Labour augmentation and fetal outcomes in relation to birth positions: a secondary analysis of an RCT evaluating birth seat births

Effects of Using Sitting Position versus Lithotomy Position during the Second Stage of Labour on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes and the Childbirth Experience of Chinese Women: A Prospective Cohort Study

Existing research concerning the effects of the sitting birth position during the second stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes remains controversial, and there is a lack of studies to explore its effect on the childbirth experience. The objective of this study is to explore whether the sitting birth position would influence maternal and neonatal outcomes, as well as the childbirth experience. The prospective cohort design was conducted in the study from February to June 2023, a total of 222 women (including primiparous women and multiparous women) were enrolled in our study, and they were divided into the sitting position cohort (n = 106) or the lithotomy position cohort (n = 116). The pre-designed questionnaire and Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) were used for data collection during hospitalisation. Chi-square, Fisher's exact test, t-tests, or the Mann-Whitney U test were utilised to assess differences between groups. Multivariate linear regression and logistic regression were employed to control possible confounders. The study found that primiparous women in the sitting position cohort had a shorter duration of the second stage of labour, higher spontaneous vaginal birth rates, lower episiotomy rates, and a better childbirth experience (p < 0.01). After adjusting for confounding factors through multiple linear and logistic regression analyses, the results remained consistent with those reported above. No neonate in each cohort had Apgar scores at 1 min and 5 min postpartum less than 7 or a Cord artery pH less than 7.00, regardless of parity. Based on the findings, we recommend that women could take the sitting birth position into account when giving birth for a positive childbirth experience, especially for primiparous women. The study could also serve as a reference for healthcare providers in the management of childbirth positions and the development of high-quality maternal care.

[Care in a natural birth center and due compliance with national guidelines]

The scope of this article is to analyze the compliance of the care offered by Casa de Parto David Capistrano Filho-RJ with the recommendations of the National Guidelines for Care in Natural Childbirth. It involved a descriptive cross-sectional study with 952 observations, from 2014 to 2018. This included analysis of compliance using a judgment matrix and then classified as total compliance (≥75.0%), partial compliance (50.0%-74.9%), incipient compliance (49.9%-25.0%) and non-compliance (less than 24.9%). The results of the judgment matrix show that care in the aspects of labor, delivery and newborn care is in full compliance with the recommendations of the Guidelines. The care at the Casa de Parto Birth Center, conducted by obstetric nurses, follows the recommendations of the national guidelines, and has been seen to incorporate a de-medicalized, personalized form of care, which respects the physiology of childbirth. They also develop a model of their own technologies of care, constituting non-invasive technologies of obstetric nursing care.

Developing and validating the Caesarean risk assessment nomogram and comparing the effect of cervical ripening balloon, evening primrose oil and misoprostol on childbirth outcomes in term pregnancies: A study protocol

AIM

To develop and validate the nomogram for risk estimation of Caesarean delivery and to compare the effect of cervical ripening balloon, evening primrose oil (EPO) and misoprostol on Bishop Score and duration of the first stage of labour.

DESIGN

The first phase is a prospective study, and the second phase is a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

In the first phase, the nomogram will be developed and validated over 300 participants, and in the second phase, the 90 participants will be allocated to three groups: vaginal 25mcg misoprostol, vaginal 4000mg EPO and double-balloon catheter, through block randomization method. The Bishop score will be evaluated every 4 hr, and if required the same dose will be repeated. Maximum waiting time for balloon is 12 hr if not effective, the catheter will be removed, and other interventions will be done according to guidelines.

DISCUSSION

The nomogram will help informed decision-making for women undergoing an induction with an unfavourable cervix and introducing effective low-complication methods of labour induction can improve the pregnancy outcomes.

Effects of flexible sacrum positions during the second stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of flexible sacrum positions on mode of delivery, duration of the second stage of labour, perineal trauma, postpartum haemorrhage, maternal pain, abnormal foetal heart rate patterns and Apgar scores based on published literature.

BACKGROUND

Maternal positions served as a nonmedical intervention may facilitate optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes during labour. Flexible sacrum positions are conducive to expanding pelvic outlet. Whether flexible sacrum positions have positive effects on maternal and neonatal well-being is a controversial issue under heated discussion.

DESIGN

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis based on PRISMA guidelines.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any flexible sacrum position with non-flexible sacrum position in the second stage of labour were included. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), SinoMed and Wanfang databases were searched from inception to 11 March 2019 for published RCTs. Risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane criteria, and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted by RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies (3,397 women) published in English were included. Flexible sacrum positions in the second stage of labour could reduce the incidence of operative delivery, instrumental vaginal delivery, caesarean section, episiotomy, severe perineal trauma, severe pain and shorten the duration of active pushing phase in the second stage of labour. However, flexible sacrum positions may increase the incidence of mild perineal trauma. There was no significant difference in the duration of the second stage of labour, maternal satisfaction and other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Flexible sacrum positions are superior in promoting maternal well-being during childbirth. However, several results require careful interpretation. More rigorous original studies are needed to further explore their effects.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The results support the use of flexible sacrum positions. Flexible sacrum positions are recommended to apply flexibly or tailor to individual woman's labour progress.

A review and comparison of common maternal positions during the second-stage of labor

The second-stage of labor is the most stressful part of childbirth process and the proper maternal position during this period is paramount for women's safe vaginal birth. Midwives play a pivotal role in managing maternal positions during the second-stage of labor. However, there is limited evidence to support an ideal maternal position during the second-stage of labor. Further, the difference between different maternal positions might not be apparent. This paper aims to review and compare the benefits and risks of common maternal positions during the second-stage of labor, thereby to provide midwives evidence-based practical guidelines.

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.

Striving for scientific stringency: a re-analysis of a randomised controlled trial considering first-time mothers' obstetric outcomes in relation to birth position

Background

The aim of this study was to compare maternal labour and birth outcomes between women who gave birth on a birth seat or in any other position for vaginal birth and further, to study the relationship between synthetic oxytocin augmentation and maternal blood loss, in a stratified sample.

Methods

A re-analysis of a randomized controlled trial in Sweden. An on-treatment analysis was used to study obstetrical outcomes for nulliparous women who gave birth on a birth seat (birth seat group) compared to birth in any other position for vaginal birth (control group). Data were collected between November 2006 and July 2009. The outcome measurements included perineal outcome, post partum blood loss, epidural analgesia, synthetic oxytocin augmentation and duration of labour.

Results

The major findings of this paper were that women giving birth on the birth seat had shorter duration of labour and were significantly less likely to receive synthetic oxytocin for augmentation in the second stage of labour. Significantly more women had an increased blood loss when giving birth on the birth seat, but had no difference in perineal outcomes. Blood loss was increased regardless of birth position if women had been exposed to synthetic oxytocin augmentation during the first stage of labour.

Conclusions

The results of this analysis imply that women with a straightforward birth process may well benefit from giving birth on a birth seat without risk for any adverse obstetrical outcomes. However it is important to bear in mind that, women who received synthetic oxytocin during the first stage of labour may have an increased risk for greater blood loss when giving birth on a birth seat. Finally it is of vital importance to scrutinize the influence of synthetic oxytocin administered during the first stage of labour on blood loss postpartum, since excessive blood loss is a well-documented cause of maternal mortality worldwide and may cause severe maternal morbidity in high-income countries.

Trial registration

Unique Protocol ID: NCT01182038 ( http://register.clinicaltrials.gov)