Prevention of primary caesarean delivery: comprehensive management of dystocia in nulliparous patients at term

Physiological plateaus during normal labor and birth: A novel definition

BACKGROUND

Diagnoses of labor dystocia, and subsequent labor augmentation, make one of the biggest contributions to childbirth medicalization, which remains a key challenge in contemporary maternity care. However, labor dystocia is poorly defined, and the antithetical concept of physiological plateaus remains insufficiently explored.

AIM

To generate a definition of physiological plateaus as a basis for further research.

METHODS

This qualitative study applied grounded theory methods and comprised interviews with 20 midwives across Australia, conducted between September 2020 and February 2022. Data were coded in a three-phase approach, starting with inductive line-by-line coding, which generated themes and subthemes, and finally, through axial coding.

RESULTS

Physiological plateaus represent a temporary slowing of one or multiple labor processes and appear to be common during childbirth. They are reported throughout the entire continuum of labor, typically lasting between a few minutes to several hours. Their etiology/function appears to be a self-regulatory mechanism of the mother-infant dyad. Physiological plateaus typically self-resolve and are followed by a self-resumption of labor. Women with physiological plateaus during labor appear to experience positive birth outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Despite appearing to be common, physiological plateaus are insufficiently recognized in contemporary childbirth discourse. Consequently, there seems to be a significant risk of misinterpretation of physiological plateaus as labor dystocia. While findings are limited by the qualitative design and require validation through further quantitative research, the proposed novel definition provides an important starting point for further investigation.

CONCLUSION

A better understanding of physiological plateaus holds the potential for a de-medicalization of childbirth through preventing unjustified labor augmentation.

"To get the baby out off the hook": a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter, observational study about decision making in vacuum-assisted operative vaginal delivery

BACKGROUND

Since operative vaginal delivery may be risky for women and might cause neonatal complications, the aim of this study is to assess appropriateness of the procedure. This is a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter, observational study and it was conducted in three Italian Obstetric Units (Pisa, Massa Carrara and Prato). All term pregnant women, either nulliparous and multiparous, with singleton pregnancy and a cephalic fetus, with spontaneous or induced labour, requiring vacuum-assisted delivery were enrolled. Indications to operative vaginal delivery were grouped as alterations of fetal cardiotocography (CTG) patterns, delay/arrest of second stage of labour or elective shortening of second stage of labour. A board consisting of five among authors evaluated appropriateness of the procedure.

RESULTS

Overall, 466 women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries were included. Cardiotocography, classified as ACOG category 2 or 3 was the indication for vacuum assisted delivery in 253 patients (54.29%). Among these, 66 women (26.1%) had an operative vaginal delivery which was then considered to be inappropriate, while in 114 cases (45.1%) CTG traces resulted to be unreadable.

CONCLUSION

Decision making process, which leads clinicians to go for operative vaginal delivery, is often influenced by shortness of time and complexity of the situation. Therefore, clinicians tend to intervene performing vacuum delivery without adopting critical analysis and without adequately considering the clinical situation. Operative vaginal delivery might be a risky procedure and should be performed only when clinically indicated and after adequate critical analysis.

General methods for measuring and comparing medical interventions in childbirth: a framework

Background

The continue increase of interventions during labour in low risk population is a controversial issue of the current obstetric literature, given the lack of evidence demonstrating the benefits of unnecessary interventions for women or infants’ health. This makes it important to have approaches to assess the burden of all medical interventions performed.

Methods

Exploiting the nature of childbirth intervention as a staged process, we proposed graphic representations allowing to generate alternative formulas for the simplest measures of the intervention intensity namely, the overall and type-specific treatment ratios. We applied the approach to quantify the change in interventions following a protocol termed Comprehensive Management (CM), using data from Robson classification, collected in a prospective longitudinal cohort study carried out at the Obstetric Unit of the Cà Granda Niguarda Hospital in Milan, Italy.

Results

Following CM a substantial reduction was observed in the Overall Treatment Ratio, as well as in the ratios for augmentation (amniotomy and synthetic oxytocin use) and for caesarean section ratio, without any increase in neonatal and maternal adverse outcomes. The key component of this reduction was the dramatic decline in the proportion of women progressing to augmentation, which resulted not only the most practiced intervention, but also the main door towards further treatments.

Conclusions

The proposed framework, once combined with Robson Classification, provides useful tools to make medical interventions performed during childbirth quantitatively measurable and comparable. The framework allowed to identifying the key components of interventions reduction following CM. In its turn, CM proved useful to reduce the number of medical interventions carried out during childbirth, without worsening neonatal and maternal outcomes.

Guidelines for labor assessment: failure to progress?

The ongoing debate about what models of cervical dilatation and fetal descent should guide clinical decision-making has sown uncertainty among obstetric practitioners. We previously argued that the adoption of recently published labor assessment guidelines promoted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine may have been premature. Before accepting any new clinical approaches as the standard of care, their underlying hypotheses should be thoroughly tested to ensure they are at least equivalent (or, preferably, superior) to existing management paradigms. Some of the apparent urgency to subscribe to new clinical tactics has been fueled by legitimate concerns about the rise in the cesarean delivery rate over the past several decades. A major contributor to this change in practice patterns is that more cesarean deliveries are being done for diagnoses that fall under the rubric of dystocia than ever before. As a consequence, traditional labor curves-fundamental for assessing labor progress-and the practice paradigms associated with them have received intense scrutiny as a possible contributor to this delivery trend. Moreover, the recent proposal of new labor curves and accompanying management guidelines has, understandably, fed the appetite to correct a perceived problem. However, the cesarean delivery rate rose most rapidly during decades when there was no major change in traditional labor curves or in the guidelines for their interpretation. Also, during the years since the new guidelines were first published, there has been no major fall in cesarean delivery frequency. This raises the question of whether there was truly a fundamental flaw in the traditional labor management paradigms or whether their proper interpretation and use had been somehow forgotten, ignored, or corrupted. More important, existing studies have shown that application of the new guidelines often (but not always) results in a modest fall in the cesarean delivery rate, but that this change may be accompanied by significant increases in maternal and neonatal morbidity. These results strongly suggest more caution in the adoption of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists / Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine labor assessment recommendations. They are based on a hypothesis that has yet to undergo thorough evaluation of its risks and benefits.

Case report: difficulty in diagnosis of delayed spinal epidural hematoma in puerperal women after combined spinal epidural anaesthesia

Background

Spinal epidural hematoma is a rare but serious complication of epidural anaesthesia and neurological impairment. Epidural hematoma usually becomes evident within a few hours of the procedure. Delayed clinical presentation of spinal epidural hematoma is even rarer and insidious.

Case presentation

We reported a case of a 44-year-old woman who underwent a caesarean section for a twin pregnancy during which a delayed dorsal spinal epidural hematoma occurred. Symptoms were reported 5 days after surgery and 72 h after removal of the epidural catheter. An MRI scan showed a dorsal epidural hematoma. The patient was moved to the Neurosurgical Department and underwent decompression surgery.

Conclusion

The possibility of the delayed onset of a spinal epidural hematoma in a pregnant woman who undergoes epidural anaesthesia in labour must always be taken into consideration. In order to achieve the best clinical result, we stress the importance of a timely diagnosis and prompt surgical treatment.