A pilot study for a randomised controlled trial of waterbirth versus land birth

Waterbirth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Despite patient interest, there is little evidence regarding waterbirth. This review sought to compare maternal and perinatal outcomes in waterbirth, compared with landbirth. This search was conducted using MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Web of Sciences, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov, OVID, and Cochrane Library from inception to November 15, 2021, with no language or geographic restrictions. Review was registered with PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42021288576. Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials of women with singleton cephalic gestations at ≥36 weeks comparing waterbirth to landbirth. The primary outcome was a perinatal composite outcome. Secondary outcomes included maternal and individual perinatal outcomes. Summary measures were reported as relative risk or mean difference with 95% confidence intervals using random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. I 2 (Higgins I 2) > 0% was used to identify heterogeneity. Six trials including 706 patients were included. When reported, all patients were ≥ 37 weeks' gestation. Labor augmentation (41.7 vs. 84.7%, p < 0.0001) and neuraxial anesthesia (10.5 vs. 72.4%, p < 0.0001) were less common with waterbirth. Estimated blood loss, postpartum hemorrhage, perineal laceration, episiotomy, mode of delivery, and perinatal outcomes did not differ between groups. Chorioamnionitis and endometritis were not reported by any trial. Maternal satisfaction was higher (p = 0.01) and pain scores lower (p = 0.003) with waterbirth. Length of first stage (p < 0.00001), third stage (p = 0.02), and labor (p = 0.04) were shorter with waterbirth. The composite perinatal outcome could not be calculated due to lack of individual patient data. Compared with landbirth, waterbirth was associated with lower rates of neuraxial anesthesia and lower pain scores, with improved maternal satisfaction. KEY POINTS: · Data are limited regarding the safety and potential benefits of waterbirth.. · With waterbirth, maternal satisfaction was higher and pain scores lower. The first and third stages of labor and labor overall were shorter. No significant differences noted in other maternal outcomes, such as hemorrhage or laceration.. · Insufficient data are available regarding neonatal outcomes..

Neonatal Outcomes of Water Delivery versus Land Delivery: A Retrospective Propensity Score Weighted Study

OBJECTIVE

Recent evidence has shown that water delivery is safe for the mother, but high-quality evidence is not available for the newborn. Therefore, obstetric guidelines do not support it. This retrospective study aimed to contribute to the available evidence on maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with water delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study from prospectively collected birth registry data from 2015 to 2019. A total of 144 consecutive water deliveries and 265 land deliveries eligible for waterbirth were identified. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to address for confounders.

RESULTS

We identified 144 women who delivered in water (water group) and 265 women who delivered on land (land group). One (0.7%) neonatal death was observed in the water delivery group. After IPTW adjustment, water delivery was significantly associated with a higher risk of maternal fever in puerperium (odds ratio [OR]: 4.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.86-17.02; p = 0.004), of neonatal cord avulsion (OR: 20.73; 95% CI: 2.63-2,674; p = 0.001), and of positive neonatal C-reactive protein (CRP > 5 mg/L; OR: 2.59; 95% CI: 1.05-7.24; p = 0.039); delivering in water was associated with lower maternal blood loss (mean difference: 110.40 mL; 95% CI: 191.01-29.78; p = 0.007), a lower risk of major (≥1,000 mL) postpartum hemorrhage (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.92-0.99; p = 0.016), lower risk of manual placenta delivery (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.03-0.67; p = 0.008) and curettage (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.60; p = 0.002), lower use of episiotomy (OR: 0.02; 95% CI: 0-0.12; p < 0.001), and lower risk of neonatal ward admission (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.25-0.48; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The present study showed that differences are present between water and land delivery, and among them is the risk of cord avulsion, a severe and potentially fatal event. In women choosing to deliver in water, a trained staffmust be present and immediate recognition of cord avulsion is key for a prompt management to avoid possible serious complications.

KEY POINTS

· High-quality evidence is not available for neonatal safety of waterbirth; therefore, retrospective studies still represent the main body of evidence.. · Differences are present between water and land delivery, and among them, the increased risk of cord avulsion is a potentially fatal event.. · A trained staff must assist women who chose to deliver in water and cord avulsion must be promptly recognized and managed to avoid severe neonatal complications..

Water birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal and neonatal outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to conduct a thorough and contemporary assessment of maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with water birth in comparison with land-based birth.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and gray literature sources, from inception to February 28, 2023.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomized and nonrandomized studies that assessed maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients who delivered either conventionally or while submerged in water.

METHODS

Pooled unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model (restricted maximum likelihood method). We assessed the 95% prediction intervals to estimate the likely range of future study results. To evaluate the robustness of the results, we calculated fragility indices. Maternal infection was designated as the primary outcome, whereas postpartum hemorrhage, perineal lacerations, obstetrical anal sphincter injury, umbilical cord avulsion, low Apgar scores, neonatal aspiration requiring resuscitation, neonatal infection, neonatal mortality within 30 days of birth, and neonatal intensive care unit admission were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 20,642 articles identified, 52 were included in the meta-analyses. Based on data from observational studies, water birth was not associated with increased probability of maternal infection compared with land birth (10 articles, 113,395 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.14). Patients undergoing water birth had decreased odds of postpartum hemorrhage (21 articles, 149,732 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.94). Neonates delivered while submerged in water had increased odds of cord avulsion (10 articles, 91,504 pregnancies; odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-2.24) and decreased odds of low Apgar scores (21 articles, 165,917 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.82), neonatal infection (15 articles, 53,635 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.97), neonatal aspiration requiring resuscitation (19 articles, 181,001 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.84), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (30 articles, 287,698 pregnancies; odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.70).

CONCLUSION

When compared with land birth, water birth does not appear to increase the risk of most maternal and neonatal complications. Like any other delivery method, water birth has its unique considerations and potential risks, which health care providers and expectant parents should evaluate thoroughly. However, with proper precautions in place, water birth can be a reasonable choice for mothers and newborns, in facilities equipped to conduct water births safely.

Immersion in water during the second stage of labor: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current obstetrical guidelines in the United States caution firmly against birth in water, but patients remain interested in this intervention. Limited data are available to evaluate the safety and efficacy of water immersion in the second stage of labor for patients and neonates.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to ascertain the effects of water use during the second stage of labor on maternal outcomes. Second, it aimed to propose guidelines for midwives conducting the second stage of labor in water.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized, prospective design was used to evaluate the primary outcomes of maternal experience in labor and trauma to the birth canal and several secondary neonatal and maternal outcomes when participants delivered in water vs in a conventional setting. Participants were recruited at 2 academic state hospitals serving the same low- to middle-income group urban population in the midwestern suburbs of Johannesburg, South Africa over a period of 2 years. Individuals in active labor without exclusion criteria were asked to participate in the study. A total of 120 participants were enrolled, with 60 randomized to water birth and 60 to conventional birth. Outcomes were compared using the chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

The use of water during birth significantly reduced the participants' perception of experienced pain than what they expected it to be (P=.006) and enhanced their satisfaction with their ability to cope with labor (P=.010). No differences were noted in trauma to the birth canal. No adverse maternal effects were noted. One early neonatal death occurred in the water group. The most likely cause of death was preexisting intrauterine fetal infection.

CONCLUSION

Participants who delivered in water were significantly more satisfied with their birthing experience. The possible harmful effect of inhalation of fresh water by a baby is not resolved, and a large randomized controlled trial is recommended. It is recommended that immersion in water during the second stage of labor should only be offered by competent birth attendants who follow specific guidelines until clear evidence is available on the possible beneficial or harmful effects. Pending further evidence, we recommend adding salt to the bath to produce a physiological saline solution to reduce theoretical risks associated with fresh water inhalation by the neonate.

Systematic review and meta-analysis to examine intrapartum interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes following immersion in water during labour and waterbirth

OBJECTIVES

Water immersion during labour using a birth pool to achieve relaxation and pain relief during the first and possibly part of the second stage of labour is an increasingly popular care option in several countries. It is used particularly by healthy women who experience a straightforward pregnancy, labour spontaneously at term gestation and plan to give birth in a midwifery led care setting. More women are also choosing to give birth in water. There is debate about the safety of intrapartum water immersion, particularly waterbirth. We synthesised the evidence that compared the effect of water immersion during labour or waterbirth on intrapartum interventions and outcomes to standard care with no water immersion. A secondary objective was to synthesise data relating to clinical care practices and birth settings that women experience who immerse in water and women who do not.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

A search was conducted using CINAHL, Medline, Embase, BioMed Central and PsycINFO during March 2020 and was replicated in May 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Primary quantitative studies published in 2000 or later, examining maternal or neonatal interventions and outcomes using the birthing pool for labour and/or birth.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Full-text screening was undertaken independently against inclusion/exclusion criteria in two pairs. Risk of bias assessment included review of seven domains based on the Robbins-I Risk of Bias Tool. All outcomes were summarised using an OR and 95% CI. All calculations were conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V.3, using the inverse variance method. Results of individual studies were converted to log OR and SE for synthesis. Fixed effects models were used when I2 was less than 50%, otherwise random effects models were used. The fail-safe N estimates were calculated to determine the number of studies necessary to change the estimates. Begg's test and Egger's regression risk assessed risk of bias across studies. Trim-and-fill analysis was used to estimate the magnitude of effect of the bias. Meta-regression was completed when at least 10 studies provided data for an outcome.

RESULTS

We included 36 studies in the review, (N=157 546 participants). Thirty-one studies were conducted in an obstetric unit setting (n=70 393), four studies were conducted in midwife led settings (n=61 385) and one study was a mixed setting (OU and homebirth) (n=25 768). Midwife led settings included planned home and freestanding midwifery unit (k=1), alongside midwifery units (k=1), planned homebirth (k=1), a freestanding midwifery unit and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1) and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1). For water immersion, 25 studies involved women who planned to have/had a waterbirth (n=151 742), seven involved water immersion for labour only (1901), three studies reported on water immersion during labour and waterbirth (n=3688) and one study was unclear about the timing of water immersion (n=215).Water immersion significantly reduced use of epidural (k=7, n=10 993; OR 0.17 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56), injected opioids (k=8, n=27 391; OR 0.22 95% CI 0.13 to 0.38), episiotomy (k=15, n=36 558; OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.27), maternal pain (k=8, n=1200; OR 0.24 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51) and postpartum haemorrhage (k=15, n=63 891; OR 0.69 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). There was an increase in maternal satisfaction (k=6, n=4144; OR 1.95 95% CI 1.28 to 2.96) and odds of an intact perineum (k=17, n=59 070; OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.79) with water immersion. Waterbirth was associated with increased odds of cord avulsion (OR 1.94 95% CI 1.30 to 2.88), although the absolute risk remained low (4.3 per 1000 vs 1.3 per 1000). There were no differences in any other identified neonatal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This review endorses previous reviews showing clear benefits resulting from intrapartum water immersion for healthy women and their newborns. While most included studies were conducted in obstetric units, to enable the identification of best practice regarding water immersion, future birthing pool research should integrate factors that are known to influence intrapartum interventions and outcomes. These include maternal parity, the care model, care practices and birth setting.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019147001.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes following waterbirth: a cohort study of 17 530 waterbirths and 17 530 propensity score-matched land births

OBJECTIVE

Investigate maternal and neonatal outcomes following waterbirth.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study, with propensity score matching to address confounding.

SETTING

Community births, United States.

SAMPLE

Medical records-based registry data from low-risk births were used to create waterbirth and land birth groups (n = 17 530 each), propensity score-matched on >80 demographic and pregnancy risk covariables.

METHODS

Logistic regression models compared outcomes between the matched waterbirth and land birth groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Maternal: immediate postpartum transfer to a hospital, any genital tract trauma, severe (3rd/4th degree) trauma, haemorrhage >1000 mL, diagnosed haemorrhage regardless of estimated blood loss, uterine infection, uterine infection requiring hospitalisation, any hospitalisation in the first 6 weeks. Neonatal: umbilical cord avulsion; immediate neonatal transfer to a hospital; respiratory distress syndrome; any hospitalisation, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, or neonatal infection in the first 6 weeks; and neonatal death.

RESULTS

Waterbirth was associated with improved or no difference in outcomes for most measures, including neonatal death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.31-1.0), and maternal or neonatal hospitalisation in the first 6 weeks (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.92 and aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-0.99, respectively). Increased morbidity in the waterbirth group was observed for two outcomes only: uterine infection (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05-1.48) (but not hospitalisation for infection) and umbilical cord avulsion (aOR 1.57, 95% CI 1.37-1.82). Our results are concordant with other studies: waterbirth is neither as harmful as some current guidelines suggest, nor as benign as some proponents claim.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

New study demonstrates #waterbirth is neither as harmful as some current guidelines suggest, nor as benign as some proponents claim. @TheUpliftLab @BovbjergMarit @31415926abc @NICHD_NIH.

Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Hospital-Based Deliveries With Water Immersion

Hospital-based deliveries with second-stage water immersion had no higher risk of neonatal intensive care or special care nursery admissions than a clinically comparable population.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or special care nursery admission for deliveries with water immersion compared with deliveries in the matched control group without water immersion. Secondary outcomes included adverse neonatal diagnoses, maternal infections, and perineal lacerations.

METHODS:

We conducted a retrospective study using electronic health record data (2014–2018) from two health systems (eight hospitals), with similar clinical eligibility, associated with low risks of intrapartum complications, and implementation policies for waterbirth. The water immersion group included women intending waterbirth. Water immersion was recorded prospectively during delivery. The comparison population were women who met the clinical eligibility criteria for waterbirth but did not experience water immersion during labor. Comparison cases were matched (1:1) using propensity scores. Outcomes were compared using Fischer's exact tests and logistic regression with stratification by stage of water immersion.

RESULTS:

Of the 583 women with water immersion, 34.1% (199) experienced first-stage water immersion only, 65.9% (384) experienced second-stage immersion, of whom 12.0% (70) exited during second stage, and 53.9% (314) completed delivery in the water. Neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery admissions were lower for second-stage water immersion deliveries than deliveries in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.3, 95% CI 0.2–0.7). Lacerations were lower in the second-stage immersion group (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4–0.7). Neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery admissions and lacerations were not different between the first-stage immersion group and their matched comparisons. Cord avulsions occurred for 0.8% of second-stage water immersion deliveries compared with none in the control groups. Five-minute Apgar score (less than 7), maternal infections, and other adverse outcomes were not significantly different between either the first- or second-stage water immersion groups and their control group.

CONCLUSION:

Hospital-based deliveries with second-stage water immersion had lower risk of NICU or special care nursery admission and perineal lacerations than matched deliveries in the control group without water immersion.

A Discrete Choice Experiment on Women's Preferences for Water Immersion During Labor and Birth: Identification, Refinement and Selection of Attributes and Levels

OBJECTIVES

To identify attributes (i.e., characteristics describing a scenario) and levels (i.e., each characteristic may be defined by a different level) that would be included in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire to evaluate women's preferences for water immersion during labor and birth.

METHODS

A mixed-method approach, combining systematic reviews of the literature and patient focus groups to identify attributes and levels explaining women's preferences. After the focus groups, preference exercises were conducted and led to the creation of the questionnaire, including the DCE. A qualitative validation of the questionnaire was conducted with women from the focus groups and with medical experts.

RESULTS

The literature reviews provided 26 attributes to be considered for childbirth in water, and focus groups identified 14 additional attributes. From these 40 attributes, preference exercises allowed us to select four for the DCE, in addition to the birth mode. Labor duration was also included, even if it was not well ranked, as it is the main clinical outcome in the literature. Validation with experts and women did not change the choice of attributes but slightly changed the levels selected. The final six attributes were: birth mode, duration of the labor phase, pain sensation, risk of severe tears in the perineum during the expulsion of the newborn, risk of death of the newborn, and general condition of the newborn (Apgar) score at 5 minutes.

CONCLUSION

This study allowed us to detail all the stages for the design of a DCE questionnaire. To date, this is the first study of this kind in the context of women's preferences for water immersion during labor and birth.

Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed.

RESULTS

In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019094438.

Who Gives Birth in the Water? A Retrospective Cohort Study of Intended versus Completed Waterbirths

INTRODUCTION

Most waterbirth studies have been conducted outside the United States with a primary focus on birth outcomes. Studies to date provide limited information about how often women choosing waterbirth end water immersion before the birth and about the reasons for tub exit. This study examines a cohort of women intending a hospital-based waterbirth and documents the timing and reasons for tub exit. Demographic, clinical, and intrapartum care provider characteristics among women completing waterbirth were compared with those who exited the water prior to birth.

METHODS

This is a collaborative, multisite study from 2 health systems (8 hospitals) using retrospective electronic health records from August 2014 through December 2017.

RESULTS

Of 576 women who entered the waterbirth tub, 48% exited prior to the birth. The primary reasons for exit were maternal choice (50%), medical indication (32%), and provider decision (13%). Women exiting in the first stage did so primarily by choice (57%), whereas medical indication (42%) was the most common reason among women exiting in the second stage. Women who completed waterbirth did not differ from those who exited prior to birth with regard to age, race, ethnicity, country of origin, language, marital status, or intrapartum care provider specialty. Women completing waterbirth were more likely to have previously given birth (72% vs 47%) and to have a provider with more water immersion births during the study period (65% vs 55%).

DISCUSSION

Giving birth in the tub was associated with parity and intrapartum care provider experience. Half of the women intending waterbirth in this study exited the tub, with variation in exit reason by stage and provider type. It is important for women to understand that they or their provider may change the birth plan based on labor progress and maternal experience.

Women's experiences with water birth: A matched groups prospective study

BACKGROUND

Water birth has become an increasingly popular childbirth option, but has also come under scrutiny because of its possible risks and benefits. The primary objective of this study was to explore potential benefits of water birth by comparing the experiences of women who gave birth in water versus conventionally. We also compared maternal and newborn outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 66 women who had water births and 132 who had conventional births. Data collected included demographics, labor and birth characteristics, perinatal outcomes, and maternal scores on the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). Groups were matched for variables known to influence CEQ scores.

RESULTS

Women in the water birth group had more positive childbirth experiences compared with the conventional birth group (P < .001), and also compared with the subgroup of women who had epidural anesthesia (P = .002). After controlling for potential confounders, water birth was associated with a decreased likelihood of perineal lacerations requiring repair (P = .001) and a higher rate of breastfeeding initiation in the delivery room (P < .001). Adverse outcomes such as neonatal intensive care unit admission, blood loss >500 mL, 3rd/4th degree lacerations, and perinatal infections were rare. The study was not sufficiently powered to detect differences in rare outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Water birth was associated with more positive maternal childbirth experiences as represented by CEQ scores. Adverse outcomes were rare in both the water birth and conventional birth groups.

Immersion in water during labour and birth

BACKGROUND

Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery-led care settings. However, there are concerns around neonatal water inhalation, increased requirement for admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), maternal and/or neonatal infection, and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). This is an update of a review last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of water immersion during labour and/or birth (first, second and third stage of labour) on women and their infants.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 July 2017), and reference lists of retrieved trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing water immersion with no immersion, or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management during labour and/or birth in healthy low-risk women at term gestation with a singleton fetus. Quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials 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. Two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 15 trials conducted between 1990 and 2015 (3663 women): eight involved water immersion during the first stage of labour; two during the second stage only; four during the first and second stages of labour, and one comparing early versus late immersion during the first stage of labour. No trials evaluated different baths/pools, or third-stage labour management. All trials were undertaken in a hospital labour ward setting, with a varying degree of medical intervention considered as routine practice. No study was carried out in a midwifery-led care setting. Most trial authors did not specify the parity of women. Trials were subject to varying degrees of bias: the intervention could not be blinded and there was a lack of information about randomisation, and whether analyses were undertaken by intention-to-treat.Immersion in water versus no immersion (first stage of labour)There is probably little or no difference in spontaneous vaginal birth between immersion and no immersion (82% versus 83%; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.04; 6 trials; 2559 women; moderate-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (14% versus 12%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05; 6 trials; 2559 women; low-quality evidence); and caesarean section (4% versus 5%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.79; 7 trials; 2652 women; low-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of immersion on estimated blood loss (mean difference (MD) -14.33 mL, 95% CI -63.03 to 34.37; 2 trials; 153 women; very low-quality evidence) and third- or fourth-degree tears (3% versus 3%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.18; 4 trials; 2341 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was a small reduction in the risk of using regional analgesia for women allocated to water immersion from 43% to 39% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; 5 trials; 2439 women; moderate-quality evidence). Perinatal deaths were not reported, and there is insufficient evidence to determine the impact on neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions (6% versus 8%; average RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.97; 2 trials; 1511 infants; I² = 36%; low-quality evidence), or on neonatal infection rates (1% versus 1%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.94; 5 trials; 1295 infants; very low-quality evidence).Immersion in water versus no immersion (second stage of labour)There were no clear differences between groups for spontaneous vaginal birth (97% versus 99%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 120 women; 1 trial; low-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (2% versus 2%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence); caesarean section (2% versus 1%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence), and NICU admissions (11% versus 9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.59; 2 trials; 291 women; very low-quality evidence). Use of regional analgesia was not relevant to the second stage of labour. Third- or fourth-degree tears, and estimated blood loss were not reported in either trial. No trial reported neonatal infection but did report neonatal temperature less than 36.2°C at birth (9% versus 9%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.20; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), greater than 37.5°C at birth (6% versus 15%; RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.73 to 9.35; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), and fever reported in first week (5% versus 2%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.82; 1 trial; 171 infants; very low-quality evidence), with no clear effect between groups being observed. One perinatal death occurred in the immersion group in one trial (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.20; 1 trial; 120 infants; very low-quality evidence). The infant was born to a mother with HIV and the cause of death was deemed to be intrauterine infection.There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the baby or woman from either the first or second stage of labour.Only one trial (200 women) compared early and late entry into the water and there were insufficient data to show any clear differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In healthy women at low risk of complications there is moderate to low-quality evidence that water immersion during the first stage of labour probably has little effect on mode of birth or perineal trauma, but may reduce the use of regional analgesia. The evidence for immersion during the second stage of labour is limited and does not show clear differences on maternal or neonatal outcomes intensive care. There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring or giving birth in water. Available evidence is limited by clinical variability and heterogeneity across trials, and no trial has been conducted in a midwifery-led setting.

Australian midwives views and experiences of practice and politics related to water immersion for labour and birth: A web based survey

BACKGROUND

There is little published research that has examined practitioners' views and experiences of pain relieving measures commonly used during labour and birth, particularly for non-pharmacological measures such as water immersion. Furthermore, there is minimal published research examining the process of policy and guideline development, that is, the translation of published research to usable practice guidance.

AIMS

The aims of phase three of a larger study were to explore midwives knowledge, experiences and support for the option of water immersion for labour and birth in practice and their involvement, if any, in development of policy and guidelines pertaining to the option.

METHODS

Phase three of a three phased mixed methods study included a web based survey of 234 Australian midwives who had facilitated and/or been involved in the development of policies and/or guidelines relating to the practice of water immersion.

FINDINGS

Midwives who participated in this study were supportive of both water immersion for labour and birth reiterating documented benefits of reduced pain, maternal relaxation and a positive birth experience. The most significant concerns were maternal collapse, the difficulty of estimating blood loss and postpartum haemorrhage whilst barriers included lack of accredited staff, lifting equipment and negative attitudes. Midwives indicated that policy/guideline documents limited their ability to facilitate water immersion and did not always to support women's informed choice.

CONCLUSION

Midwives who participated in this study supported the practice of water immersion reiterating the benefits documented in the literature and minimal risk to the woman and baby.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of South Australia approved the research.

Neonatal outcomes of waterbirth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

In 2015, 9% of babies born in the UK were delivered underwater. Waterbirth is increasing in popularity, despite uncertainty regarding its safety for neonates. This systematic review and meta-analysis appraises the existing evidence for neonatal outcomes following waterbirth.

METHODS

A structured electronic database search was performed with no language restrictions. All comparative studies which reported neonatal outcomes following waterbirth, and that were published since 1995, were included. Quality appraisal was performed using a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme scoring system. The primary outcome was neonatal mortality. Data for each neonatal outcome were tabulated and analysed. Meta-analysis was performed for comparable studies which reported sufficient data.

RESULTS

The majority of the 29 included studies were small, with limited follow-up and methodological flaws. They were mostly conducted in Europe and high-income countries. Reporting of data was heterogeneous. No significant difference in neonatal mortality, neonatal intensive care unit/special care baby unit admission rate, Apgar scores, umbilical cord gases or infection rates was found between babies delivered into water and on land.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis did not identify definitive evidence that waterbirth causes harm to neonates compared with land birth. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that there are no additional risks or benefits for neonates when comparing waterbirth and conventional delivery on land.

Maternal and Newborn Outcomes Following Waterbirth: The Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, 2004 to 2009 Cohort

INTRODUCTION

Data on the safety of waterbirth in the United States are lacking.

METHODS

We used data from the Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, birth years 2004 to 2009. We compared outcomes of neonates born underwater waterbirth (n = 6534), neonates not born underwater nonwaterbirth (n = 10,290), and neonates whose mothers intended a waterbirth but did not have one intended waterbirth (n = 1573). Neonatal outcomes included a 5-minute Apgar score of less than 7, neonatal hospital transfer, and hospitalization or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission in the first 6 weeks. Maternal outcomes included genital tract trauma, postpartum hospital transfer, and hospitalization or infection (uterine, endometrial, perineal) in the first 6 weeks. We used logistic regression for all analyses, controlling for primiparity.

RESULTS

Waterbirth neonates experienced fewer negative outcomes than nonwaterbirth neonates: the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for hospital transfer was 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.68; P < .001); the aOR for infant hospitalization in the first 6 weeks was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.88; P < .001); and the aOR for NICU admission was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46-0.76; P < .001). By comparison, neonates in the intended waterbirth group experienced more negative outcomes than the nonwaterbirth group, although only 5-minute Apgar score was significant (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.40-2.93; P < 0001). For women, waterbirth (compared to nonwaterbirth) was associated with fewer postpartum transfers (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.84; P = .001) and hospitalizations in the first 6 weeks (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87; P < 0.001) but with an increased odds of genital tract trauma (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04-1.18; P = .002). Waterbirth was not associated with maternal infection. Women in the intended waterbirth group had increased odds for all maternal outcomes compared to women in the nonwaterbirth group, although only genital tract trauma was significant (aOR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.49-1.87; P < .001).

DISCUSSION

Waterbirth confers no additional risk to neonates; however, waterbirth may be associated with increased risk of genital tract trauma for women.

WATER BIRTH IN A MATERNITY hospital OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY HEALTH SECTOR IN SANTA CATARINA, BRAZIL: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

ABSTRACT The aim of this cross-sectional study was to identify the prevalence of water births in a maternity hospital of Santa Catarina, Brazil, and to investigate the association between sociodemographic and obstetric variables and water birth. The sample consisted of 973 women who had normal births between June 2007 and May 2013. Data was analyzed through descriptive and bivariate statistics, and estimated prevalence and tested associations through the use of the chi-square test; the unadjusted and adjusted odds ratio were calculated. The prevalence of water births was 13.7%. Of the 153 women who had water birth, most were aged between 20 to 34 years old (122), had a companion (112), a college degree (136), were primiparous (101), had a pregnancy without complications (129) and were admitted in active labor (94). There was no association between sociodemographic characteristics and obstetric outcomes in the bivariate and multivariate analyses and in the adjusted model. Only women with private sources for payment had the opportunity to give birth in water.

Water birth in the hospital setting

Many women seek alternative birth methods, including water immersion for labor and birth, which several hospitals now offer. Although thousands of water births have occurred with few adverse outcomes documented, research findings on water birth have been sparse and mixed, and further study is necessary. Clinicians should discuss the potential risks and benefits of water birth and utilize informed decision-making with women desiring this option. With careful selection and informed decision-making, water birth should continue to be a choice for parents considering birth options.

[Advantages and disadvantages of water birth. A systematic review of the literature]

CONTEXT

Water birth is under debate among professionals. For the proponents of this approach, immersion in water during labour and birth may increase maternal relaxation, reduce analgesia requirements and promote a model of obstetric care more focused on the needs of mothers, particularly the empowerment of women to realize their full potential. In contrast, major critics cite a risk of inhalation of water for the newborn and a risk of infection for the mother and the newborn.

OBJECTIVE

This review tracks the state of scientific knowledge about water birth in order to determine if it can be generalized in hospitals.

METHOD

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Database. The period covered is from January 1989 to May 2013. The level of evidence of the studies was assessed with the analysis guide of the Haute Autorité de santé.

RESULTS

The level of evidence of the studies identified goes from moderate to low, particularly as regard to studies analysing the expulsion phase.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to recommend immersion in water during the labour phase. No recommendation can be made as regard to the foetal expulsion phase.

Nonpharmacologic approaches for pain management during labor compared with usual care: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of nonpharmacologic approaches to pain relief during labor, according to their endogenous mechanism of action, on obstetric interventions, maternal, and neonatal outcomes.

DATA SOURCE

Cochrane library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the MRCT databases were used to screen studies from January 1990 to December 2012.

STUDY SELECTION

According to Cochrane criteria, we selected randomized controlled trials that compared nonpharmacologic approaches for pain relief during labor to usual care, using intention-to-treat method.

RESULTS

Nonpharmacologic approaches, based on Gate Control (water immersion, massage, ambulation, positions) and Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Control (acupressure, acupuncture, electrical stimulation, water injections), are associated with a reduction in epidural analgesia and a higher maternal satisfaction with childbirth. When compared with nonpharmacologic approaches based on Central Nervous System Control (education, attention deviation, support), usual care is associated with increased odds of epidural OR 1.13 (95% CI 1.05-1.23), cesarean delivery OR 1.60 (95% CI 1.18-2.18), instrumental delivery OR 1.21 (95% CI 1.03-1.44), use of oxytocin OR 1.20 (95% CI 1.01-1.43), labor duration (29.7 min, 95% CI 4.5-54.8), and a lesser satisfaction with childbirth. Tailored nonpharmacologic approaches, based on continuous support, were the most effective for reducing obstetric interventions.

CONCLUSION

Nonpharmacologic approaches to relieve pain during labor, when used as a part of hospital pain relief strategies, provide significant benefits to women and their infants without causing additional harm.

Immersion in water during labor and delivery

Immersion in water has been suggested as a beneficial alternative for labor, delivery, or both and over the past decades has gained popularity in many parts of the world. Immersion in water during the first stage of labor may be associated with decreased pain or use of anesthesia and decreased duration of labor. However, there is no evidence that immersion in water during the first stage of labor otherwise improves perinatal outcomes, and it should not prevent or inhibit other elements of care. The safety and efficacy of immersion in water during the second stage of labor have not been established, and immersion in water during the second stage of labor has not been associated with maternal or fetal benefit. Given these facts and case reports of rare but serious adverse effects in the newborn, the practice of immersion in the second stage of labor (underwater delivery) should be considered an experimental procedure that only should be performed within the context of an appropriately designed clinical trial with informed consent. Facilities that plan to offer immersion in the first stage of labor need to establish rigorous protocols for candidate selection, maintenance and cleaning of tubs and immersion pools, infection control procedures, monitoring of mothers and fetuses at appropriate intervals while immersed, and immediately and safely moving women out of the tubs if maternal or fetal concerns develop.

A retrospective comparison of water birth and conventional vaginal birth among women deemed to be low risk in a secondary level hospital in Australia

BACKGROUND

Water birth involves the complete birth of the baby under warm water. There is a lack of consensus regarding the safety of water birth.

AIM

This study aimed to describe the maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with water birth among labouring women deemed at low risk for obstetric complications and compare these outcomes against women of similar risk who had a standard land birth.

METHOD

A retrospective audit and comparison of women giving birth in water with a matched cohort who birthed on land at Bankstown hospital over a 10 year period (2000-2009).

RESULTS

In total 438 childbearing women were selected for this study (N=219 in each arm). Primigravida women represented 42% of the study population. There was no significant difference in mean duration of both first and second stages of labour or postpartum blood loss between the two birth groups. There were no episiotomies performed in the water birth arm which was significantly different to the comparison group (N=33, p<0.001). There were more babies in the water birth group with an Apgar score of 7 or less at 1min (compared to land births). However, at 5min there was no difference in Apgar scores between the groups. Three of eight special care nursery admissions in the water birth group were related to feeding difficulties.

CONCLUSION

This is the largest study on water birth in an Australian setting. Despite the limitations of a retrospective audit the findings make a contribution to the growing body of knowledge on water birth.

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

OBJECTIVE

the aim of this study was to compare the use of synthetic oxytocin for augmentation, duration of labour and birth and infant outcomes in nulliparous women randomised to birth on a birth seat or any other position.

STUDY DESIGN

a randomised controlled trial in Sweden where 1002 women were randomised to birth on a birth seat (experimental group) or birth in any other position (control group). Data were collected between November 2006 and July 2009. The outcome measurements included synthetic oxytocin augmentation, duration of the second stage of labour and fetal outcome. Analysis was by intention to treat.

SETTING

southern Sweden.

FINDINGS

the main findings of this study were that women randomised to the experimental group had a statistically significant shorter second stage of labour than women randomised to the control group. There were no differences between the groups for use of synthetic oxytocin augmentation or for neonatal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

women allocated to the birth seat had a significantly shorter second stage of labour despite similar numbers of women subjected to synthetic oxytocin augmentation in the study groups. The adverse neonatal outcomes did not differ between groups. The birth seat can be suggested as non-medical intervention used to reduce duration of second stage labour and birth. The birth seat can be suggested as a non-medical intervention that may facilitate reduced duration of the second stage of labour. Furthermore it is recommended that caregivers, both midwives and midwifery students, should learn skills to assist women in using a variety of birth positions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

unique Protocol ID: Dnr 2009/739 (register.clinicaltrials.gov).

Water births and the research required to assess the benefits versus the harms

The questions that must be asked about any health-care intervention, including the use of immersion in the second stage of labour with birth into the water, are: is it useful?, does it do any harm? and do any benefits outweigh any harms? There is little subjective evidence (and no reliable, objective evidence) of any benefit to the mother or baby from water birth. There are reports of uncommon, yet significant, adverse outcomes for babies including deaths and significant morbidity directly attributed to water birth. There are also sound physiological mechanisms that can readily explain the significant adverse outcomes reported. It remains unknown whether any benefits from water birth outweigh any harms given the small number of underpowered studies available. An appropriately sized randomised controlled trial of good quality remains the only reliable way to assess both the efficacy and the safety of water births. Babies should not be born into water unless enrolled in such trials.

The effects of immersion in water on labor, birth and newborn and comparison with epidural analgesia and conventional vaginal delivery

OBJECTIVE

To document the practice of labour in water, to assess the effects of water immersion during labor and/or birth (labour stages 1, 2 and 3) on maternal, fetal and neonatal wellbeing and to compare the outcomes and safety with conventional vaginal deliveries and deliveries with epidural analgesia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two-hundred and seven women electing for waterbirth (n=207) were compared with women having conventional vaginal deliveries (n=204) and vaginal deliveries with epidural analgesia (n=191). Demographic data, length of 1(st), 2(nd) and 3(rd) stage of labor, induction and episiotomy requirements, perineal trauma, apgar scores, NICU requirements and VAS scores were noted.

RESULTS

The 1(st) stage of labor was shorter in waterbirths compared with vaginal delivery with epidural analgesia but the 2(nd) and 3(rd) stage of labor were shortest in patients having waterbirth compared with conventional vaginal delivery and vaginal delivery with epidural analgesia. Patients having waterbirth had less requirement for induction and episiotomy but had more perineal laceration. All women having waterbirths had reduced analgesia requirements and had lower scores on VAS. There was no difference in terms of NICU admission between the groups. Apgar scores were comparable in both groups. There were no neonatal deaths or neonatal infections during the study.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates the advantages of labor in water in terms of reduction in 2(nd) and 3(rd) stage of labor, reduction in pain and obstetric intervention such as induction or amniotomy.

Immersion in water in labour and birth

BACKGROUND

Enthusiasts suggest that labouring in water and waterbirth increase maternal relaxation, reduce analgesia requirements and promote a midwifery model of care. Sceptics cite the possibility of neonatal water inhalation and maternal/neonatal infection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence from randomised controlled trials about immersion in water during labour and waterbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and caregiver outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (October 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any bath tub/pool with no immersion during labour and/or birth.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. One review author entered data and another checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 11 trials (3146 women); eight related to the first stage of labour, one to the first and second stages, one to early versus late immersion in the first stage of labour, and another to the second stage. We identified no trials evaluating different baths/pools, or the management of third stage of labour.Results for the first stage of labour showed there was a significant reduction in the epidural/spinal/paracervical analgesia/anaesthesia rate amongst women allocated to water immersion compared to controls (478/1254 versus 529/1245; odds ratio (OR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.98, six trials). There was no difference in assisted vaginal deliveries (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06, seven trials), caesarean sections (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.75, eight trials), perineal trauma or maternal infection. There were no differences for Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.01, five trials), neonatal unit admissions (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.62, three trials), or neonatal infection rates (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.50 to 8.07, five trials).A lack of data for some comparisons prevented robust conclusions. Further research is needed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that water immersion during the first stage of labour reduces the use of epidural/spinal analgesia. There is limited information for other outcomes related to water use during the first and second stages of labour, due to intervention and outcome variability. There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring in water or waterbirth. The fact that use of water immersion in labour and birth is now a widely available care option for women threatens the feasibility of a large, multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Maternal and neonatal infections and obstetrical outcome in water birth

OBJECTIVES

The goal of our study was to assess the effect of water birth on obstetrical outcome, the maternal and neonatal infection rate in a selected low risk collective.

STUDY DESIGN

In this prospective observational study (1998-2002) 513 women, wished to have a water birth. The study was approved by the local ethical committee, informed consent was obtained. According to the course of delivery, we compared three groups: woman who had a water birth, a normal vaginal delivery after immersion and a normal vaginal delivery without immersion. Outcome measurements were maternal and fetal infection rate, obstetrical outcome parameters and relevant laboratory parameters.

RESULTS

The groups were comparable in terms of demographic and obstetric data. The maternal and neonatal infection rate and laboratory parameters showed no significant difference among the groups. There was no maternal infection related to water birth. There were five water born neonates and three neonates after normal vaginal delivery preceded by immersion with conjunctivitis. Significant differences were observed in obstetrical outcome parameters: less use of analgesia, shorter duration of first and second stage of labor, smaller episiotomy rate in water birth. In contrast no differences were seen in all observed fetal outcome parameters: APGAR score, arterial and venous pH, admission rate to neonatal intensive care unit.

CONCLUSIONS

Water birth is a valuable alternative to traditional delivery. The maternal and fetal infection rate was comparable to traditional deliveries. A careful selection of a low risk collective is essential to minimize potential risks.

Water birth, more than a trendy alternative: a prospective, observational study

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively assess the effect of water birth on maternal and fetal outcomes in a selected low-risk collective of a tertiary obstetrical unit.

METHOD

In this prospective observational study, 513 patients of a low-risk collective, who requested a water birth, were studied during the years 1998-2002. Primary outcome measurements included the maternal and fetal parameters. Secondary outcome measurements comprised data on the incidence of water births in an interested, low-risk population in an academic hospital.

RESULT

All groups were similar in terms of demographic and obstetric data. Significant differences were observed in maternal outcome parameters, which included the use of analgesia/anesthesia during labor, the duration of first and second stages of labor, perineal tears and episiotomy rate. No differences were seen in all observed fetal outcome parameters including APGAR scores, arterial and venous pH, admission rate to neonatal intensive care unit and infection rate.

CONCLUSION

Water birth is a valuable and promising alternative to traditional delivery methods. The maternal and fetal outcomes were similar to traditional land births. However, currently there still exist some deficits in the scientific evaluation of its safety. Therefore, the selection of a low-risk collective is essential to minimize the risks with the addition of strictly maintained guidelines and continuous intrapartum observation and fetal monitoring. Based on our results and the literature, water births are justifiable when certain criteria are met and risk factors are excluded.

Water birth: is the water an additional reservoir for group B streptococcus?

OBJECTIVE

Water birth became popular in the last years, despite the fact that many questions like the risk of infection for the newborn remain unanswered. Group B streptococcal (GBS) infections in the newborn remain a challenge in obstetrics and neonatology.

METHOD

We conducted a prospective trial to study the impact of water birth on the colonization rate of the bath water and, more importantly, the GBS-colonization rate of the newborn.

RESULT

After water birth the bath water was significantly more often colonized with GBS than after immersion followed by a delivery in bed. The newborns, however, showed no difference in GBS colonization and there was even a trend towards less GBS colonization of the newborn after a water delivery.

CONCLUSION

Regarding GBS colonization of the newborn during water birth there might be a wash out effect, which protects the children during the delivery.