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

Effect of Flexible Sacrum Position on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Public Health Facilities, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Restricting women giving birth in health care facilities from choosing the most comfortable position during labor and birth is a global problem. This study was aimed to examine the effect of flexible sacrum birth positions on maternal and neonatal outcomes in public health facilities in Ethiopia's Amhara Region. A non-equivalent control group post-test-only design was employed at public health facilities from August to November 2019. A total of 1048 participants were enrolled and assigned to intervention or control groups based on their choice of birth position. Participants who preferred the flexible sacrum birth position received the intervention, while participants who preferred the supine birth position were placed in the control group. Data were collected using observational follow-up from admission to immediate postpartum period. Log binomial logistic regression considering as treated analysis was used. Of the total participants, 970 women gave birth vaginally, of whom 378 were from the intervention group, and 592 were from the control group. The intervention decreased the chance of perineal tear and poor Apgar score by 43 and 39%, respectively. The flexible sacrum position reduced the duration of the second stage of labor by a mean difference of 26 min. Maternal and newborn outcomes were better in the flexible sacrum position.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Swedish fathers' experiences of childbirth in relation to maternal birth position: a mixed method study

BACKGROUND

Fathers often want to be involved in labour and birth.

AIM

To investigate how maternal birth position during second stage of labour may influence fathers' experience of childbirth.

METHODS

Mixed method study with 221 Swedish fathers completing an on-line questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis were used.

RESULTS

In total 174 (78.7%) had a positive overall birth experience. The theme An emotional life-changing event influenced by the birth process and the structure of obstetrical care was revealed and included the categories; Midwives ability to be professional, The birth process' impact, and Being prepared to participate. The most frequently utilised birth position during a spontaneous vaginal birth was birth seat (n=83; 45.1%), and the fathers in this group were more likely to assess the birth position as very positive (n=40; 54.8%) compared to other upright and horizontal birth positions. Fathers with a partner having an upright birth position were more likely to have had a positive birth experience (p=0.048), to have felt comfortable (p=0.003) and powerful (p=0.019) compared to women adopting a horizontal birth position during a spontaneous vaginal birth. When the women had an upright birth position the fathers deemed the second stage of labour to have been more rapid (mean VAS 7.01 vs. 4.53) compared to women in a horizontal birth position.

CONCLUSION

An upright birth position enhances fathers' experience of having been positively and actively engaged in the birth process. Midwives can enhance fathers' feelings of involvement and participation by attentiveness through interaction and communicating skills.