The nature and management of labor pain: executive summary

The Chinese version of rating scale of pain expression during childbirth (ESVADOPA): reliability and validity assessment

BACKGROUND

Childbirth pain is a physiological phenomenon during the delivery process, the intense pain of childbirth could bring harmful effects to pregnant women and their babies. Assessment of childbirth pain is the first step in childbirth pain intervention. Some pain assessment scales have shortcomings such as interfering in the birthing process and affecting pain perception during delivery, while the Rating Scale of Pain Expression during Childbirth (ESVADOPA) could be used as an auxiliary scale to compensate for these shortcomings. The purpose of this study was to introduce the ESVADOPA and adapt it among Chinese pregnant women to check on the psychometric properties of the translated version of ESVADOPA.

METHODS

A new translation model based on Brislin's classical back translation model was used to translate and cross-cultural adapt the ESVADOPA. During June 2021 and June 2022, pregnant women at Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University were invited. In the stage of translation and cross-culturally adaptation, 18 midwives and 30 pregnant women were invited to participate in the first round of pre-experiment. And in the second round of pre-experiment, 15 midwives and 20 pregnant women were invited to participate. The Chinese version of ESVADOPA was tested on a group of pregnant women (N = 487). Construct validity was evaluated by exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and criterion-related validity. Reliability was assessed by Cronbach's α coefficient, McDonald Omega, Spearman-Brown split-half reliability and Guttman split-half reliability.

RESULTS

The item statistical analysis and construct validity resulted in six items and one factor that explained 61.064% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the data fit the one-factor structure. Criterion-related validity indicated that the scale is significantly and positively correlated with the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Cronbach's α coefficient, McDonald Omega, Spearman-Brown split-half reliability, and Guttman split-half reliability of the Chinese version of ESVADOPA were 0.868, 0.896, 0.845, 0.842, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The Chinese version of the ESVADOPA with good reliability and validity data could be used to assess the pain rating of pregnant women during childbirth without interfering in the birthing process.

Prompting and Modeling of Coping Strategies during Childbirth

There is ample evidence to suggest that upright positions and mobility during labor improve birth outcome, including shorter duration of childbirth and reduced risk of cesarean section. The use of nonpharmacological interventions for pain management during childbirth are recommended by major health-care institutions and medical providers, however, the current methodologies for training coping strategies for use during labor have not shown to be effective on mobility or birth outcome. The purpose of this study was to apply an in-vivo teaching technology to the current childbirth model to prompt an imitative repertoire of empirically demonstrated labor coping strategies. Results of this study concluded that the introduction of a software using immediate prompting and video modeling increased the frequency and variability of labor behaviors during unmedicated labor for birthing persons and their partners.

Navigating intensive altered states of consciousness: How can the set and setting key parameters promote the science of human birth?

The subjective childbirth experience is crucial from a public health standpoint. There is a correlation between a negative childbirth experience and a poor mental state after birth, with effects that go far beyond the postpartum (PP) period. This paper offers a new approach as to how birthing experiences, and birth in general, can be navigated. The theory of set and setting proves that psychedelic experiences are shaped, first and foremost, by the mindset of an individual entering a psychedelic experience (set) and by the surroundings in which the experience happens (setting). In research on altered states of consciousness during psychedelic experiences, this theory explains how the same substance can lead to a positive and life-changing experience or to a traumatic and frightening experience. Because recent studies suggest that birthing women enter an altered state of consciousness during physiological birth ("birthing consciousness"), I suggest analyzing the typical modern birthing experience in terms of set and setting theory. I argue that the set and setting key parameters can help design, navigate, and explain many psychological and physiological elements of the human birth process. Thus, an operative conclusion that emerges from the theoretical analysis presented in this paper is that framing and characterizing the birth environment and birth preparations in terms of set and setting is a central tool that could be used to promote physiological births as well as subjective positive birthing experiences, which is currently a primary, yet unreached goal, in modern obstetrics and public health.

A Descriptive Study of Maternal Choices for Labor Pain Relief

DESIGN

In a setting with a wider than usual variety of available labor pain relief methods, a prospective, descriptive study was conducted of labor pain relief methods desired by low-risk women prenatally, during labor, and at delivery.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

Of all women registering for care between 2017 and 2020, a total of 2562 women were screened for low-risk status and then offered study participation, if eligible. Of 1185 eligible women, 512 remained at low risk until admission in labor and completed the study. Pain relief methods chosen were compared with the type of labor, type of delivery, and between delivery sites.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Hydrotherapy and a "none/unmedicated" labor were favored by a majority of subjects, regardless of ultimate method used. Multiple labor pain relief methods were used by 54.5% of subjects. Epidural analgesia most often occurred with augmented labor. Hydrotherapy was used more by those with spontaneous labors, water birth deliveries, and birth center births. Effectiveness of all pain relief measures was rated above average. Differences between planned hospital and planned birth center births were clear on most variables. Results can be used by childbirth educators, health professionals, and administrators to respect and improve the individualization of care and satisfaction of laboring women.

Pain Relief During Childbirth in the Context of 50 Years of Social and Technological Change

Pain relief during childbirth continues to stimulate controversy as new treatments emerge and continuing interventions in the birth process invoke concerns about safety, technologic imperatives, and informed consent. In this historical commentary, I identify a complex dissonance between scientific advances and women's needs and expectations regarding childbirth. Evidence-based practice became the standard during the last 50 years and has reinforced a more conservative and parsimonious use of technology to respond to women's needs for pain relief. In reviewing this history, it is apparent that pain relief during labor is inextricably linked to interventions. Nurses can advance evidence-based practice and facilitate robust informed consent as they support women during childbirth.

Comparison of the effect of mechanical massage and warm mechanical massage application on perceived labor pain and childbirth experience: A randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Birth is undisputedly one of the most painful experiences many women endure in their lives. This study aimed to compare the effects of mechanical and warm mechanical massage application in reducing labor pain and enhancing childbirth satisfaction in primipara women.

METHODS

A randomized-controlled trial was conducted on 210 primipara women. Subjects were randomly divided into three groups (each group comprised 70 women) to receive either a mechanical massage, warm mechanical massage, or routine care (control). The intervention was applied twice on the lumbosacral section (relating to the back part of the pelvis between the hips) and pain level was assessed by using the visual analogue scale (VAS) before the intervention, immediately, half an hour and at 1 hour after intervention. The labor satisfaction level was assessed by using the childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) at 30 minutes postpartum.

RESULTS

Comparing the intervention groups, there were no significant differences in terms of VAS scores in admission to hospital and immediately after the first intervention, but there were significant differences in terms of VAS scores at half an hour and an hour after the first intervention, and immediately, half an hour and 1 hour after the second intervention, and at 30th min postpartum. The pain level and mean duration of labor for each intervention group were found to be lower than the control group, and childbirth satisfaction score points were higher than the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical massage in the lumbosacral can be used as a reliable and effective method to reduce pain and increase childbirth satisfaction.

Birthing Consciousness as a Case of Adaptive Altered State of Consciousness Associated With Transient Hypofrontality

In this article, I present the concept of “birthing consciousness,” a psychophysical altered state of women that can occur during natural and undisturbed birth. I demonstrate that this altered state of consciousness (ASC) has phenomenological and cognitive features of hypofrontality; thus, birthing consciousness probably shares a similar brain mechanism to that postulated by the transient-hypofrontality theory (THT). I argue that until recently (with the advent of modern medical intervention), in evolutionary terms, women lacking the proclivity for this specific brain mechanism had a lower chance of reproducing successfully. Hence, I suggest a general and preliminary hypothesis concerning THT: Birthing consciousness is one example of an adaptive pain-induced ASC associated with transient hypofrontality.

The nature of labour pain: An updated review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The pain experience associated with labour is complex. Literature indicates psychosocial and environmental determinants of labour pain, and yet methods to support women usually target physiological attributes via pharmacological interventions.

AIM

To provide an update of our understanding of labour pain based on modern pain science. The review aims to help explain why women can experience labour pain so differently - why some cope well, whilst others experience great suffering. This understanding is pertinent to providing optimal support to women in labour.

METHOD

A literature search was conducted in databases Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and PsycINFO, using search terms labor/labour, childbirth, pain, experience and perception. Thirty-one papers were selected for inclusion.

FINDINGS

Labour pain is a highly individual experience. It is a challenging, emotional and meaningful pain and is very different from other types of pain. Key determinants and influences of labour pain were identified and grouped into cognitive, social and environmental factors.

CONCLUSION

If a woman can sustain the belief that her pain is purposeful (i.e. her body working to birth her baby), if she interprets her pain as productive (i.e. taking her through a process to a desired goal) and the birthing environment is safe and supportive, it would be expected she would experience the pain as a non-threatening, transformative life event. Changing the conceptualisation of labour pain to a purposeful and productive pain may be one step to improving women's experiences of it, and reducing their need for pain interventions.

Continuous support for women during childbirth

BACKGROUND

Historically, women have generally been attended and supported by other women during labour. However, in hospitals worldwide, continuous support during labour has often become the exception rather than the routine.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to assess the effects, on women and their babies, of continuous, one-to-one intrapartum support compared with usual care, in any setting. Secondary objectives were to determine whether the effects of continuous support are influenced by:1. Routine practices and policies in the birth environment that may affect a woman's autonomy, freedom of movement and ability to cope with labour, including: policies about the presence of support people of the woman's own choosing; epidural analgesia; and continuous electronic fetal monitoring.2. The provider's relationship to the woman and to the facility: staff member of the facility (and thus has additional loyalties or responsibilities); not a staff member and not part of the woman's social network (present solely for the purpose of providing continuous support, e.g. a doula); or a person chosen by the woman from family members and friends;3. Timing of onset (early or later in labour);4. Model of support (support provided only around the time of childbirth or extended to include support during the antenatal and postpartum periods);5. Country income level (high-income compared to low- and middle-income).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 June 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials, cluster-randomised trials comparing continuous support during labour with usual care. Quasi-randomised and cross-over designs were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We sought additional information from the trial authors. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 27 trials, and 26 trials involving 15,858 women provided usable outcome data for analysis. These trials were conducted in 17 different countries: 13 trials were conducted in high-income settings; 13 trials in middle-income settings; and no studies in low-income settings. Women allocated to continuous support were more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.12; 21 trials, 14,369 women; low-quality evidence) and less likely to report negative ratings of or feelings about their childbirth experience (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79; 11 trials, 11,133 women; low-quality evidence) and to use any intrapartum analgesia (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96; 15 trials, 12,433 women). In addition, their labours were shorter (MD -0.69 hours, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.34; 13 trials, 5429 women; low-quality evidence), they were less likely to have a caesarean birth (average RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.88; 24 trials, 15,347 women; low-quality evidence) or instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96; 19 trials, 14,118 women), regional analgesia (average RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; 9 trials, 11,444 women), or a baby with a low five-minute Apgar score (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.85; 14 trials, 12,615 women). Data from two trials for postpartum depression were not combined due to differences in women, hospitals and care providers included; both trials found fewer women developed depressive symptomatology if they had been supported in birth, although this may have been a chance result in one of the studies (low-quality evidence). There was no apparent impact on other intrapartum interventions, maternal or neonatal complications, such as admission to special care nursery (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.25; 7 trials, 8897 women; low-quality evidence), and exclusive or any breastfeeding at any time point (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16; 4 trials, 5584 women; low-quality evidence).Subgroup analyses suggested that continuous support was most effective at reducing caesarean birth, when the provider was present in a doula role, and in settings in which epidural analgesia was not routinely available. Continuous labour support in settings where women were not permitted to have companions of their choosing with them in labour, was associated with greater likelihood of spontaneous vaginal birth and lower likelihood of a caesarean birth. Subgroup analysis of trials conducted in high-income compared with trials in middle-income countries suggests that continuous labour support offers similar benefits to women and babies for most outcomes, with the exception of caesarean birth, where studies from middle-income countries showed a larger reduction in caesarean birth. No conclusions could be drawn about low-income settings, electronic fetal monitoring, the timing of onset of continuous support or model of support.Risk of bias varied in included studies: no study clearly blinded women and personnel; only one study sufficiently blinded outcome assessors. All other domains were of varying degrees of risk of bias. The quality of evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding in studies and other limitations in study designs, inconsistency, or imprecision of effect estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Continuous support during labour may improve outcomes for women and infants, including increased spontaneous vaginal birth, shorter duration of labour, and decreased caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth, use of any analgesia, use of regional analgesia, low five-minute Apgar score and negative feelings about childbirth experiences. We found no evidence of harms of continuous labour support. Subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution, and considered as exploratory and hypothesis-generating, but evidence suggests continuous support with certain provider characteristics, in settings where epidural analgesia was not routinely available, in settings where women were not permitted to have companions of their choosing in labour, and in middle-income country settings, may have a favourable impact on outcomes such as caesarean birth. Future research on continuous support during labour could focus on longer-term outcomes (breastfeeding, mother-infant interactions, postpartum depression, self-esteem, difficulty mothering) and include more woman-centred outcomes in low-income settings.

Benefits of preparing for childbirth with mindfulness training: a randomized controlled trial with active comparison

BACKGROUND

Childbirth fear is linked with lower labor pain tolerance and worse postpartum adjustment. Empirically validated childbirth preparation options are lacking for pregnant women facing this problem. Mindfulness approaches, now widely disseminated, can alleviate symptoms of both chronic and acute pain and improve psychological adjustment, suggesting potential benefit when applied to childbirth education.

METHODS

This study, the Prenatal Education About Reducing Labor Stress (PEARLS) study, is a randomized controlled trial (RCT; n = 30) of a short, time-intensive, 2.5-day mindfulness-based childbirth preparation course offered as a weekend workshop, the Mind in Labor (MIL): Working with Pain in Childbirth, based on Mindfulness-Based Childbirth and Parenting (MBCP) education. First-time mothers in the late 3rd trimester of pregnancy were randomized to attend either the MIL course or a standard childbirth preparation course with no mind-body focus. Participants completed self-report assessments pre-intervention, post-intervention, and post-birth, and medical record data were collected.

RESULTS

In a demographically diverse sample, this small RCT demonstrated mindfulness-based childbirth education improved women's childbirth-related appraisals and psychological functioning in comparison to standard childbirth education. MIL program participants showed greater childbirth self-efficacy and mindful body awareness (but no changes in dispositional mindfulness), lower post-course depression symptoms that were maintained through postpartum follow-up, and a trend toward a lower rate of opioid analgesia use in labor. They did not, however, retrospectively report lower perceived labor pain or use epidural less frequently than controls.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests mindfulness training carefully tailored to address fear and pain of childbirth may lead to important maternal mental health benefits, including improvements in childbirth-related appraisals and the prevention of postpartum depression symptoms. There is also some indication that MIL participants may use mindfulness coping in lieu of systemic opioid pain medication. A large-scale RCT that captures real-time pain perceptions during labor and length of labor is warranted to provide a more definitive test of these effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier for the PEARLS  study is: NCT02327559 . The study was retrospectively registered on June 23, 2014.

Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth

BACKGROUND

This review is one in a series of Cochrane reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain management for women in labour, and share a generic protocol. This review updates an earlier version of the review of the same title.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness and safety of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2015) and the reference lists of primary studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTS comparing preparation for labour using hypnosis and/or use of hypnosis during labour, with or without concurrent use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief methods versus placebo, no treatment or any analgesic drug or technique.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Where possible we contacted study authors seeking additional information about data and methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials randomising a total of 2954 women. The risk of bias in trials was variable, there were several well-designed large trials and some trials where little was reported about trial design. Although eight of the nine trials assessed antenatal hypnotherapy, there were considerable differences between these trials in timing and technique. One trial provided hypnotherapy during labour. In this updated review we compared hypnosis interventions with all control groups (main comparison) and also with specific control conditions: standard care (nine RCTs), supportive counselling (two RCTs) and relaxation training (two RCTs).In the main comparison, women in the hypnosis group were less likely to use pharmacological pain relief or analgesia than those in the control groups, (average risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, eight studies, 2916 women; very low-quality evidence; random-effects model). There were no clear differences between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for most of the other primary outcomes. There were no clear differences for sense of coping with labour (MD 0.22, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.58, one study, 420 women; low-quality evidence) or spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.32, six studies, 2361 women; low-quality evidence; random-effects model). There were no clear differences for satisfaction with pain relief (measured on a seven-point scale two weeks postnatally) for women in the hypnosis group who also received pethidine (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.27; one study, 72 women), Entonox (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.57; one study, 357 women), self-hypnosis (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.88; one study, 160 women), or epidural (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.34; one study, 127 women), but a slight benefit in favour of hypnosis was seen for women who received water immersion (MD 0.52, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.00; one study, 174 women (all low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences for satisfaction with pain relief when it was measured as the number of women who reported they had adequate pain relief (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.20, one study, 264 women; low-quality evidence). It should be noted that for pharmacological pain relief and spontaneous vaginal birth, there was evidence of considerable statistical heterogeneity, which could not be fully explained by subgroup analysis.For this review's secondary outcomes, no clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and women in the control groups for most outcomes where data were available. There was mixed evidence regarding benefits for women in the hypnosis group compared with all control groups for pain intensity, satisfaction with childbirth experience and postnatal depression. For each of these outcomes, data from more than one trial were available for analysis but could not be combined due to differences in measurement methods. There was evidence that fewer women in the hypnosis group stayed in hospital for more than two days after the birth but this finding was based on one small study (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83). No clear differences between women in the hypnosis group and the control groups were found for the other secondary outcomes where data were available.In the comparisons of hypnosis with specific types of control conditions: standard care, supportive counselling and relaxation training, there were no clear differences found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the standard care control groups or the relaxation control groups for the primary outcomes. Compared with the women in the supportive counselling control group, women in the hypnosis group were less likely to use pharmacological analgesia (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.73, two studies, 562 women). They were also more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.07), although this finding was based on the results of one small study. Overall these new comparisons displayed much less statistical heterogeneity than the comparison including all control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are still only a relatively small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Hypnosis may reduce the overall use of analgesia during labour, but not epidural use. No clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for satisfaction with pain relief, sense of coping with labour or spontaneous vaginal birth. Not enough evidence currently exists regarding satisfaction with pain relief or sense of coping with labour and we would encourage any future research to prioritise the measurement of these outcomes. The evidence for the main comparison was assessed using GRADE as being of low quality for all the primary outcomes with downgrading decisions due to concerns regarding inconsistency of the evidence, limitations in design and imprecision. Further research is needed in the form of large, well-designed randomised controlled trials to assess whether hypnosis is of value for pain management during labour and childbirth.

A randomized controlled trial comparing Pentazocine and Chamomilla recutita for labor pain relief

BACKGROUND

Traditional birth attendants in Pakistan sometimes use a homeopathic remedy, Chamomilla for labor pain relief. Our study compares this homeopathic remedy for pain relief in labor with a commonly used parenteral analgesic in a hospital setting. No systematic study has been conducted previously to study the effect of chamomile, which may be affordable and available in community settings.

METHODS

A double blind randomized controlled trial was carried out at Islamic International Medical College Trust. Ninety-nine normal pregnant women were randomly assigned into three groups. Each group received one of the three trial drugs; Chamomile, Pentazocine or placebo. The efficacy of labor analgesia was assessed by using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain intensity. Indicators of maternal and child health were recorded as were adverse effects of the drugs.

RESULTS

Mean pain scores in the three groups were calculated and compared. The difference in mean VAS scores in Pentazocine and Chamomilla recutita group as compared with placebo was not statistically significant. No significant adverse effects were noticed in any group except slight headache and dizziness in three parturients in Pentazocine group.

CONCLUSION

Neither Pentazocine, or Chamomilla recutita offer substantial analgesia during labor.

Patient Involvement in Safe Delivery: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Patient involvement in safe delivery planning is considered important yet not widely practiced. The present study aimed at identifythe factors that affect patient involvementin safe delivery, as recommended by parturient women.

METHODS

This study was part of a qualitative research conducted by content analysis method and purposive sampling in 2013.The data were collected through 63 semi-structured interviews in4 hospitalsand analyzed using thematic content analysis. The participants in this research were women before discharge and after delivery. Findings were analyzed using Colaizzi's method.

RESULTS

Four categories of factors that could affect patient involvement in safe delivery emerged from our analysis: patient-related (true and false beliefs, literacy, privacy, respect for patient), illness-related (pain, type of delivery, patient safety incidents), health care professional-relatedand task-related factors (behavior, monitoring &training), health care setting-related (financial aspects, facilities).

CONCLUSION

More research is needed to explore the factors affecting the participation of mothers. It is therefore, recommended to: 1) take notice of mother education, their husbands, midwives and specialists; 2) provide pregnant women with insurance coverage from the outset of pregnancy, especially during prenatal period; 3) form a labor pain committee consisting of midwives, obstetricians, and anesthesiologists in order to identify the preferred painless labor methods based on the existing facilities and conditions, 4) carry out research on observing patients' privacy and dignity; 5) pay more attention on the factors affecting cesarean.

The Effect of LI4 Acupressure on Labor Pain Intensity and Duration of Labor: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of LI4 acupressure on labor pain and duration during the first stage of labor.

METHODS

Parturient women (n=149) with singleton pregnancies in the active phase of spontaneous labor, without any medical or obstetric problems, were enrolled in this single-blinded, randomized, clinical trial. Participants were placed into one of three groups: an LI4 acupressure group, a touching group, and a control group in which no pharmacological or non-pharmacological methods of pain relief were used. Pain intensity was measured by visual analog scale before and after the intervention in the first stage of labor. Pressure or touch was applied for 30 minutes during uterine contractions.

RESULTS

The difference in the pain scores between the acupressure and control group was statistically significant (p<0.001) but there was no statistically significant (p=0.942) difference in the duration of the first stage of labor between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Acupressure is an effective, non-invasive, and easily applicable technique to reduce labor pain.

Continuous support for women during childbirth

BACKGROUND

Historically, women have been attended and supported by other women during labour. However, in hospitals worldwide, continuous support during labour has become the exception rather than the routine.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: to assess the effects of continuous, one-to-one intrapartum support compared with usual care. Secondary: to determine whether the effects of continuous support are influenced by: (1) routine practices and policies; (2) the provider's relationship to the hospital and to the woman; and (3) timing of onset.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing continuous support during labour with usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted the data. We sought additional information from the trial authors. We used random-effects analyses for comparisons in which high heterogeneity was present, and we reported results using the average risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials involving 15,288 women met inclusion criteria and provided usable outcome data. Results are of random-effects analyses, unless otherwise noted. Women allocated to continuous support were more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.12) and less likely to have intrapartum analgesia (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) or to report dissatisfaction (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79). In addition, their labours were shorter (MD -0.58 hours, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.31), they were less likely to have a caesarean (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91) or instrumental vaginal birth (fixed-effect, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96), regional analgesia (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), or a baby with a low five-minute Apgar score (fixed-effect, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95). There was no apparent impact on other intrapartum interventions, maternal or neonatal complications, or breastfeeding. Subgroup analyses suggested that continuous support was most effective when the provider was neither part of the hospital staff nor the woman's social network, and in settings in which epidural analgesia was not routinely available. No conclusions could be drawn about the timing of onset of continuous support.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Continuous support during labour has clinically meaningful benefits for women and infants and no known harm. All women should have support throughout labour and birth.

Maternal expectations and experiences of labor analgesia with nitrous oxide

BACKGROUND

Although there are various methods for painless delivery such as using entonox gas, most of the people are unfamiliar or concerned about it yet.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess maternal expectations and experience of labor analgesia with nitrous oxide.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a clinical trial study, 98 pregnant women in active phase of delivery were studied randomly in two groups (intervention group = 49, control group = 49) after obtaining written consent. Efficacy, experience satisfaction, and also expectation of pregnant women about entonox gas in two groups were compared, likewise in intervention group before and after using entonox gas.

RESULTS

Most of the pregnant women receiving entonox gas had less labor pain (91.8%), and were satisfied with it (98%). The severity of pain in the most of entonox user was moderate level (46.94%), while for the control group it was severe (55.10%) which was significant, 40.82% of the mother in entonox group had a severe pain and 10.20% had a very severe pain, whereas in the control group (55.10%) of the mother had a severe pain and 26.53% of the had very severe pain (P = 0.004). efficacy of labor pain was in moderate level in most cases. 49% of pregnant women receiving gas described their experience as a good and excellent. 80.9% indicated that they will request the mentioned painless method in the future. The amount of suffering from gas side effects was mild in most patients of intervention group (63%). Expectations of the majority of pregnant women in intervention group (before receiving gas) and control group for painless delivery were weak (65.3%, 40.9%). The percentage of positive expectations had increased after receiving entonox gas (P = 0.01). There was a difference between the expectations of intervention group receiving entonox gas and control group (P = 0.001). Positive expectations were more in intervention group than the control group. Most differences of expectations in intervention group before and after receiving the gas were about higher efficacy (P = 0.001), more satisfaction (P = 0.001), fewer complications (P = 0.001), information about gas as painless delivery method (P = 0.02), and also previous experience of intolerable labor pain (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This study has shown that using entonox gas caused less labor pain, favorable expectations and experiences and also more maternal satisfaction.

Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth

BACKGROUND

This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain management for women in labour, and share a generic protocol. We examined the current evidence regarding the use of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth. This review updates the findings regarding hypnosis from an earlier review of complementary and alternative therapies for pain management in labour into a stand-alone review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness and safety of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 January 2012) and the reference lists of primary studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing preparation for labour using hypnosis and/or use of hypnosis during labour, with or without concurrent use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief methods versus placebo, no treatment or any analgesic drug or technique.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Where possible we contacted study authors seeking additional information about data and methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials randomising a total of 1213 women. All but one of the trials were at moderate to high risk of bias. Although six of the seven trials assessed antenatal hypnotherapy, there were considerable differences between these trials in timing and technique. One trial provided hypnotherapy during labour. No significant differences between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control group were found for the primary outcomes: use of pharmacological pain relief (average risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.01, six studies, 1032 women), spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.96, four studies, 472 women) or satisfaction with pain relief (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20, one study, 264 women). There was significant statistical heterogeneity in the data for use of pharmacological pain relief and spontaneous vaginal birth. The primary outcome of sense of coping with labour was reported in two studies as showing no beneficial effect (no usable data available for this review).  For secondary outcomes, no significant differences were identified between women in the hypnosis group and women in the control group for most outcomes where data were available. For example, there was no significant difference for satisfaction with the childbirth experience (average RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59, two studies, 370 women), admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.89, two studies, 347 women) or breastfeeding at discharge from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03, one study, 304 women). There was some evidence of benefits for women in the hypnosis group compared with the control group for pain intensity, length of labour and maternal hospital stay, although these findings were based on single studies with small numbers of women. Pain intensity was found to be lower for women in the hypnosis group than those in the control group in one trial of 60 women (mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.37). The same study found that the average length of labour from 5 cm dilation to birth (minutes) was significantly shorter for women in the hypnosis group (mean difference -165.20, 95% CI -223.53 to -106.87, one study, 60 women). Another study found that a smaller proportion of women in the hypnosis group stayed in hospital for more than two days after the birth compared with women in the control group (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83, one study, 42 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are still only a small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Although the intervention shows some promise, further research is needed before recommendations can be made regarding its clinical usefulness for pain management in maternity care.

Continuous support for women during childbirth

BACKGROUND

Historically, women have been attended and supported by other women during labour. However, in hospitals worldwide, continuous support during labour has become the exception rather than the routine.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: to assess the effects of continuous, one-to-one intrapartum support compared with usual care. Secondary: to determine whether the effects of continuous support are influenced by: (1) routine practices and policies; (2) the provider's relationship to the hospital and to the woman; and (3) timing of onset.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing continuous support during labour with usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted the data. We sought additional information from the trial authors. We used random-effects analyses for comparisons in which high heterogeneity was present, and we reported results using the average risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials involving 15,288 women met inclusion criteria and provided usable outcome data. Results are of random-effects analyses, unless otherwise noted. Women allocated to continuous support were more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.12) and less likely to have intrapartum analgesia (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) or to report dissatisfaction (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79). In addition, their labours were shorter (MD -0.58 hours, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.31), they were less likely to have a caesarean (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91) or instrumental vaginal birth (fixed-effect, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96), regional analgesia (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), or a baby with a low five-minute Apgar score (fixed-effect, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95). There was no apparent impact on other intrapartum interventions, maternal or neonatal complications, or breastfeeding. Subgroup analyses suggested that continuous support was most effective when the provider was neither part of the hospital staff nor the woman's social network, and in settings in which epidural analgesia was not routinely available. No conclusions could be drawn about the timing of onset of continuous support.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Continuous support during labour has clinically meaningful benefits for women and infants and no known harm. All women should have support throughout labour and birth.

Inhaled analgesia for pain management in labour

BACKGROUND

Many women would like to have a choice in pain relief during labour and also would like to avoid invasive methods of pain management in labour. Inhaled analgesia during labour involves the self-administered inhalation of sub-anaesthetic concentrations of agents while the mother remains awake and her protective laryngeal reflexes remain intact. Most of the agents are easy to administer, can be started in less than a minute and become effective within a minute.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of all modalities of inhaled analgesia on the mother and the newborn for mothers who planned to have a vaginal delivery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2012), ClinicalTrials.gov, and Current Controlled Trials (2 June 2012), handsearched conference proceedings from the American Society of Clinical Anesthesia (from 1990 to 2011), contacted content experts and trialists and searched reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled analgesia with other inhaled analgesia or placebo or no treatment or other methods of non-pharmacological pain management in labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility, methodological quality and extracted all data. Data were double checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six studies, randomising 2959 women, were included in this review.Inhaled analgesia versus a different type of inhaled analgesia Pain relief was measured using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 mm where 100 corresponds to the most relief. Pain intensity was measured using a VAS from 0 to 100 mm, where 0 corresponds to no pain at all and 100 corresponds to the worst pain. The highest score for pain relief is the most positive in contrast to 'pain intensity' in which the higher score is more negative. Flurane derivatives were found to offer better pain relief than nitrous oxide in first stage of labour as measured by a lower pain intensity score (average mean difference (MD) 14.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.41 to 24.37, three studies, 70 women), also a higher pain relief score for flurane derivatives compared with nitrous oxide (average MD -16.32, 95% CI -26.85 to -5.79, two studies, 70 women). Substantial heterogeneity was found in the analyses of pain intensity (P = 0.003) and in the analysis of pain relief (P = 0.002).These findings should be considered with caution because of the questionable design of the included cross-over trials. More nausea was found in the nitrous oxide group compared with the flurane derivatives group (risk ratio (RR) 6.60 95% CI 1.85 to 23.52, two studies, 98 women).Inhaled analgesia versus placebo or no treatment Placebo or no treatment was found to offer less pain relief compared to nitrous oxide (average RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.34, two studies, 310 women; MD -3.50, 95% CI -3.75 to -3.25, one study, 509 women). However, nitrous oxide resulted in more side effects for women such as nausea (RR 43.10, 95% CI 2.63 to 706.74, one study, 509 women), vomiting (RR 9.05, 95% CI 1.18 to 69.32, two studies, 619 women), dizziness (RR 113.98, 95% CI 7.09 to 1833.69, one study, 509 women) and drowsiness (RR 77.59, 95% CI 4.80 to 1254.96, one study, 509 women) when compared with placebo or no treatment.There were no significant differences found for any of the outcomes in the studies comparing one strength versus a different strength of inhaled analgesia, in studies comparing different delivery systems or in the study comparing inhaled analgesia with TENS.Due to lack of data, the following outcomes were not analysed within the review: sense of control; satisfaction with childbirth experience; effect on mother/baby interaction; breastfeeding; admission to special care baby unit; poor infant outcomes at long-term follow-up; or costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled analgesia appears to be effective in reducing pain intensity and in giving pain relief in labour. However, substantial heterogeneity was detected for pain intensity. Furthermore, nitrous oxide appears to result in more side effects compared with flurane derivatives. Flurane derivatives result in more drowsiness when compared with nitrous oxide. When inhaled analgesia is compared with no treatment or placebo, nitrous oxide appears to result in even more side effects such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and drowsiness. There is no evidence for differences for any of the outcomes comparing one strength verus a different strength of inhaled analgesia, comparing different delivery systems or comparing inhaled analgesia with TENS.

Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The pain that women experience during labour is affected by multiple physiological and psychosocial factors and its intensity can vary greatly.  Most women in labour require pain relief. Pain management strategies include non-pharmacological interventions (that aim to help women cope with pain in labour) and pharmacological interventions (that aim to relieve the pain of labour).

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage pain in labour. We considered findings from non-Cochrane systematic reviews if there was no relevant Cochrane review.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 5), The Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to 31 May 2011) to identify all relevant systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of pain management in labour. Each of the contributing Cochrane reviews (nine new, six updated) followed a generic protocol with 13 common primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Each Cochrane review included comparisons with placebo, standard care or with a different intervention according to a predefined hierarchy of interventions. Two review authors extracted data and assessed methodological quality, and data were checked by a third author. This overview is a narrative summary of the results obtained from individual reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 Cochrane reviews (255 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (55 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. For all interventions, with available data, results are presented as comparisons of: 1. Intervention versus placebo or standard care; 2. Different forms of the same intervention (e.g. one opioid versus another opioid); 3. One type of intervention versus a different type of intervention (e.g. TENS versus opioid). Not all reviews included results for all comparisons. Most reviews compared the intervention with placebo or standard care, but with the exception of opioids and epidural analgesia, there were few direct comparisons between different forms of the same intervention, and even fewer comparisons between different interventions. Based on these three comparisons, we have categorised interventions into: " What works" ,"What may work", and "Insufficient evidence to make a judgement".WHAT WORKSEvidence suggests that epidural, combined spinal epidural (CSE) and inhaled analgesia effectively manage pain in labour, but may give rise to adverse effects. Epidural, and inhaled analgesia effectively relieve pain when compared with placebo or a different type of intervention (epidural versus opioids). Combined-spinal epidurals relieve pain more quickly than traditional or low dose epidurals. Women receiving inhaled analgesia were more likely to experience vomiting, nausea and dizziness.When compared with placebo or opioids, women receiving epidural analgesia had more instrumental vaginal births and caesarean sections for fetal distress, although there was no difference in the rates of caesarean section overall. Women receiving epidural analgesia were more likely to experience hypotension, motor blockade, fever or urinary retention. Less urinary retention was observed in women receiving CSE than in women receiving traditional epidurals. More women receiving CSE than low-dose epidural experienced pruritus.  WHAT MAY WORKThere is some evidence to suggest that immersion in water, relaxation, acupuncture, massage and local anaesthetic nerve blocks or non-opioid drugs may improve management of labour pain, with few adverse effects.  Evidence was mainly limited to single trials. These interventions relieved pain and improved satisfaction with pain relief (immersion, relaxation, acupuncture, local anaesthetic nerve blocks, non-opioids) and childbirth experience (immersion, relaxation, non-opioids) when compared with placebo or standard care. Relaxation was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and acupuncture was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and caesarean sections.INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCEThere is insufficient evidence to make judgements on whether or not hypnosis, biofeedback, sterile water injection, aromatherapy, TENS, or parenteral opioids are more effective than placebo or other interventions for pain management in labour. In comparison with other opioids more women receiving pethidine experienced adverse effects including drowsiness and nausea. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most methods of non-pharmacological pain management are non-invasive and appear to be safe for mother and baby, however, their efficacy is unclear, due to limited high quality evidence. In many reviews, only one or two trials provided outcome data for analysis and the overall methodological quality of the trials was low. High quality trials are needed.There is more evidence to support the efficacy of pharmacological methods, but these have more adverse effects. Thus, epidural analgesia provides effective pain relief but at the cost of increased instrumental vaginal birth.It remains important to tailor methods used to each woman's wishes, needs and circumstances, such as anticipated duration of labour, the infant's condition, and any augmentation or induction of labour.A major challenge in compiling this overview, and the individual systematic reviews on which it is based, has been the variation in use of different process and outcome measures in different trials, particularly assessment of pain and its relief, and effects on the neonate after birth. This made it difficult to pool results from otherwise similar studies, and to derive conclusions from the totality of evidence. Other important outcomes have simply not been assessed in trials; thus, despite concerns for 30 years or more about the effects of maternal opioid administration during labour on subsequent neonatal behaviour and its influence on breastfeeding, only two out of 57 trials of opioids reported breastfeeding as an outcome. We therefore strongly recommend that the outcome measures, agreed through wide consultation for this project, are used in all future trials of methods of pain management.

Continuous support for women during childbirth

BACKGROUND

Historically, women have been attended and supported by other women during labour. However in hospitals worldwide, continuous support during labour has become the exception rather than the routine.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: to assess the effects of continuous, one-to-one intrapartum support compared with usual care. Secondary: to determine whether the effects of continuous support are influenced by: (1) routine practices and policies; (2) the provider's relationship to the hospital and to the woman; and (3) timing of onset.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 December 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials comparing continuous support during labour with usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration Pregnancy and Childbirth Group. Two authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted the data. We sought additional information from the trial authors. We used random-effects analyses for comparisons in which high heterogeneity was present, and we reported results using the risk ratio for categorical data and mean difference for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one trials involving 15061 women met inclusion criteria and provided usable outcome data. Results are of random-effects analyses, unless otherwise noted. Women allocated to continuous support were more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.12) and less likely to have intrapartum analgesia (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97) or to report dissatisfaction (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.79). In addition their labours were shorter (mean difference -0.58 hours, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.30), they were less likely to have a caesarean (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.92) or instrumental vaginal birth (fixed-effect, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96), regional analgesia (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), or a baby with a low 5-minute Apgar score (fixed-effect, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96). There was no apparent impact on other intrapartum interventions, maternal or neonatal complications, or on breastfeeding. Subgroup analyses suggested that continuous support was most effective when provided by a woman who was neither part of the hospital staff nor the woman's social network, and in settings in which epidural analgesia was not routinely available. No conclusions could be drawn about the timing of onset of continuous support.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Continuous support during labour has clinically meaningful benefits for women and infants and no known harm. All women should have support throughout labour and birth.

Sobre as dores e temores do parto: dimensões de uma escuta

OBJETIVOS: desenvolver algumas reflexões sobre os possíveis efeitos benéficos de uma escuta responsiva à verbalização da presença de dor, medos e seus correlatos na cena do parto tomando como base dados empíricos de pesquisa realizada em maternidade situada na cidade de São Paulo, Brasil. MÉTODOS: estudo descritivo, de metodologia qualitativa, referenciado no quadro teórico da Psicologia Social, Psicanálise e Lingüística, utilizando entrevistas semi-estruturadas com 20 parturientes e sete doulas e observação de rotinas da maternidade. RESULTADOS: a análise, apoiada em categorias estabelecidas (subjetividade auto-referida, intersubjetividade, acolhimento, apropriação da experiência) mostrou, entre outros pontos, a importância e a valorização da interlocução qualificada no processo da parturição. Processo esse referido pelas parturientes como experiência de elevado grau de estresse, com vivências de dor, medos e ansiedades, porém mitigados pelo apoio recebido. CONCLUSÕES: a análise permitiu compreender as relações interpessoais como campo de interlocução e acolhimento percebidos pelas mulheres do estudo capazes de produzir efeitos favoráveis sobre as vivências do estresse materno, configurando-se como recurso técnico, qualificado e valioso, oferecido à parturiente.

Pain during the labor active phase: the effect of walking

This study aimed to verify whether the distance walked is correlated with women's pain level throughout the active phase of labor. METHODOLOGY: We realized an analytic, quasi-experimental intervention study. Study participants were 80 primiparous parturient women, who were admitted during spontaneous labor, with 37-42 weeks, at the start of the active phase. DATA ANALYSIS: Spearman's correlation test. RESULTS: the parturient women walked an average distance of 1,624 meters, 63.09% of the active phase of labor and during an average time of five hours. Pain scores increase along with the advance in cervical dilatation. However, we only found a significant positive correlation when 5cm of dilatation had been reached, that is, the more distance the participants walked, the higher the pain scores they reached.

A comparative study of the safety of 0.25% levobupivacaine and 0.25% racemic bupivacaine for paracervical block in the first stage of labor

BACKGROUND

The objective of the study was to evaluate and compare the safety of levobupivacaine and racemic bupivacaine for paracervical block (PCB) in the first stage of labor after uncomplicated pregnancy.

METHODS

Forty women in an open pilot study and 397 women in a double-blind randomized study received PCB for pain relief in the first stage of labor, either with 25 mg of levobupivacaine or with 25 mg of racemic bupivacaine. The incidence of cardiotocographic pathology was compared between the groups using Fisher's exact test. The 95% confidence intervals for the between-group difference were calculated by Newcombe's method.

RESULTS

In the randomized double-blind study, the incidence of any pathological result in cardiotocography (CTG) was 10.4% in the levobupivacaine group and 12.8% in the racemic bupivacaine group. The incidence of fetal bradycardia in the groups was 2.6 and 3.8%, respectively. All the cardiotocographic changes were transient, and no operative intervention was indicated because of CTG. No difference in the analgesic effect between the drugs was found. Most of the parturients in the levobupivacaine group (97%) and in the racemic bupivacaine group (96%) had spontaneous vaginal delivery. Neonatal outcome was good in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference in cardiotocographic pathology was found between PCB with levobupivacaine compared with PCB with racemic bupivacaine. The incidence of bradycardia was low. PCB was found to be a safe pain-relief method for low-risk parturients.

What determines the analgesic effect of paracervical block?

BACKGROUND

The objective of the study was to evaluate the analgesic effect of paracervical block (PCB) in labor pain relief and to discover the determinants associated with good analgesia.

METHODS

In a prospective trial, 341 women received PCB for pain relief in the first stage of labor, with 10 ml of 0.25% levobupivacaine or racemic bupivacaine. All these pregnancies were uncomplicated and the progress of labor was normal. The analgesic effect of PCB was measured by using a visual analog scale (VAS). The factors associated with good pain relief (>50% decrease in the VAS score within 30 min) were analyzed statistically by Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney test (continuous variables), Fisher's exact test (categorial variables) and after univariate analysis by logistic regression analysis. For pairwise comparisons, Wilcoxon's signed ranks test was used.

RESULTS

Good pain relief was achieved in 47.2% of the cases. 12.3% of the parturients needed subsequent epidural or spinal analgesia. In logistic regression analysis, primiparity, a high pain score before PCB, and PCB given by a specialized obstetrician were found to affect the level of pain relief 30 min after PCB.

CONCLUSIONS

The best pain relief after PCB was achieved among primiparas. Good pain relief was connected with a high pain score before PCB and an experienced obstetrician.

[Corticotrophin hormone serum levels of parturients submitted to nonpharmacologic anxiety and pain relief method during labor]

This study aimed to analyze the plasma ACTH levels and the correlation between the ACTH levels and pain and anxiety during parturition. Seventeen parturients received routine nursing care (control group--CG) and nineteen (Experimental Group--EG) were stimulated and guided to perform respiration and relaxation techniques. ACTH levels, pain intensity and state-trait anxiety were evaluated. ACTH levels were lower at the beginning of labor, peaked at the end and decreased again in the immediate postpartum period. There was no significant statistical difference between the groups. Lower ACTH levels and partial stress relief in the EG suggest the interference of breathing and relaxation techniques; ACTH levels did not show any correlation with anxiety or pain in any of both groups.

Childbirth in Palestine

OBJECTIVE

This study describes staffing, caseloads and reported routine practices for normal childbirth in Palestinian West Bank (WB) governmental maternity facilities and compares these practices with evidence-based care.

METHODS

Data on routine childbirth practices in all eight governmental hospitals were obtained through interviews with head obstetricians and midwives. Data on staffing and monthly number of births were collected by phone or personal interview from all 37 WB hospitals.

RESULTS

Forty-eight percent of WB deliveries took place in crowded and understaffed governmental hospitals. Reported practices were not consistently in line with evidence-based care. Lack of knowledge and structural barriers were reasons for this gap.

CONCLUSION

The implications of limiting unnecessary interventions in the normal birth process are particularly important in a context of limited access and scarce resources. More skilled birth attendants and a universal commitment to effective care are needed.

Utilização de técnicas de respiração e relaxamento para alívio de dor e ansiedade no processo de parturição

Objetivou-se avaliar o efeito de técnicas de respiração e de relaxamento sobre a dor e a ansiedade, na parturição. Dezessete primigestas (grupo controle - GC) receberam assistência de rotina e dezenove (grupo experimental - GE) foram orientadas e estimuladas a realizar técnicas de respiração e relaxamento. Avaliou-se a dor, através da escala analógica visual, e a ansiedade, através dos inventários de ansiedade-traço e estado. A intensidade de dor aumentou com a evolução do trabalho de parto para ambos os grupos. O nível de ansiedade na fase latente foi baixo para ambos os grupos; na fase ativa foi médio para o GC e baixo para o GE; na fase de transição foi médio e, no pós-parto, imediato, foi baixo, para ambos os grupos. Concluiu-se que as técnicas utilizadas não reduziram a intensidade de dor, mas promoveram ao GE a manutenção de nível baixo de ansiedade por maior tempo da parturição.

Obstetric anesthesia: changes and choices

This article is a review of analgesics and anesthetics offered to laboring women, including intravenous drugs, epidural and spinal agents, and inhalational anesthetics. An overview of the uses, risks, and benefits is provided for each anesthetic alternative. To provide the most effective care to women in labor, clinicians have a responsibility to have current knowledge of the best evidence for safety and efficacy of these pharmacologic agents and techniques and be able to effectively communicate this information to clients.

The antinociceptive effects of spinal cyclooxygenase inhibitors on uterine cervical distension

Pain during labor is common and severe, as is menstrual pain, and this pain originates from the uterine cervix and is transmitted via the hypogastric nerve to the spinal cord. Prostaglandins play an important role in nociceptive transmission in the spinal cord. Pharmacologically, targeting a specific cyclooxygenase (COX) enzyme isoform has as its goal to effectively treat pain while avoiding side effects. Both COX-1 and COX-2 inhibitors have been shown to effectively treat a variety of pain conditions in animals and in humans; however, their efficacy in treatment of acute visceral pain has not been explored. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the pharmacologic effects of specific spinal COX inhibitors on uterine cervical distention induced nociception. The results indicate that intrathecal (i.t.) administration of the COX-2 inhibitor, SC58238, and the nonspecific COX inhibitor, indomethacin, effectively inhibited the electromyographic activity induced by UCD. None of the inhibitors altered hemodynamic response to uterine cervical distension. The study suggests that targeting spinal COX-2 could be useful to treat transient and acute visceral pain from the uterine cervix.