Position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia

[Update on the management modalities of expulsive efforts during childbirth]

The second stage of labour includes both the passive and active stages, involving expulsive efforts. The management of this phase of labour aims to minimise the maternal and neonatal complications that could be associated with a prolonged active2nd stage, but also to limit medical interventions. On the maternal side, prolonged duration of expulsive effort appears to be correlated with increased postpartum haemorrhage, perineal injury and, in the long term, urinary and anal incontinence. From a neonatal viewpoint, expulsive efforts carry risks of neonatal acidosis, asphyxia, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit and trauma. Optimal management of expulsive efforts involves several strategies. Various aspects need to be addressed in order to optimise this management, including the timing of the start of expulsive efforts, comparing immediate pushing with delayed pushing, and the duration of expulsive efforts. In addition, it is important to examine the different pushing modalities, whether intense or moderate, using open or closed-glottis pushing, as well as the maternal position during pushing. According to the current literature, no specific technique or predefined duration appears to reduce the risk of neonatal or maternal complications. It therefore seems essential to adopt an individualised approach for each woman, placing her at the centre of the care and decision-making process, in order to take account of her preferences during childbirth.

Examining the impact of upright and recumbent positions on labor outcomes in Saudi Arabia: A quasi-experiment

Background

Helping the woman to adopt a comfortable position during childbirth significantly affects labor changes and pain management. However, there is a lack of consensus on the impacts of different childbirth positions on labor outcomes. In addition, a scarce of studies have assessed the effects of the upright and recumbent positions on delivery outcomes, especially in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Objective

This study aimed to examine and compare the influence of upright and recumbent childbirth positions on birth outcomes.

Methods

The setting was the childbirth unit at East Jeddah Hospital from November 2020 to March 2021. The research design was quasi-experimental, including 300 women in labor under 18-45 years. The sample includes two equal groups of 150 women: upright (experiment) and recumbent (comparison) position groups. Three tools were used to collect data: a structured interviewing questionnaire, the modified WHO partograph, and the Wong-Baker FACES® pain rating scale. Descriptive statistics, chi-square, independent t-test, and paired t-test were used for data analysis.

Results

Women in the recumbent position spent a longer duration in the first, second, and third stages of childbirth and had higher pain scores and less satisfaction with the assumed position than women in the upright position, with a highly significant difference (p <0.001).

Conclusion

Laboring women in upright positions experienced faster progress of labor, shorter duration of childbirth, less pain, and higher satisfaction than those assumed recumbent positions. This study serves as an input for midwives and nurses to enable them to offer appropriate advice to improve intrapartum care. In addition, educational programs targeting pregnant women about the positive impacts of upright position on women's birth experience are encouraged.

Application Analysis of Multiacupoint Stimulation in Multimodal Labor Analgesia during the Whole Stage of Labor in Primipara

Purpose

To analyze the application value of multimodal analgesia (MMA) regimen of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) combined with multiacupoint stimulation analgesia during the whole stage of labor analgesia in primipara.

Methods

300 primiparas with natural delivery were selected. According to the different ways of labor analgesia, they were divided into the first stage of labor active period PCEA group (group A), the whole stage of labor PCEA group (group W), and the whole stage of labor PCEA combined with multiacupoint stimulation analgesia group (group WM). The effect of MMA during the whole-labor process on maternal and infant safety was evaluated. The specific observation indicators were as follows: visual analogue scale (VAS) scores before analgesia (T ₀), at full opening of the uterus (T ₁), at the end of the second stage of labor (T ₂), and at the end of the third stage of labor (T ₃); stress response indicators at T ₀ and T ₁: epinephrine (E), norepinephrine (NE), glucose (Glu), and β-endorphin (β-EP) levels; delivery time of each stage of labor; the Apgar score of newborns at 1 and 5 min after birth; indicators of umbilical artery blood gas analysis immediately after delivery: PH value, base excess (BE), partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂), and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO₂); incidence of postpartum depression (PPD) at 6 weeks after delivery.

Results

At T ₁, T ₂, and T ₃, the VAS scores were lower in groups W and WM than in group A, and the VAS scores were lower in group WM than in group W (P < 0.05). At T ₀, there was no significant difference in the comparison of E, NE, Glu, and β-EP levels among the three groups (P > 0.05). At T ₁, the levels of E, NE, Glu, and β-EP were higher in the three groups than in the same group at T ₀, the levels of E, NE, and Glu were lower, the levels of β-EP were higher in groups W and WM than in group A, and the levels of β-EP were higher in group WM than in group W (P < 0.05). Comparing the delivery time of the first stage of labor in the three groups, groups A and WM were shorter than group W (P < 0.05). Comparing the delivery time of the second and third stages of labor in the three groups, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05). Comparing the Apgar scores of the three groups of newborns at 1 and 5 min after birth, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05). Comparing the incidence of newborn asphyxia in the three groups, there was also no significant difference (P > 0.05). Comparing the PH, BE, PaO₂, and PaCO₂ of three groups of newborns after delivery, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05). At 6 weeks after delivery, the incidence of PPD was lower in groups W (10.00%) and WM (8.00%) than in group A (20.00%) (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The application of the MMA regimen of PCEA combined with multiacupoint stimulation for labor analgesia during the whole stage of labor in primipara can effectively reduce labor pain and stress response during the whole stage of labor and shorten the delivery time of the first stage of labor, the indicators of newborn Apgar score and umbilical artery blood gas analysis are not affected, and the incidence of PPD in patients is reduced, which can play a protective role for the safety of mother and infant.

Perineal trauma in nulliparous women and its associated factors

Introduction: Perineal trauma is an important complication for women after giving birth. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of perineal trauma and its associated factors in nulliparous. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was carried out, through the analysis of the medical records of women with singleton pregnancy who achieved vaginal birth of a live infant, in 2017, in a maternity hospital. Data collection involved information about demographic, obstetric, and clinical data from nulliparous women, and infant birthweight. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses were performed to verify the association of perineal trauma with the variables assessed, with significant variables remaining in the model (p<0.05), through a stepwise strategy. Results: A total of 326 medical records were analyzed. The percentage of perineal trauma was 60%. In the multivariate analysis, the use of oxytocin increased the chance of perineal trauma by 730%. In addition, the adoption of squatting position and hands and knees decreased the chances of perineal trauma by 81% and 97%, respectively, in comparison with those who adopted the lithotomy position, during the second stage labor. Conclusion: The rate of perineal laceration was high, but the severity was low. The use of oxytocin is associated with the presence of trauma and the squatting position and hands and knees, especially, have contributed to the protection of the perineum.

[Normal childbirth: physiologic labor support and medical procedures. Guidelines of the French National Authority for Health (HAS) with the collaboration of the French College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF) and the French College of Midwives (CNSF) - Maternal postures during the second stage of labour, delivery techniques and perineal protection]

OBJECTIVE

To assess maternal postures during the second stage of labour on course of labour, mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal morbidity. To describe the different techniques of spontaneous vaginal delivery and their influence on maternal and neonatal morbidity. To describe the different perineal protection techniques.

METHOD

Systematic review of the literature through consultation of Medline, Cochrane databases and international recommendations.

RESULTS

There is no particular posture that has demonstrated its superiority (Level of Evidence (LE) 2). In case of no contraindication and permanent maternal and fetal monitoring, it is recommended to encourage women to adopt the postures they consider most comfortable during the second stage of labour (Consensus agreement). There is insufficient evidence in the literature to recommend a technique for fetal head and shoulders delivery. There is not enough data in the literature to recommend the use of Ritgen maneuver (grade B), perineal massage (gradeC) or hot compresses (Consensus agreement). The abdominal expression must be abandoned (grade B).

CONCLUSION

The second stage of labour is a crucial time in labour that can lead to significant maternal and neonatal morbidity. It is necessary to take the greatest possible care in the supervision and management of women, especially for the perineal protection. The influence of non-medicinal techniques on the course of the second stage of labour should be studied.

Vertical Delivery as a Method of Prevention of Obstetric and Perinatal Complications

Currently, there are many points of view on management of physiological labor, in particular, it concerns the intrapartum position of a woman. Tactics of modern obstetrics should ensure the safety of motherhood, which in future ensures the prosperity of the state. One of the alternative methods of delivery is the vertical position of a woman in the intrapartum period. It is impossible to describe the whole range of possible positions of a woman in the intrapartum period, the common ones being: lying position (lateral, reclining, lithotomy, Trendelenburg’s, etc.) or upright position (sitting, using a chair for childbirth, standing, squatting, standing on the knees, etc.). Opinions about how the vertical position of a mother in the intrapartum period affects the outcome of childbirth are quite ambiguous. The conclusions of various authors on that matter often contradict each other.The aim of the research was to study the role of vertical delivery in reducing the frequency of obstetric and perinatal complications.Materials: publications of foreign and domestic authors within the period from 1989 to 2017.Methods: systematic analysis and synthesis of literature data.Conclusion: Despite a significant number of studies, it is not possible to determine the universality of the vertical position in childbirth, therefore, the selection of patients for the management of vertical childbirth should be approached carefully. In the presence of pregnancy complications, preference should be given to the classic version of the position in childbirth. In women who have a low risk of perinatal complications, an upright position can be a worthy alternative. To prevent the development of bleeding in the III stage of labor and the early postpartum period, a woman should take a horizontal position after the birth of the fetus. This condition must also be observed when examining the birth canal. Thus, the rational tactics of conducting childbirth is to determine the optimal combination of vertical and horizontal positions at different periods of the childbirth process, taking into account the convenience for the woman in labor. 

Urinary incontinence after uncomplicated spontaneous vaginal birth in primiparous women during the first year after birth

Introduction and hypothesis

Urinary incontinence (UI) is associated with pregnancy and parity and can cause health problems for women. Our objective was to explore risk factors for UI and its effect on women’s daily activities, psychological health and wellbeing 9–12 months postpartum in a low-risk primiparous population.

Methods

In this prospective cohort study, first-time mothers in a low-risk population with a spontaneous vaginal birth reported the occurrence of UI and its effect on daily activities and on their psychological health and wellbeing in a questionnaire completed 1 year after birth. Descriptive and comparative statistics were employed for the analysis.

Results

A total of 410 women (75.7%) completed the questionnaire. The self-reported rates of stress urinary incontinence, urge urinary incontinence and mixed urinary incontinence were 45.4%, 38.0% and 27.0% respectively. Neither the duration of the second stage of labour, the baby’s head circumference or its birth weight were associated with the incidence of UI. There was an association between reported negative impact on daily activities and more negative psychological wellbeing (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Urinary incontinence was common among primiparous women at 9–12 months postpartum. Women whose symptoms had a negative impact on their daily activities reported more psychological suffering.

Effects of the birthing room environment on vaginal births and client-centred outcomes for women at term planning a vaginal birth: BE-UP, a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background

Caesarean sections (CSs) are associated with increased risk for maternal morbidity and mortality. The recommendations of the recently published German national health goal ‘Health in Childbirth’ (Gesundheit rund um die Geburt) promote vaginal births (VBs).

This randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluates the effects of a complex intervention pertaining to the birth environment, based on the sociology of technical artefacts and symbolic interactionism. The intervention is intended to foster an upright position and mobility during labour, which lead to a higher probability of VB.

Methods/design

This study is an active controlled superiority trial with a two-arm parallel design. The complex intervention involves making changes to the birthing room to encourage an upright position and mobility of women in labour and to relax them, which may help them to cope with labour and may increase self-determination. This may result in more VBs. Included in the study are primiparae and multiparae with a singleton foetus in cephalic presentation at term planning a VB. According to the sample size calculation, 3800 women in 12 obstetrical units are to be included. Randomisation will be performed centrally and controlled by an independent coordination centre. Blinding of participants and staff is not possible. Key outcomes are VB, episiotomy, perineal tears, epidural analgesia, critical outcome of newborn at term and maternal self-determination during birth. Additionally, a health economic evaluation will be performed.

Discussion

This is the first adequately powered multicentre RCT examining the effect of a redesigned birthing room on the probability of a VB and patient-centred physical and emotional outcomes. An increase in the number of VBs by 5% from a baseline of 74% to 79% would result in 21,000 women per year experiencing a VB rather than a CS in Germany. Expected benefits are greater self-determination during labour, improved physical and emotional client-centred outcomes, fewer medical interventions and a reduction in health-care costs.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), DRKS00012854. Registered on 7 March 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2979-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Maternal position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia in labour prolongs the second stage and increases instrumental delivery. It has been suggested that a more upright maternal position during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright or recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 June 2018), and the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind. Cluster-randomised controlled trials would have been eligible for inclusion but we found none. Studies published in abstract form only were also eligible.We assumed the experimental intervention to be maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control condition of remaining in any recumbent position.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors to obtain missing data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.We carried out a planned sensitivity analysis of the three studies with low risks of bias for allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data reporting, and further excluded one study with a co-intervention (this was not prespecified).

MAIN RESULTS

We include eight randomised controlled trials, involving 4464 women, comparing upright positions versus recumbent positions in this update. Five were conducted in the UK, one in France and two in Spain.The largest UK trial accounted for three-quarters of all review participants, and we judged it to have low risk of bias. We assessed two other trials as being at low risk of selection and attrition bias. We rated four studies at unclear or high risk of bias for both selection and attrition bias and one study as high risk of bias due to a co-intervention. The trials varied in their comparators, with five studies comparing different positions (upright and recumbent), two comparing ambulation with (recumbent) non-ambulation, and one study comparing postural changes guided by a physiotherapist to a recumbent position.Overall, there may be little or no difference between upright and recumbent positions for our combined primary outcome of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal): average risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.07; 8 trials, 4316 women; I² = 78%; low-quality evidence. It is uncertain whether the upright position has any impact on caesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46; 8 trials, 4316 women; I² = 47%; very low-quality evidence), instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 8 trials, 4316 women; I² = 69%) and the duration of the second stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 6.00 minutes, 95% CI -37.46 to 49.46; 3 trials, 456 women; I² = 96%), because we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for these outcomes. Maternal position in the second stage of labour probably makes little or no difference to postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), (PPH requiring blood transfusion): RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.72; 1 trial, 3093 women; moderate-quality evidence. Maternal satisfaction with the overall childbirth experience was slightly lower in the upright group: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.99; 1 trial, 2373 women. Fewer babies were born with low cord pH in the upright group: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.90; 2 trials, 3159 infants; moderate-quality evidence.The results were less clear for other maternal or fetal outcomes, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.13; 3 trials, 3266 women; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence), abnormal fetal heart patterns requiring intervention (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.84; 1 trial, 107 women; very low-quality evidence), or admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.02 to 12.73; 1 trial, 66 infants; very low-quality evidence). However, the CIs around some of these estimates were wide, and we cannot rule out clinically important effects.In our sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias, upright positions increase the chance of women having an operative birth: RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.20; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence. In absolute terms, this equates to 63 more operative births per 1000 women (from 17 more to 115 more). This increase appears to be due to the increase in caesarean section in the upright group (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.57; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence), which equates to 25 more caesarean sections per 1000 women (from 4 more to 49 more). In the sensitivity analysis there was no clear impact on instrumental vaginal births: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 3 trials, 3609 women; low-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There may be little or no difference in operative birth between women who adopt recumbent or supine positions during the second stage of labour with an epidural analgesia. However, the studies are heterogeneous, probably related to differing study designs and interventions, differing adherence to the allocated intervention and possible selection and attrition bias. Sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias indicated that recumbent positions may reduce the need for operative birth and caesarean section, without increasing instrumental delivery. Mothers may be more satisfied with their experience of childbirth by adopting a recumbent position. The studies in this review looked at left or right lateral and semi-recumbent positions. Recumbent positions such as flat on the back or lithotomy are not generally used due to the possibility of aorto-caval compression, although we acknowledge that these recumbent positions were not the focus of trials included in this review.

Birth outcomes and usability of Relaxbirth® for upright positioning intrapartum: A retrospective case control study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to pilot Relaxbirth® (Relaxbirth®, Ltd., Helsinki, Finland), an investigational device designed to facilitate upright positioning intrapartum. The objective was to 1) compare birth outcomes with and without the use of Relaxbirth®, and 2) assess device usability.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Study design: prospective product use and retrospective case control study at one perinatal center in Ohio.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

≥18 years old, <300 lbs. women with a low-risk, term gestation of a singleton, vertex fetus, and vaginal birth between January 2013 to June 2016. Participants who used the Relaxbirth® device intrapartum (RB group) were retrospectively case-matched to controls (CON group) according to age, race, insurance, gravida/parity, gestational age and labor type. Birth outcomes (primary outcome) were compared between groups. Providers and women who used Relaxbirth® assessed usability of the device with the Modified System Usability Scale Tool (secondary outcome).

RESULTS

Of the n = 60 included in the final analysis, RB women (n = 30) pushed for a shorter average duration compared to CON women (n = 30) [34 min (±48) versus 60 min (±63), p = 0.023]. RB women did not experience more adverse birth outcomes including: longer second stage duration, operative vaginal delivery, malpresentation, perineal laceration/episiotomy, higher blood loss, or low Apgars. Usability survey results were favorable (Total Average Scores: providers 74.1; RB 83.6).

CONCLUSION

Clinical experience with the Relaxbirth® device was positive at this pilot site. The device was associated with favorable birth outcomes and usability, suggesting potential as a safe and novel adjunct to promote intrapartum choices, upright positioning and maternal satisfaction.

Positions during the first stage and the passive second stage of labor: A survey of French midwives

OBJECTIVE

the objective of our study was to describe the practices reported by French midwives during labor (first stage and passive phase of the second stage).

DESIGN

this cross-sectional internet questionnaire surveyed French midwives who attended at least one delivery in 2013.

SETTING

this open survey was posted on a website from June 15 through December 1, 2014.

PARTICIPANTS

1496 midwives from 377 maternity units participated in the study. Nearly 93% of the midwives worked in an obstetric unit, 5.9% had a mixed practice, and 1.3% worked in private practice.

MEASUREMENTS AND FINDINGS

during the first stage of labor, midwives reported suggesting that women without epidural analgesia use a birthing ball (98.1%) and that they walk around (97.4%). For women with epidural analgesia, most suggested motion in horizontal positions. Epidural analgesia was proposed more often by midwives from level II (75.7%) and level III (73.5%) maternity wards than by those at level 1 units (57.7%) (p<0.0001). The midwives preferred a lateral position during the first stage for women with epidural analgesia and during the second stage for women both with and without it. Midwives in practice for 5 years or less suggested a kneeling position for women with epidural analgesia more often than more experienced midwives.

KEY CONCLUSION

the practices of French midwives vary with their place of practice and their experience.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

to promote normal labor, French midwives must reappropriate vertical positions and analgesic alternatives to epidurals.

Position in the second stage of labour for women without epidural anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

For centuries, there has been controversy around whether being upright (sitting, birthing stools, chairs, squatting, kneeling) or lying down (lateral (Sim's) position, semi-recumbent, lithotomy position, Trendelenburg's position) have advantages for women giving birth to their babies. This is an update of a review previously published in 2012, 2004 and 1999.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the possible benefits and risks of the use of different birth positions during the second stage of labour without epidural anaesthesia, on maternal, fetal, neonatal and caregiver outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised controlled trials of any upright position assumed by pregnant women during the second stage of labour compared with supine or lithotomy positions. Secondary comparisons include comparison of different upright positions and the supine position. Trials in abstract form were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed trial quality. At least two review authors extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Results should be interpreted with caution because risk of bias of the included trials was variable. We included eleven new trials for this update; there are now 32 included studies, and one trial is ongoing. Thirty trials involving 9015 women contributed to the analysis. Comparisons include any upright position, birth or squat stool, birth cushion, and birth chair versus supine positions.In all women studied (primigravid and multigravid), when compared with supine positions, the upright position was associated with a reduction in duration of second stage in the upright group (MD -6.16 minutes, 95% CI -9.74 to -2.59 minutes; 19 trials; 5811 women; P = 0.0007; random-effects; I² = 91%; very low-quality evidence); however, this result should be interpreted with caution due to large differences in size and direction of effect in individual studies. Upright positions were also associated with no clear difference in the rates of caesarean section (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.81; 16 trials; 5439 women; low-quality evidence), a reduction in assisted deliveries (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86; 21 trials; 6481 women; moderate-quality evidence), a reduction in episiotomies (average RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92; 17 trials; 6148 women; random-effects; I² = 88%), a possible increase in second degree perineal tears (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.44; 18 trials; 6715 women; I² = 43%; low-quality evidence), no clear difference in the number of third or fourth degree perineal tears (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.65; 6 trials; 1840 women; very low-quality evidence), increased estimated blood loss greater than 500 mL (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.98; 15 trials; 5615 women; I² = 33%; moderate-quality evidence), fewer abnormal fetal heart rate patterns (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.93; 2 trials; 617 women), no clear difference in the number of babies admitted to neonatal intensive care (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.21; 4 trials; 2565 infants; low-quality evidence). On sensitivity analysis excluding trials with high risk of bias, these findings were unchanged except that there was no longer a clear difference in duration of second stage of labour (MD -4.34, 95% CI -9.00 to 0.32; 21 trials; 2499 women; I² = 85%).The main reasons for downgrading of GRADE assessment was that several studies had design limitations (inadequate randomisation and allocation concealment) with high heterogeneity and wide CIs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review suggest several possible benefits for upright posture in women without epidural anaesthesia, such as a very small reduction in the duration of second stage of labour (mainly from the primigravid group), reduction in episiotomy rates and assisted deliveries. However, there is an increased risk blood loss greater than 500 mL and there may be an increased risk of second degree tears, though we cannot be certain of this. In view of the variable risk of bias of the trials reviewed, further trials using well-designed protocols are needed to ascertain the true benefits and risks of various birth positions.

Midwives' Management during the Second Stage of Labor in Relation to Second-Degree Tears-An Experimental Study

INTRODUCTION

Most women who give birth for the first time experience some form of perineal trauma. Second-degree tears contribute to long-term consequences for women and are a risk factor for occult anal sphincter injuries. The objective of this study was to evaluate a multifaceted midwifery intervention designed to reduce second-degree tears among primiparous women.

METHODS

An experimental cohort study where a multifaceted intervention consisting of 1) spontaneous pushing, 2) all birth positions with flexibility in the sacro-iliac joints, and 3) a two-step head-to-body delivery was compared with standard care. Crude and Adjusted OR (95% CI) were calculated between the intervention and the standard care group, for the various explanatory variables.

RESULTS

A total of 597 primiparous women participated in the study, 296 in the intervention group and 301 in the standard care group. The prevalence of second-degree tears was lower in the intervention group: [Adj. OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.33-0.84)]. A low prevalence of episiotomy was found in both groups (1.7 and 3.0%). The prevalence of epidural analgesia was 61.1 percent. Despite the high use of epidural analgesia, the midwives in the intervention group managed to use the intervention.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to reduce second-degree tears among primiparous women with the use of a multifaceted midwifery intervention without increasing the prevalence of episiotomy. Furthermore, the intervention is possible to employ in larger maternity wards with midwives caring for women with both low- and high-risk pregnancies.

Position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour prolongs the second stage of labour and results in more instrumental deliveries. It has been suggested that a more upright position of the mother during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright and recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on important maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (19 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (either primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind. Cluster-RCTs would have been eligible for inclusion in this review but none were identified. Studies published in abstract form only were eligible for inclusion.We assumed the experimental type of intervention to be the maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control intervention of the use of any recumbent position.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We contacted study authors to try to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Five randomised controlled trials, involving 879 women, comparing upright positions versus recumbent positions were included in this updated review. Four trials were conducted in the UK and one in France. Three of the five trials were funded by the hospital departments in which the trials were carried out. For the other three trials, funding sources were either unclear (one trial) or not reported (two trials). Each trial varied in levels of bias. We assessed all the trials as being at low or unclear risk of selection bias. None of the trials blinded women, staff or outcome assessors. One trial was poor quality, being at high risk of attrition and reporting bias. We assessed the evidence using the GRADE approach; the evidence for most outcomes was assessed as being very low quality, and evidence for one outcome was judged as moderate quality.Overall, we identified no clear difference between upright and recumbent positions on our primary outcomes of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.29; five trials, 874 women; I² = 54% moderate-quality evidence), or duration of the second stage of labour measured as the randomisation-to-birth interval (average mean difference -22.98 minutes; 95% CI -99.09 to 53.13; two trials, 322 women; I² = 92%; very low-quality evidence). Nor did we identify any clear differences in any other important maternal or fetal outcome, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing (average RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.37; two trials; 173 women; studies = two; I² = 74%; very low-quality evidence), abnormal fetal heart patterns requiring intervention (RR 1.69; 95% CI 0.32 to 8.84; one trial; 107 women; very low-quality evidence), low cord pH (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.18 to 2.10; one trial; 66 infants; very low-quality evidence) or admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.02 to 12.73; one trial; 66 infants; very low-quality evidence). However, the CIs around each estimate were wide, and clinically important effects have not been ruled out. Outcomes were downgraded for study design, high heterogeneity and imprecision in effect estimates.There were no data reported on blood loss (greater than 500 mL), prolonged second stage or maternal experience and satisfaction with labour. Similarly, there were no analysable data on Apgar scores, and no data reported on the need for ventilation or for perinatal death.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient data to say anything conclusive about the effect of position for the second stage of labour for women with epidural analgesia. The GRADE quality assessment of the evidence in this review ranged between moderate to low quality, with downgrading decisions based on design limitations in the studies, inconsistency, and imprecision of effect estimates.Women with an epidural should be encouraged to use whatever position they find comfortable in the second stage of labour.More studies with larger sample sizes will need to be conducted in order for solid conclusions to be made about the effect of position on labour in women with an epidural. Two studies are ongoing and we will incorporate the results into this review at a future update.Future studies should have the protocol registered, so that sample size, primary outcome, analysis plan, etc. are all clearly prespecified. The time or randomisation should be recorded, since this is the only unbiased starting time point from which the effect of position on duration of labour can be estimated. Future studies might wish to include an arm in which women were allowed to choose the position in which they felt most comfortable. Future studies should ensure that both compared positions are acceptable to women, that women can remain in them for most of the late part of labour, and report the number of women who spend time in the allocated position and the amount of time they spend in this or other positions.

Perineal injuries and birth positions among 2992 women with a low risk pregnancy who opted for a homebirth

BACKGROUND

Whether certain birth positions are associated with perineal injuries and severe perineal trauma (SPT) is still unclear. The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence of perineal injuries of different severity in a low-risk population of women who planned to give birth at home and to compare the prevalence of perineal injuries, SPT and episiotomy in different birth positions in four Nordic countries.

METHODS

A population-based prospective cohort study of planned home births in four Nordic countries. To assess medical outcomes a questionnaire completed after birth by the attending midwife was used. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis and logistic regression were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Two thousand nine hundred ninety-two women with planned home births, who birthed spontaneously at home or after transfer to hospital, between 2008 and 2013 were included. The prevalence of SPT was 0.7 % and the prevalence of episiotomy was 1.0 %. There were differences between the countries regarding all maternal characteristics. No association between flexible sacrum positions and sutured perineal injuries was found (OR 1.02; 95 % CI 0.86-1.21) or SPT (OR 0.68; CI 95 % 0.26-1.79). Flexible sacrum positions were associated with fewer episiotomies (OR 0.20; CI 95 % 0.10-0.54).

CONCLUSION

A low prevalence of SPT and episiotomy was found among women opting for a home birth in four Nordic countries. Women used a variety of birth positions and a majority gave birth in flexible sacrum positions. No associations were found between flexible sacrum positions and SPT. Flexible sacrum positions were associated with fewer episiotomies.

Reducing Length of Labor and Cesarean Surgery Rate Using a Peanut Ball for Women Laboring With an Epidural

One strategy for reducing the primary cesarean surgery rate and length of labor is using a peanut-shaped exercise ball for women laboring under epidural analgesia. A randomized, controlled study was conducted to determine whether use of a "peanut ball" decreased length of labor and increased the rate of vaginal birth. Women who used the peanut ball (n = 107) versus those who did not (n = 91) demonstrated shorter first stage labor by 29 min (p = .053) and second stage labor by 11 min (p < .001). The intervention was associated with a significantly lower incidence of cesarean surgery (OR = 0.41, p = .04). The peanut ball is potentially a successful nursing intervention to help progress labor and support vaginal birth for women laboring under epidural analgesia.

Social Media and Evidence-Based Maternity Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study

The purpose of this study was to describe how people use social media to find and disseminate information about evidence-based maternity care. We used a cross-sectional Internet-based survey design in which 1,661 participants were recruited from childbirth-related blogs. Participants answered questions about how they find, use, and share evidence-based maternity information using social media. Overall, women in this study were highly engaged in using social media to find and share maternity information. Most respondents were very interested in reading evidence-based maternity care articles online. Most intend to use this information that they found, despite the fact that a substantial percentage had no intentions of discussing this information with their childbirth educators or physician.

Birth position and obstetric anal sphincter injury: a population-based study of 113 000 spontaneous births

BACKGROUND

The association between birth position and obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS) in spontaneous vaginal deliveries is unclear.

METHODS

The study was based on the Stockholm-Gotland Obstetric Database (Sweden) from Jan 1(st) 2008 to Oct 22(nd) 2014 and included 113 279 singleton spontaneous vaginal births with no episiotomy. We studied risk of OASIS with respect to the following birth positions: a) sitting, b) lithotomy, c) lateral, d) standing on knees, e) birth seat, f) supine, g) squatting, h) standing and i) all fours. All analyses were stratified for parity. General linear models were used to calculate risk ratios (RR) adjusted for maternal, pregnancy and fetal characteristics.

RESULTS

The rates of OASIS among nulliparous women, parous women and women undergoing vaginal birth after a caesarean (VBAC) were 5.7%, 1.3% and 10.6%, respectively. The rates varied by birth position: from 3.7 to 7.1% in nulliparous women, 0.6% to 2.6% in parous women and 5.6% to 18.2% in women undergoing VBAC. Regardless of parity, the lowest rates were found among women giving birth in standing position and the highest rates among women birthing in the lithotomy position. Compared with sitting position, the lithotomy position involved an increased risk of OASIS among nulliparous (adjusted RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.06-1.29) and parous women (adjusted RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.35-2.05). Birth seat and squatting position involved an increased risk of OASIS among parous women (adjusted RR [95% CI] 1.36 [1.03-1.80] and 2.16 [1.15-4.07], respectively). Independent risk factors for OASIS were maternal age, head circumference ≥35 cm, birth weight ≥4000 g, length of gestation ≥ 40 weeks, prolonged second stage of labour, non-occiput anterior presentation and oxytocin augmentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with sitting position, lateral position has a slightly protective effect in nulliparous women whilst an increased risk is noted among women in the lithotomy position, irrespective of parity. Squatting and birth seat position involve an increase in risk among parous women.

Position in the second stage of labour and de novo onset of post-partum urinary incontinence

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of the maternal position at the time of delivery on the onset of de novo symptoms of urinary incontinence (UI) in the post-partum period.

METHODS

This prospective study evaluated the data of consecutive women undergoing labour and delivery, between January 2014 and July 2014. We included only women with a singleton pregnancy undergoing vaginal delivery. During the study period, patients chose to deliver in the position that they considered the most comfortable. The onset of UI was evaluated according to the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-sf).

RESULTS

Overall, 716 primiparous women were included in the study. Sixty women refused the 12-week post-partum interview (8.4%). Women were divided in two groups: 296 women (45.1%) who chose an upright position during delivery (group 1) and 360 women (54.9%) who chose a supine position (group 2). Group 1 had a significantly lower episiotomy rate, but a higher rate of greater than second degree perineal tears. In group 1 we found a significantly lower rate of de novo UI (40.5% vs 48.9%, p = 0.03) and in particular of stress urinary incontinence. Via multivariate analysis, birth position was the only factor correlating with the occurrence of urinary incontinence in the post-partum period (OR: 1.52; 95%CI: 1.06, 2.18; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Upright positions at delivery are related to a lower episiotomy rate and a higher rate of greater than second degree perineal tears. Supine positions are an independent risk factor for the onset of de novo UI.

Midwives' lived experience of a birth where the woman suffers an obstetric anal sphincter injury--a phenomenological study

Background

The occurrence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) has increased in most high-income countries during the past twenty years. The consequences of these injuries can be devastating for women and have an impact on their daily life and quality of health. The aim of this study was to obtain a deeper understanding of midwives’ lived experiences of attending a birth in which the woman gets an obstetric anal sphincter injury.

Methods

A qualitative study using phenomenological lifeworld research design. The data were collected through in-depth interviews with 13 midwives.

Results

The essential meaning of the phenomenon was expressed as a deadlock difficult to resolve between a perceived truth among midwives that a skilled midwife can prevent severe perineal trauma and at the same time a coexisting more complex belief. The more complex belief is that sphincter injuries cannot always be avoided. The midwives tried to cope with their feelings of guilt and wanted to find reasons why the injury occurred. A fear of being exposed and judged by others as severely as they judged themselves hindered the midwives from sharing their experience. Ultimately the midwives accepted that the injury had occurred and moved on without any definite answers.

Conclusions

Being caught between an accepted truth and a more complex belief evoked various emotions among the midwives. Feelings of guilt, shame and the midwife’s own suspicion that she is not being professionally competent were not always easy to share. This study shows the importance of creating a safe working environment in which midwives can reflect on and share their experiences to continue to develop professionally. Further research is needed to implement and evaluate the effect of reflective practices in relation to midwifery care and whether this could benefit women in childbirth.

Women's choice of positions during labour: return to the past or a modern way to give birth? A cohort study in Italy

Background. Childbirth medicalization has reduced the parturient's opportunity to labour and deliver in a spontaneous position, constricting her to assume the recumbent one. The aim of the study was to compare recumbent and alternative positions in terms of labour process, type of delivery, neonatal wellbeing, and intrapartum fetal head rotation. Methods. We conducted an observational cohort study on women at pregnancy term. Primiparous women with physiological pregnancies and single cephalic fetuses were eligible for the study. We considered data about maternal-general characteristics, labour process, type of delivery, and neonatal wellbeing at birth. Patients were divided into two groups: Group-A if they spent more than 50% of labour in a recumbent position and Group-B when in alternative ones. Results. 225 women were recruited (69 in Group-A and 156 in Group-B). We found significant differences between the groups in terms of labour length, Numeric Rating Scale score and analgesia request rate, type of delivery, need of episiotomy, and fetal occiput rotation. No differences were found in terms of neonatal outcomes. Conclusion. Alternative maternal positioning may positively influence labour process reducing maternal pain, operative vaginal delivery, caesarean section, and episiotomy rate. Women should be encouraged to move and deliver in the most comfortable position.

The role of maternity care providers in promoting shared decision making regarding birthing positions during the second stage of labor

INTRODUCTION

Through the use of a variety of birthing positions during the second stage of labor, a woman can increase progress, improve outcomes, and have a positive birth experience. The role that a maternity care provider has in determining which position a woman uses during the second stage of labor has not been thoroughly explored. The purpose of this qualitative investigation was to explore how maternity care providers communicate with women during the second stage of labor regarding birthing position.

METHODS

A literature-informed framework was developed to conduct a process of deductive content analysis of communication patterns between nulliparous women and their maternity care providers during the second stage of labor. Literature discussing shared decision making, control, and predictors of positive birth experiences were reviewed to develop a coding framework. The framework included the following categories: listening to women, encouragement, information, offering choices, and style of support. Forty-one audiotapes of women and their maternity care providers during the second stage of labor were transcribed verbatim and analyzed.

RESULTS

Themes identified in the transcripts included all those in the analytic framework, plus 2 added categories of communication: empathy and interaction. Maternity care providers in this study enabled women to select various birthing positions using a dynamic process that moved between open, informative approaches and more closed, directive approaches, depending on the woman's needs and clinical condition. As clinical conditions unfolded, women became more actively involved in shared decision making regarding birthing positions, and maternity care providers found the right balance between being responsive to the woman's questions or directives.

DISCUSSION

Enabling shared decision making during birth is not a linear process using a single approach; it is dynamic process that requires a variety of approaches. Maternity care providers can support a woman to use different birthing positions during the second stage of labor by employing a flexible style that incorporates clinical assessment and the woman's responses.

Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour

BACKGROUND

It is more common for women in both high- and low-income countries giving birth in health facilities, to labour in bed. There is no evidence that this is associated with any advantage for women or babies, although it may be more convenient for staff. Observational studies have suggested that if women lie on their backs during labour this may have adverse effects on uterine contractions and impede progress in labour, and in some women reduce placental blood flow.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of encouraging women to assume different upright positions (including walking, sitting, standing and kneeling) versus recumbent positions (supine, semi-recumbent and lateral) for women in the first stage of labour on duration of labour, type of birth and other important outcomes for mothers and babies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing women randomised to upright versus recumbent positions in the first stage of labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for carrying out data collection, assessing study quality and analysing results. Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data for each study. We sought additional information from trial authors as required. We used random-effects analysis for comparisons in which high heterogeneity was present. We reported results using the average risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Results should be interpreted with caution as the methodological quality of the 25 included trials (5218 women) was variable.For Comparison 1: Upright and ambulant positions versus recumbent positions and bed care, the first stage of labour was approximately one hour and 22 minutes shorter for women randomised to upright as opposed to recumbent positions (average MD -1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.22 to -0.51; 15 studies, 2503 women; random-effects, T(2) = 2.39, Chi(2) = 203.55, df = 14, (P < 0.00001), I(2) = 93%). Women who were upright were also less likely to have caesarean section (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94; 14 studies, 2682 women) and less likely to have an epidural (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99, nine studies, 2107 women; random-effects, T(2) = 0.02, I(2) = 61%). Babies of mothers who were upright were less likely to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, however this was based on one trial (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89, one study, 200 women). There were no significant differences between groups for other outcomes including duration of the second stage of labour, or other outcomes related to the well being of mothers and babies.For Comparison 2: Upright and ambulant positions versus recumbent positions and bed care (with epidural: all women), there were no significant differences between groups for outcomes including duration of the second stage of labour, or other outcomes related to the well being of mothers and babies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is clear and important evidence that walking and upright positions in the first stage of labour reduces the duration of labour, the risk of caesarean birth, the need for epidural, and does not seem to be associated with increased intervention or negative effects on mothers' and babies' well being. Given the great heterogeneity and high performance bias of study situations, better quality trials are still required to confirm with any confidence the true risks and benefits of upright and mobile positions compared with recumbent positions for all women. Based on the current findings, we recommend that women in low-risk labour should be informed of the benefits of upright positions, and encouraged and assisted to assume whatever positions they choose.

Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour

BACKGROUND

It is more common for women in both high- and low-income countries giving birth in health facilities, to labour in bed. There is no evidence that this is associated with any advantage for women or babies, although it may be more convenient for staff. Observational studies have suggested that if women lie on their backs during labour this may have adverse effects on uterine contractions and impede progress in labour, and in some women reduce placental blood flow.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of encouraging women to assume different upright positions (including walking, sitting, standing and kneeling) versus recumbent positions (supine, semi-recumbent and lateral) for women in the first stage of labour on duration of labour, type of birth and other important outcomes for mothers and babies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing women randomised to upright versus recumbent positions in the first stage of labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for carrying out data collection, assessing study quality and analysing results. Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data for each study. We sought additional information from trial authors as required. We used random-effects analysis for comparisons in which high heterogeneity was present. We reported results using the average risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Results should be interpreted with caution as the methodological quality of the 25 included trials (5218 women) was variable.For Comparison 1: Upright and recumbent positions versus recumbent positions and bed care, the first stage of labour was approximately one hour and 22 minutes shorter for women randomised to upright as opposed to recumbent positions (average MD -1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.22 to -0.51; 15 studies, 2503 women; random-effects, T(2) = 2.39, Chi(2) = 203.55, df = 14, (P < 0.00001), I(2) = 93%). Women who were upright were also less likely to have caesarean section (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94; 14 studies, 2682 women) and less likely to have an epidural (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99, nine studies, 2107 women; random-effects, T(2) = 0.02, I(2) = 61%). Babies of mothers who were upright were less likely to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, however this was based on one trial (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89, one study, 200 women). There were no significant differences between groups for other outcomes including duration of the second stage of labour, or other outcomes related to the well being of mothers and babies.For Comparison 2: Upright and recumbent positions versus recumbent positions and bed care (with epidural: all women), there were no significant differences between groups for outcomes including duration of the second stage of labour, or other outcomes related to the well being of mothers and babies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is clear and important evidence that walking and upright positions in the first stage of labour reduces the duration of labour, the risk of caesarean birth, the need for epidural, and does not seem to be associated with increased intervention or negative effects on mothers' and babies' well being. Given the great heterogeneity and high performance bias of study situations, better quality trials are still required to confirm with any confidence the true risks and benefits of upright and mobile positions compared with recumbent positions for all women. Based on the current findings, we recommend that women in low-risk labour should be informed of the benefits of upright positions, and encouraged and assisted to assume whatever positions they choose.