-
International Urogynecology Journal Sep 2020Most vaginal births are associated with trauma to the perineum. The morbidity associated with perineal trauma can be significant, especially when it leads to third- and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
Most vaginal births are associated with trauma to the perineum. The morbidity associated with perineal trauma can be significant, especially when it leads to third- and fourth-degree perineal tears. We hypothesized that antenatal perineal massage could decrease the incidence of perineal trauma, particularly severe perineal tears and other postpartum complications.
METHODS
We searched four different databases from inception until August 2019 for the available trials. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed the effect of antenatal perineal massage (intervention group) versus control group (no antenatal perineal massage) in perineal trauma patients. Data were extracted from eligible studies and meta-analyzed using RevMan software. Primary outcomes were the risk of episiotomies and perineal tears. Secondary outcomes were perineal pain, second stage of labor duration, wound healing, anal incontinence, and Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min.
RESULTS
Eleven RCTs with 3467 patients were analyzed. Women who received antenatal perineal massage had significantly lower incidence of episiotomies (RR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.72, 0.87], p < 0.001) and perineal tears (RR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.67, 0.94], p = 0.007), particularly the risk of third- and fourth-degree perineal tears (p = 0.03). Better wound healing and less perineal pain were evident in the antenatal perineal massage group. Antenatal perineal massage reduced the second stage of labor duration (p = 0.005) and anal incontinence (p = 0.003) with significant improvement in Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min (p = 0.01 and p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
Antenatal perineal massage is associated with a lower risk of severe perineal trauma and postpartum complications.
Topics: Delivery, Obstetric; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Massage; Morbidity; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32399905
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04302-8 -
International Journal of Gynaecology... Oct 2018Pelvic floor interventions during pregnancy could reduce the impact of pregnancy and delivery on the pelvic floor. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pelvic floor interventions during pregnancy could reduce the impact of pregnancy and delivery on the pelvic floor.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effects of pelvic floor interventions during pregnancy on childbirth-related and pelvic floor parameters.
SEARCH STRATEGY
PubMed, Embase, and LILACS were searched for reports published during between 1990 and 2016 in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. The search terms were "pregnancy," "pelvic floor muscle training," and related terms.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials with healthy pregnant women were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Baseline and outcome data (childbirth-related parameters, pelvic floor symptoms) were compared for three interventions: EPI-NO (Tecsana, Munich, Germany) perineal dilator, pelvic floor muscle training, and perineal massage.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 22 trials were included. Two of three papers assessing EPI-NO showed no benefit. The largest study investigating pelvic floor muscle training reported a significant reduction in the duration of the second stage of labor (P<0.01), and this intervention also reduced the incidence of urinary incontinence (evaluated in 10 trials). Two of six trials investigating perineal massage reported that a lower rate of perineal pain was associated with this intervention.
CONCLUSION
Pelvic floor muscle training and perineal massage improved childbirth-related parameters and pelvic floor symptoms, whereas EPI-NO showed no benefit.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Female; Germany; Humans; Labor, Obstetric; Parturition; Pelvic Floor; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 29705985
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12513 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.
OBJECTIVES
To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (25 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e. regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death using the GRADE methodology: all primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = eight; high quality) and less all fetal loss before and after 24 weeks plus neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = four), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss less than 24 weeks and neonatal death (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = seven), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = three) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = seven). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss equal to/after 24 weeks and neonatal death, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and all fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.
Topics: Amnion; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Continuity of Patient Care; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Midwifery; Models, Organizational; Patient Satisfaction; Perinatal Care; Postnatal Care; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27121907
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub5 -
BMJ Open Jul 2022Water 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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 I 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.
Topics: Female; Humans; Immersion; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Obstetric; Natural Childbirth; Pain; Parturition; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35790327
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056517 -
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology Feb 2020To conduct a systematic review of the literature on patients with extrapelvic deep endometriosis.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of the literature on patients with extrapelvic deep endometriosis.
DATA SOURCES
A thorough search of the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Studies in the last 20 years that reported on primary extrapelvic endometriosis were included (PROSPERO registration number CRD42019125370).
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
The initial search identified 5465 articles, and 179 articles, mostly case reports and series, were included. A total of 230 parietal (PE), 43 visceral (VE), 628 thoracic (TE), 6 central nerve system, 12 extrapelvic muscle or nerve, and 1 nasal endometriosis articles were identified. Abdominal endometriosis was divided into PE and VE. PE lesions involved primary lesions of the abdominal wall, groin, and perineum. When present, symptoms included a palpable mass (99%), cyclic pain (71%) and cyclic bleeding (48%). Preoperative clinical suspicion was low, the use of tissue diagnosis was indeterminate (25%), and a few (8%) malignancies were suspected. Surgical treatment for PE included wide local excision (97%), with 5% recurrence and no complications. Patients with VE involving abdominal organs - kidneys, liver, pancreas, and biliary tract - were treated surgically (86%) with both conservative (51%) and radical resection (49%), with 15% recurrence and 2 major complications reported. In patients with TE involving the diaphragm, pleura, and lung, isolated and concomitant lesions occurred and favored the right side (80%). Patients with TE presented with the triad of catamenial pain, pneumothorax, and hemoptysis. Thoracoscopy with resection followed by pleurodesis was the most common procedure performed, with 29% recurrence. Adjuvant medical therapy with gonadotropin-releasing hormone was administered in 15% of cases. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging was performed in all cases of nonthoracic and nonabdominal endometriosis. Common symptoms were paresthesia and cyclic pain with radiation. Surgical resection was reported in 84%, with improvement of symptoms.
CONCLUSION
Extrapelvic endometriosis, traditionally thought to be rare, has been reported in a considerable number of cases. Heightened awareness and clinical suspicion of the disease and a multidisciplinary approach are recommended to achieve a prompt diagnosis and optimize patient outcomes. Currently, there are no comparative studies to provide recommendations regarding optimal diagnostic methods, treatment options, and outcomes for endometriosis involving extrapelvic sites.
Topics: Adult; Diaphragm; Endometriosis; Female; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Muscular Diseases; Nervous System Diseases; Pneumothorax; Recurrence; Thoracic Diseases; Thoracoscopy
PubMed: 31618674
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.10.004 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Most vaginal births are associated with trauma to the genital tract. The morbidity associated with perineal trauma can be significant, especially when it comes to third-... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Most vaginal births are associated with trauma to the genital tract. The morbidity associated with perineal trauma can be significant, especially when it comes to third- and fourth-degree tears. Different interventions including perineal massage, warm or cold compresses, and perineal management techniques have been used to prevent trauma. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of perineal techniques during the second stage of labour on the incidence and morbidity associated with perineal trauma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (26 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating perineal techniques during the second stage of labour. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and evaluated methodological quality. We checked data for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-two trials were eligible for inclusion (with 20 trials involving 15,181 women providing data). Overall, trials were at moderate to high risk of bias; none had adequate blinding, and most were unclear for both allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. Interventions compared included the use of perineal massage, warm and cold compresses, and other perineal management techniques.Most studies did not report data on our secondary outcomes. We downgraded evidence for risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision for all comparisons. Hands off (or poised) compared to hands onHands on or hands off the perineum made no clear difference in incidence of intact perineum (average risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.12, two studies, Tau² 0.00, I² 37%, 6547 women; moderate-quality evidence), first-degree perineal tears (average RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.77, two studies, 700 women; low-quality evidence), second-degree tears (average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.28, two studies, 700 women; low-quality evidence), or third- or fourth-degree tears (average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.26, five studies, Tau² 0.92, I² 72%, 7317 women; very low-quality evidence). Substantial heterogeneity for third- or fourth-degree tears means these data should be interpreted with caution. Episiotomy was more frequent in the hands-on group (average RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79, Tau² 0.07, I² 74%, four studies, 7247 women; low-quality evidence), but there was considerable heterogeneity between the four included studies.There were no data for perineal trauma requiring suturing. Warm compresses versus control (hands off or no warm compress)A warm compress did not have any clear effect on the incidence of intact perineum (average RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21; 1799 women; four studies; moderate-quality evidence), perineal trauma requiring suturing (average RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.66; 76 women; one study; very low-quality evidence), second-degree tears (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 274 women; two studies; very low-quality evidence), or episiotomy (average RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.23; 1799 women; four studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether warm compress increases or reduces the incidence of first-degree tears (average RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.79; 274 women; two studies; I² 88%; very low-quality evidence).Fewer third- or fourth-degree perineal tears were reported in the warm-compress group (average RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.79; 1799 women; four studies; moderate-quality evidence). Massage versus control (hands off or routine care)The incidence of intact perineum was increased in the perineal-massage group (average RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.73, six studies, 2618 women; I² 83% low-quality evidence) but there was substantial heterogeneity between studies). This group experienced fewer third- or fourth-degree tears (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.94, five studies, 2477 women; moderate-quality evidence).There were no clear differences between groups for perineal trauma requiring suturing (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.61, one study, 76 women; very low-quality evidence), first-degree tears (average RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.05, five studies, Tau² 0.47, I² 85%, 537 women; very low-quality evidence), or second-degree tears (average RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.12, five studies, Tau² 0.32, I² 62%, 537 women; very low-quality evidence). Perineal massage may reduce episiotomy although there was considerable uncertainty around the effect estimate (average RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.03, seven studies, Tau² 0.43, I² 92%, 2684 women; very low-quality evidence). Heterogeneity was high for first-degree tear, second-degree tear and for episiotomy - these data should be interpreted with caution. Ritgen's manoeuvre versus standard careOne study (66 women) found that women receiving Ritgen's manoeuvre were less likely to have a first-degree tear (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.69; very low-quality evidence), more likely to have a second-degree tear (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.73 to 6.09; very low-quality evidence), and neither more nor less likely to have an intact perineum (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.31; very low-quality evidence). One larger study reported that Ritgen's manoeuvre did not have an effect on incidence of third- or fourth-degree tears (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.96,1423 women; low-quality evidence). Episiotomy was not clearly different between groups (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03, two studies, 1489 women; low-quality evidence). Other comparisonsThe delivery of posterior versus anterior shoulder first, use of a perineal protection device, different oils/wax, and cold compresses did not show any effects on perineal outcomes. Only one study contributed to each of these comparisons, so data were insufficient to draw conclusions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-quality evidence suggests that warm compresses, and massage, may reduce third- and fourth-degree tears but the impact of these techniques on other outcomes was unclear or inconsistent. Poor-quality evidence suggests hands-off techniques may reduce episiotomy, but this technique had no clear impact on other outcomes. There were insufficient data to show whether other perineal techniques result in improved outcomes.Further research could be performed evaluating perineal techniques, warm compresses and massage, and how different types of oil used during massage affect women and their babies. It is important for any future research to collect information on women's views.
Topics: Anal Canal; Delivery, Obstetric; Episiotomy; Female; Hot Temperature; Humans; Labor Stage, Second; Lacerations; Massage; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28608597
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006672.pub3 -
Reproductive Health Jun 2022Menstrual hygiene management (MHM) and practices by adolescent females of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are a severe public health issue. The current... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Menstrual hygiene management (MHM) and practices by adolescent females of low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are a severe public health issue. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of the hygiene practices, menstrual problems with their associated factors, and the effectiveness of educational interventions on menstrual hygiene among adolescent school girls in India.
METHODS
PRISMA checklist and PICO guidelines were used to screen the scientific literature from 2011 to 2021. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of studies. Four themes were developed for data analysis, including hygiene practices, type of absorbent used, menstruation associated morbidities and interventions performed regarding menstruation. Eighty-four relevant studies were included and a meta-analysis, including subgroup analysis, was performed.
RESULTS
Pooled data revealed a statistically significant increase in sanitary pad usage "(SMD = 48.83, 95% CI = 41.38-57.62, p < 0.00001)" and increased perineum practices during menstruation "(SMD = 55.77, 95% CI = 44.27-70.26, p < 0.00001)". Results also reported that most prevalent disorders are dysmenorrhea "(SMD = 60.24, 95% CI = 50.41-70.06, p < 0.0001)", Pre-menstrual symptoms "(SMD = 62.67, 95% CI = 46.83-78.50, p < 0.00001)", Oligomenorrhea "(SMD = 23.57, CI = 18.05-29.10, p < 0.00001), Menorrhagia "(SMD = 25.67, CI = 3.86-47.47, p < 0.00001)", PCOS "(SMD = 5.50, CI = 0.60-10.40, p < 0.00001)", and Polymenorrhea "(SMD = 4.90, CI = 1.87-12.81, p < 0.0001)". A statistically significant improvement in knowledge "(SMD = 2.06, 95% CI = 0.75-3.36, p < 0.00001)" and practice "(SMD = 1.26, 95% CI = 0.13-2.65, p < 0.00001)" on menstruation was observed. Infections of the reproductive system and their repercussions can be avoided with better awareness and safe menstruation practices.
CONCLUSIONS
Learning about menstrual hygiene and health is essential for adolescent girls' health education to continue working and maintaining hygienic habits. Infections of the reproductive system and their repercussions can be avoided with better awareness and safe menstruation practices.
Topics: Adolescent; Female; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Hygiene; India; Menstrual Hygiene Products; Menstruation; Schools
PubMed: 35739585
DOI: 10.1186/s12978-022-01453-3 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Feb 2023Perineal massage during childbirth has been recommended as an effective measure to prevent perineal injury. However, the overall effects of perineal massage during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Perineal massage during childbirth has been recommended as an effective measure to prevent perineal injury. However, the overall effects of perineal massage during childbirth on maternal and neonatal outcomes in primiparous women remain inconclusive. Particularly, the effects of perineal massage begun during different stages of labor need to be further investigated.
OBJECTIVES
To comprehensively review the effects of perineal massage during childbirth on primiparous health outcomes, including perineal-related outcomes, duration of labor, hemorrhage and postpartum perineal pain, and neonatal outcomes, including Apgar scores and neonatal complications, and to further explore the effects of perineal massage begun during different stages of labor.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis following the Cochrane Handbook guidelines and PRISMA2020.
METHODS
A systematic search strategy was developed following the three-phase search approach, and the literature search was conducted in electronic databases and clinical trial registers from inception to 7th January 2022. Study selection and data extraction were completed independently by two researchers. The updated Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool for randomized trials was chosen to evaluate the quality of included studies. Data analyses were conducted using the Revman5.4 software, and subgroup analyses were performed based on the different start times of perineal massage. Furthermore, the certainty of body of evidence for each outcome was assessed utilizing the GRADEpro online tool.
RESULTS
Seventeen randomized controlled trials involving 3248 primiparous women were included in the review. The pooled results of meta-analyses indicated that perineal massage begun during the second stage of labor significantly increased the occurrence of intact perineum (RR = 2.78, 95 % CI: [1.52, 5.05], P < 0.001), reduced the rate of second- and third-degree perineal lacerations (P < 0.05), and decreased the incidence of episiotomy (RR = 0.63, 95 % CI: [0.50, 0.79], P < 0.001), while perineal massage during the first stage of labor effectively shortened the duration of the first and second stages of labor (P < 0.05). The available evidence also suggests the potential role of perineal massage on hemorrhage and long-term postpartum perineal pain (P < 0.05). However, the aggregated results failed to demonstrate the beneficial effects of perineal massage on neonatal outcomes (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Perineal massage begun during the second stage of labor effectively improves the perineal-related outcomes in primiparous women, while perineal massage during the first stage of labor significantly shortens the duration of labor. High-quality studies exploring the standardized procedure for perineal massage and the short- and long-term effects of perineal massage are warranted.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022302336 (PROSPERO).
Topics: Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Perineum; Obstetric Labor Complications; Delivery, Obstetric; Massage; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36442355
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104390 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017For centuries, there has been controversy around whether being upright (sitting, birthing stools, chairs, squatting, kneeling) or lying down (lateral (Sim's) position,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Anesthesia, Epidural; Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Episiotomy; Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Labor Stage, Second; Patient Positioning; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Supine Position; Time Factors; Uterine Hemorrhage
PubMed: 28539008
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002006.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery-led care settings.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Analgesia, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Immersion; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Newborn, Diseases; Infections; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Labor Stage, First; Labor Stage, Second; Natural Childbirth; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Water
PubMed: 29768662
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub4