disorders1111 (2.9)232 (2.6)−0.028126 (3.8)0.05
    Diabetes2021 (5.2)441 (4.9)−0.0116 933 (7.8)0.11
    Induction of labour6595 (17.0)1416 (15.6)−0.043692 (1.7)−0.54
    Macrosomia (> 4000 g)4699 (12.1)1047 (11.6)−0.0226 223 (12.1)0.00
    • Note: std. diff. = standardized difference.

    • ↵* Term singleton deliveries, Canada, 2004–2014 (n = 1 938 913). Includes data from Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

    • ↵† Std. diff. values > 0.1 are considered indicative of a significant difference between groups.

    • View popup
    Table 2:

    Distribution of components of composite obstetric trauma outcome by mode of delivery*

    OutcomeAll deliveries (%)
    n = 1 938 913
    No. of operative vaginal deliveries (%)
    n = 207 675
    No. of cesarean deliveries (%)
    n = 496 361
    No. of spontaneous vaginal deliveries (%)
    n = 1 234 877
    All obstetric trauma85 842 (100)33 095 (100)8395 (100)44 352 (100)
    Severe perineal lacerations (3rd and 4th degree)60 970 (71.0)28 550 (86.3)39 (0.5)32 381 (73.0)
    Injury to bladder or urethra5774 (6.7)341 (1.0)3735 (44.5)1698 (3.8)
    High vaginal laceration5039 (5.8)2015 (6.1)205 (2.4)2771 (6.2)
    Cervical laceration4530 (5.3)758 (2.3)892 (10.6)2857 (6.4)
    Other obstetric injury3306 (3.9)507 (1.5)1105 (13.2)1694 (3.8)
    Repair of uterine incision2473 (2.9)39 (0.1)2296 (27.3)138 (0.3)
    Delayed repair of episiotomy or repair of wound dehiscence after episiotomy or obstetrical laceration repair2447 (2.9)1056 (3.2)47 (0.6)1344 (3.0)
    Hematoma of the pelvis (perineum, vagina or vulva)2180 (2.5)487 (1.5)262 (3.1)1431 (3.2)
    Injury to the pelvic joints and ligaments1186 (1.4)154 (0.5)447 (5.3)585 (1.3)
    Laceration to the broad ligament of the uterus492 (0.6)9 (0.0)439 (5.2)44 (0.1)
    Repair of wound dehiscence after cesarean delivery514 (0.6)14 (0.0)471 (5.6)29 (0.1)
    • ↵* The sum of individual trauma components may exceed the total because some deliveries had multiple trauma diagnoses.

    • View popup
    Table 3:

    Distribution of components of composite severe birth trauma outcome by mode of delivery*

    OutcomeAll deliveries (%)
    n = 1 938 913
    No. of operative vaginal deliveries (%)
    n = 207 675
    No. of cesarean deliveries (%)
    n = 496 361
    No. of spontaneous vaginal deliveries (%)
    n = 1 234 877
    All severe birth trauma3366 (100)1356 (100)326 (100)1684 (100)
    Severe peripheral nervous system injury (brachial plexus injury)2352 (69.9)880 (64.9)99 (30.4)1373 (81.5)
    Femur or humerus injury443 (13.2)139 (10.3)74 (22.7)230 (13.7)
    Subaponeurotic hemorrhage244 (7.2)191 (14.1)37 (11.3)16 (1.0)
    Intracranial hemorrhage or laceration226 (6.7)123 (9.1)57 (17.5)123 (7.3)
    Skull fracture104 (3.1)47 (3.5)48 (14.7)9 (0.5)
    Severe central nervous system injury (brain damage or spinal cord injury)101 (3.0)34 (2.5)31 (9.5)36 (2.1)
    Injury to the liver or spleen†< 5 (< 0.1)< 5 (< 0.4)< 5 (< 16.9)< 5 (< 0.3)
    • ↵* The sum of individual trauma components may exceed the total because some deliveries had multiple trauma diagnoses.

    • ↵† Counts of fewer than 5 cases were suppressed owing to data privacy guidelines.

    • View popup
    Table 4:

    Change in obstetric trauma and severe birth trauma rates per 1% absolute increase in operative vaginal delivery rates and associated number of excess cases per year*

    OutcomeNulliparousParous
    No previous cesareanWith a previous cesarean
    ARR (95% CI)No. of excess cases/yr†ARR (95% CI)No. of excess cases/yr†ARR (95% CI)No. of excess cases/yr†
    Obstetric trauma
    All OVD1.06 (1.05–1.06)7081.10 (1.08–1.13)3601.11 (1.07–1.16)158
    Operative instrument
     Forceps1.09 (1.08–1.10)10611.26 (1.10–1.43)9371.11 (1.00–1.25)158
     Vacuum1.06 (1.05–1.07)7081.05 (1.03–1.08)1801.16 (1.11–1.22)230
     Sequential1.44 (1.35–1.55)51891.19 (0.84–1.67)–0.95 (0.83–1.09)–
    Pelvic station
     Outlet1.07 (1.06–1.09)8251.22 (1.14–1.30)7931.17 (1.04–1.31)245
     Low1.04 (1.03–1.05)4720.98 (0.93–1.03)–1.02 (0.94–1.11)–
     Midpelvic1.07 (1.07–1.08)8251.14 (1.12–1.17)5041.25 (1.20–1.30)360
    Severe birth trauma
    All OVD1.05 (1.03–1.07)180.98 (0.94–1.04)–1.02 (0.85–1.22)–
    Operative instrument
     Forceps1.01 (0.95–1.08)–1.09 (0.68–1.76)–0.86 (0.37–2.00)–
     Vacuum0.97 (0.90–1.04)–0.96 (0.89–1.04)–1.25 (0.91–1.72)–
     Sequential1.53 (1.03–2.27)1912.00 (0.58–6.86)–0.47 (0.17–1.27)–
    Pelvic station
     Outlet1.03 (0.96–1.10)–0.91 (0.71–1.15)–1.27 (0.58–2.80)–
     Low1.06 (1.01–1.12)221.18 (0.98–1.43)–0.87 (0.49–1.55)–
     Midpelvic1.04 (1.01–1.07)140.94 (0.87–1.02)–1.12 (0.82–1.53)–
    • Note: ARR = adjusted rate ratio, CI = confidence interval, OVD = operative vaginal delivery.

    • ↵* ARRs and 95% CIs expressing the change in obstetric trauma and severe birth trauma rates per 1% absolute increase in OVD rates and associated number of excess cases per year, term singleton deliveries, Canada, 2004–2014; includes data from Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Saskatchewan. Crude and adjusted rate ratios were obtained from ecological random-intercept Poisson regression models. Adjusted for rates of older maternal age (≥ 35 years of age), hypertension, diabetes, labour induction, macrosomia (> 4000 g), and year of delivery.

    • ↵† Number of excess cases of obstetric trauma and severe birth trauma in Canada annually, based on the number of births in Canada in 2015/16.13

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 190 (24)
CMAJ
Vol. 190, Issue 24
18 Jun 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Ecological association between operative vaginal delivery and obstetric and birth trauma
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Ecological association between operative vaginal delivery and obstetric and birth trauma
Giulia M. Muraca, Sarka Lisonkova, Amanda Skoll, Rollin Brant, Geoffrey W. Cundiff, Yasser Sabr, K.S. Joseph
CMAJ Jun 2018, 190 (24) E734-E741; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.171076

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Ecological association between operative vaginal delivery and obstetric and birth trauma
Giulia M. Muraca, Sarka Lisonkova, Amanda Skoll, Rollin Brant, Geoffrey W. Cundiff, Yasser Sabr, K.S. Joseph
CMAJ Jun 2018, 190 (24) E734-E741; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.171076
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Interpretation
    • Acknowledgement
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Taking a stand for operative vaginal delivery
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The authors respond to "Routine use of episiotomy with forceps should not be encouraged"
  • Episiotomy use among vaginal deliveries and the association with anal sphincter injury: a population-based retrospective cohort study
  • Taking a stand for operative vaginal delivery
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The effect of changing screening practices and demographics on the incidence of gestational diabetes in British Columbia, 2005–2019
  • Self-reported sleep disturbances among people who have had a stroke: a cross-sectional analysis
  • Risk of interpersonal violence during and after pregnancy among people with schizophrenia: a population-based cohort study
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Maternal-fetal medicine
    • Neonatal medicine
    • Pediatrics
    • Reproductive health, infertility & pregnancy
    • Women's health (including abortion)

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire