-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2024Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low-certainty evidence). We arevery uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low-certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likely reduce instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) from 14% to 13% (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; 14 studies, 17,769 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduceepisiotomy 23% to 19% (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 15 studies, 17,839 participants; low-certainty evidence). When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likelyresult in little to no difference inpostpartum haemorrhage (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 11 studies, 14,407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 13 studies, 16,260 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in induction of labour (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; 14 studies, 17,666 participants; low-certainty evidence), breastfeeding initiation (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 8 studies, 8575 participants; low-certainty evidence), and birth weight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 9 studies, 12,420 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models compared to other models of care onthird or fourth-degree tear (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.49; 7 studies, 9437 participants; very low-certainty evidence), maternal readmission within 28 days (average RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.96; 1 study, 1195 participants; very low-certainty evidence), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 9.13, 95% CI 5.87 to 14.21; 11 studies, 9273 participants; very low-certainty evidence), Apgar score less than or equal to seven at five minutes (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 13 studies, 12,806 participants; very low-certainty evidence) andfetal loss before 24 weeks gestation (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; 12 studies, 15,913 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No maternal deaths were reported across three studies. Although the observed risk of adverse events was similar between midwifery continuity of care models and other models, our confidence in the findings was limited. Our confidence in the findings was lowered by possible risks of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of some estimates. There were no available data for the outcomes: maternal health status, neonatal readmission within 28 days, infant health status, and birth weight of 4000 g or more. Maternal experiences and cost implications are described narratively. Women receiving care from midwife continuity of care models, as opposed to other care models, generally reported more positive experiences during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum. Cost savings were noted in the antenatal and intrapartum periods in midwife continuity of care models.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Women receiving midwife continuity of care models were less likely to experience a caesarean section and instrumental birth, and may be less likely to experience episiotomy. They were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth and report a positive experience. The certainty of some findings varies due to possible risks of bias, inconsistencies, and imprecision of some estimates. Future research should focus on the impact on women with social risk factors, and those at higher risk of complications, and implementation and scaling up of midwife continuity of care models, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries.
Topics: Infant; Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Midwifery; Cesarean Section; Perinatal Death; Birth Weight; Premature Birth; Continuity of Patient Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38597126
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub6 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jun 2024Perineal massage, as a preventive intervention, has been shown to reduce the risk of perineal injuries and may have a positive impact on pelvic floor function in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Perineal massage, as a preventive intervention, has been shown to reduce the risk of perineal injuries and may have a positive impact on pelvic floor function in the early postpartum period. However, there is still debate concerning the best period to apply perineal massage, which is either antenatal or in the second stage of labor, as well as its safety and effectiveness. Meta-analysis was used to evaluate the effect of implementing perineal massage in antenatal versus the second stage of labor on the prevention of perineal injuries during labor and early postpartum pelvic floor function in primiparous women.
METHODS
We searched nine different electronic databases from inception to April 16, 2024. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) we included assessed the effects of antenatal and second-stage labor perineal massage in primiparous women. All data were analyzed with Revman 5.3, Stata Statistical Software, and Risk of Bias 2 was used to assess the risk of bias. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the different periods of perineal massage. The primary outcomes were the incidence of perineal integrity and perineal injury. Secondary outcomes were perineal pain, duration of the second stage of labor, postpartum hemorrhage, urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and flatus incontinence.
RESULTS
This review comprised a total of 10 studies that covered 1057 primigravid women. The results of the analysis showed that perineal massage during the second stage of labor reduced the perineal pain of primigravid women in the immediate postpartum period compared to the antenatal period, with a statistical value of (MD = -2.29, 95% CI [-2.53, -2.05], P < 0.001). Additionally, only the antenatal stage reported that perineal massage reduced fecal incontinence (P = 0.04) and flatus incontinence (P = 0.01) in primiparous women at three months postpartum, but had no significant effect on urinary incontinence in primiparous women at three months postpartum (P = 0.80).
CONCLUSIONS
Reducing perineal injuries in primiparous women can be achieved by providing perineal massage both antenatally and during the second stage of labor. Pelvic floor function is improved in the postnatal phase by perineal massage during the antenatal stage.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42023415996 (PROSPERO).
Topics: Humans; Female; Perineum; Massage; Pregnancy; Pelvic Floor; Parity; Postpartum Period; Labor Stage, Second; Obstetric Labor Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Fecal Incontinence
PubMed: 38831257
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-06586-w -
International Wound Journal Apr 2024The efficacy of episiotomy, particularly the angle of incision in mediolateral episiotomies, remains a significant area of inquiry in obstetrics. This meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evaluation of perineal wound healing and pain outcomes after low-angle mediolateral episiotomy in women undergoing vaginal childbirth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
The efficacy of episiotomy, particularly the angle of incision in mediolateral episiotomies, remains a significant area of inquiry in obstetrics. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of low-angle mediolateral episiotomy on perineal wound healing and pain outcomes in women undergoing vaginal childbirth. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted using the PICO framework. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving low-angle mediolateral episiotomies. Comprehensive literature searches were performed across major electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. Data extraction and quality assessments were meticulously carried out by independent reviewers, employing the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. A total of 1246 articles were initially identified, with 8 articles meeting the strict inclusion criteria for the final analysis. The meta-analysis revealed significant heterogeneity among studies regarding postoperative pain (p < 0.0001, I = 77.5%), and employed a random-effects model. Results showed that low-angle episiotomies significantly reduced postoperative pain (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17-0.42, p < 0.001), and increased first-degree healing rates (OR = 2.95, 95% CI: 2.20-3.96, p < 0.001) compared to traditional angles. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of these findings, and no significant publication bias was detected. The analysis suggests that low-angle episiotomies can potentially reduce postoperative perineal pain and enhance wound healing. However, the limited number and varying quality of the included studies warrant cautious interpretation of these results. Further well-designed studies are needed to corroborate these findings and guide clinical practice.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Episiotomy; Pain, Postoperative; Databases, Factual; Perineum; Postoperative Period
PubMed: 38512112
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14826 -
World Journal of Urology May 2024Transperineal Prostate Biopsy (TPB) is a commonly used technique for the diagnosis of prostate cancer due to growing concerns related to infectious complications...
BACKGROUND
Transperineal Prostate Biopsy (TPB) is a commonly used technique for the diagnosis of prostate cancer due to growing concerns related to infectious complications associated with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSB). TPB is associated with an infective complication rate of near zero, however, acute urinary retention (AUR) remains the leading complication causing morbidity. Previously in TRUSB, there was weak evidence that alpha-blockers reduce AUR rates, and their usage has been extrapolated to clinical practice with TPB. This review aims to explore if there is an evidence base for using alpha-blockers to prevent AUR following TPB.
METHODS
A systematic approach was used to search Ovid Medline and Embase using keywords related to "Transperineal" and "Retention". Articles were then screened by applying inclusion and exclusion criteria to find studies that compared alpha-blocker recipients to no alpha-blocker use in the perioperative period and the subsequent effect on AUR in TPB.
RESULTS
361 records were identified in the initial search to produce 5 studies included in the final review. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. One observational study showed a reduction in AUR rate from 12.5% to 5.3% with a single dose of tamsulosin. A previous systematic review of complications associated with prostate biopsy concluded there may be a potential benefit to alpha-blockers given in the TPB perioperative period. Three observational studies demonstrated a harmful effect related to alpha-blocker use; however, this was well explained by their clear limitations.
CONCLUSION
Based on this review and the extrapolation from TRUSB data, perioperative alpha-blockers may offer some weak benefits in preventing AUR following TPB. However, there is significant scope and need for an RCT to further develop the evidence base further given the significant gap in the literature and lack of a standard alpha blocker protocol in TPB.
Topics: Humans; Male; Urinary Retention; Prostate; Perineum; Prostatic Neoplasms; Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Postoperative Complications; Image-Guided Biopsy
PubMed: 38758413
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-05001-5