Abstract
A high-fidelity simulator is described here, specifically designed for vacuum extraction and forceps delivery training. The main purpose behind its development is to remedy the current limited opportunity for training in operative vaginal delivery (OVD), making it easier for young obstetricians to become proficient in this important area of obstetrics. Its introduction into teaching hospitals and academic departments may also help older obstetricians maintain their own competence during periods of inactivity, ensuring patient safety.
Author contributions: The author has accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: The author reports holding US Patent 10,157,553 B2 Birth Simulator for Operative vaginal delivery.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: final data for 2013. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2015;64:1–65.Search in Google Scholar
2. Perone N. The electronically controlled axis-traction handle. Preliminary report. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2010;36:1080–6.10.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01280.xSearch in Google Scholar
3. Perone N. A technological advance for 21st century obstetricians: the electronically-controlled vacuum extractor. J Perinat Med 2018;46:279–86.10.1515/jpm-2016-0421Search in Google Scholar
4. Hagadorn-Freathy AS, Yeomans ER, Hankins GD. Validation of the 1988 ACOG forceps classification system. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:356.Search in Google Scholar
5. Committee on Practice Bulletins – Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 154 Summary: Operative Vaginal Delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:1118. Reaffirmed 2018.10.1097/AOG.0000000000001142Search in Google Scholar
6. Danforth DN, Ellis AH. Midforceps delivery – a vanishing art? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1963;86:29–37.10.1016/0002-9378(63)90073-5Search in Google Scholar
7. Tan KH, Sim R, Yam KL. Kielland’s forceps delivery: is it a dying art? Singapore Med J 1992;33:380–2.Search in Google Scholar
8. Bofill JA. Operative obstetrics: a lost art? Obstet Gynecol Surv 2000;55:405–6.10.1097/00006254-200007000-00001Search in Google Scholar
9. Dietz HP. Forceps: towards obsolescence or revival? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015;94:347–51.10.1111/aogs.12592Search in Google Scholar
10. Hayashi RH. Midforceps delivery: yes? Clin Obstet Gynecol 1987;30:90.10.1097/00003081-198703000-00013Search in Google Scholar
11. Pearse W. Electronic recording of forceps delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1963;86:43–51.10.1016/0002-9378(63)90075-9Search in Google Scholar
12. Kelly JV. Compression of the brain. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1963;85:687–94.10.1016/0002-9378(63)90317-XSearch in Google Scholar
13. Vacca A. Operative vaginal delivery: clinical appraisal of a new vacuum extraction device. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2001;41:156–60.10.1111/j.1479-828X.2001.tb01200.xSearch in Google Scholar
14. Vacca A. Vacuum-assisted delivery: an analysis of traction force and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;46:124–7.10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006.00540.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Duchon MA, De Mund MA, Brown RH. Laboratory comparison of modern vacuum extractors. Obstet Gynecol 1988;71:155–8.Search in Google Scholar
16. Cunningham FC, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC, Hauth JC, Wenstrom KD, editors. Vacuum extraction. In: Williams Obstetrics. 21st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2001. p. 503–8.Search in Google Scholar
17. Office of Surveillance and Biometrics. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Public Health Advisory: need for caution when using vacuum assisted delivery devices. Rockville, MD: Center for Devices and Radiological Health. US Dept of Health and Human Services, May 21, 1998.Search in Google Scholar
18. Donald I. Practical Obstetric Problems. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Toronto: JP Lippincott Co; 1969:607.Search in Google Scholar
19. Donald I. Practical Obstetric Problems. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Toronto: JP Lippincott Co; 1969. p. 581.Search in Google Scholar
20. Ramphul M, Kennelly MM, Burke G, Murphy DJ. Risk factors and morbidity associated with suboptimal instrument placement at instrumental delivery: observational study nested within the Instrumental Delivery & Ultrasound randomized controlled trial ISRCTN 72230496. BJOG 2015;122:558–63.10.1111/1471-0528.13186Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. National Center for Health Statistics. Natality 2016. Public use file. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Annual internet product; 2017.Search in Google Scholar
22. Lockwood C. ACOG Guidelines at a Glance: operative vaginal delivery. Contemp Ob/Gyn 2016;61:34–6.Search in Google Scholar
23. Maran NJ, Glavin RJ. Low- to high-fidelity simulation – a continuum of medical education? Med Educ 2003;37(Suppl. 1):22–8.10.1046/j.1365-2923.37.s1.9.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Vozenilek J, Huff JS, Reznek M, Gordon JA. See one, do one, teach one: advanced technology in medical education. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:1149–54.10.1197/j.aem.2004.08.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Jenison EL, Gil KM, Lendvay TS, Guy MS. Robotic surgical skills: acquisition, maintenance, and degradation. JSLS 2012;16:218–28.10.4293/108680812X13427982376185Search in Google Scholar
26. Macedonia C, Kopelman J, Sarno A, Satin AJ. Development and validation of a model teaching operative vaginal delivery utilizing an anthropomorphic simulator. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:S106.Search in Google Scholar
27. Dupuis O, Moreau R, Silveira R, Pham MT, Zentner A, CucheratM,et al. A new obstetric forceps for training junior doctors: a comparison of the spatial dispersion between junior and senior obstetricians. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:1524–31.10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.013Search in Google Scholar PubMed
28. Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, Zendejas B, Szostek JH, WangAT, et al. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2011;306:978–88.10.1001/jama.2011.1234Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
