-
Cancers Mar 2021Perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease is a very disabling condition with poor quality of life. Patients with perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease are also at risk of... (Review)
Review
Perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease is a very disabling condition with poor quality of life. Patients with perianal fistulizing Crohn's disease are also at risk of perianal fistula-related squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Cancer arising at the site of a chronic perianal fistula is rare in patients with Crohn's disease and there is a paucity of data regarding its incidence, diagnosis and management. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using Medline, Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane and Web of Science. Several small series have described sporadic cases with perianal cancer in Crohn's disease. The incidence rate of SCC related to perianal fistula was very low (<1%). Prognosis was poor. Colorectal disease, chronic perianal disease and HPV infection were possible risk factors. Fistula-related carcinoma in CD (Chron's disease) can be very difficult to diagnose. Examination may be limited by pain, strictures and induration of the perianal tissues. HPV is an important risk factor with a particular carcinogenesis mechanism. MRI can help clinicians in diagnosis. Examination under anesthesia is highly recommended when findings, a change in symptoms, or simply long-standing disease in the perineum are present. Future studies are needed to understand the role of HPV vaccination in preventing fistula-related cancer.
PubMed: 33809997
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13061445 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Many women experience perineal pain after childbirth, especially after having sustained perineal trauma. Perineal pain-management strategies are an important part of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many women experience perineal pain after childbirth, especially after having sustained perineal trauma. Perineal pain-management strategies are an important part of postnatal care. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a commonly-used type of medication in the management of postpartum pain, and their effectiveness and safety should be assessed. This is an update of a review first published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of a single dose of an oral NSAID for relief of acute perineal pain in the early postpartum period.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 December 2019), OpenSIGLE and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (28 February 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing a single dose of a NSAID versus a single dose of placebo, paracetamol or another NSAID for women with perineal pain in the early postpartum period. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. We included papers in abstract format only if they had sufficient information to determine that they met the review's prespecified inclusion criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (FW and VS) independently assessed all identified papers for inclusion and risks of bias, resolving any discrepancies through discussion. Two review authors independently conducted data extraction, including calculations of pain relief scores, and checked it for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 studies examining 16 different NSAIDs and involving 5136 women (none were breastfeeding). Studies were published between 1967 and 2013. Risk of bias due to random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors was generally unclearly to poorly reported, but participants and caregivers were blinded, and outcome data were generally complete. We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to risk of bias, suspected publication bias, and imprecision for small numbers of participants. NSAID versus placebo Compared to women who receive a placebo, more women who receive a single-dose NSAID may achieve adequate pain relief at four hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 2.23; 10 studies, 1573 women; low-certainty evidence) and at six hours (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.17; 17 studies, 2079 women; very low-certainty evidence), although we are less certain about the effects at six hours. At four hours after administration, women who receive a NSAID are probably less likely to need additional analgesia compared to women who receive placebo (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.58; 4 studies, 486 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may be less likely to need additional analgesia at six hours after initial administration, although the evidence was less certain at six hours (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.40; 10 studies, 1012 women; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported that no adverse events were observed at four hours post-administration (90 women). There may be little or no difference in maternal adverse effects between NSAIDs and placebo at six hours post-administration (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.70; 13 studies, 1388 women; low-certainty evidence). Fourteen maternal adverse effects were reported in the NSAID group (drowsiness (5), abdominal discomfort (2), weakness (1), dizziness (2), headache (2), moderate epigastralgia (1), not specified (1)) and eight in the placebo group (drowsiness (2), light-headedness (1), nausea (1), backache (1), dizziness (1), epigastric pain (1), not specified (1)), although not all studies assessed adverse effects. Neonatal adverse effects were not assessed in any of the studies. NSAID versus paracetamol NSAIDs may lead to more women achieving adequate pain relief at four hours, compared with paracetamol (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.22; 3 studies, 342 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference in adequate pain relief between NSAIDs and paracetamol at six hours post-administration (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.47; 2 studies, 99 women; very low-certainty evidence) or in the need for additional analgesia at four hours (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.13; 1 study, 73 women; very low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may reduce the risk of requiring additional analgesia at six hours compared with paracetamol (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67; 1 study, 59 women; low-certainty evidence). One study reported that no maternal adverse effects were observed at four hours post-administration (210 women). Six hours post-administration, we are uncertain if there is any difference between groups in the number of maternal adverse effects (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.08; 3 studies, 300 women; very low-certainty evidence), with one case of pruritis in the NSAID group and one case of sleepiness in the paracetamol group. Neonatal adverse effects were not assessed in any of the included studies. Comparisons of different NSAIDs or doses did not demonstrate any differences in effectiveness for any primary outcome measures; however, few data were available on some NSAIDs. None of the included studies reported on any of this review's secondary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In women who are not breastfeeding and who sustained perineal trauma, NSAIDs (compared to placebo or paracetamol) may provide greater pain relief for acute postpartum perineal pain and fewer women need additional analgesia, but uncertainty remains, as the evidence is rated as low- or very low-certainty. The risk of bias was unclear for many studies, adverse effects were often not assessed and breastfeeding women were not included. While this review provides some indication of the likely effect, there is uncertainty in our conclusions. The main reasons for downgrading were the inclusion of studies at high risk of bias and inconsistency in the findings of individual studies. Future studies could examine NSAIDs' adverse effects, including neonatal effects and the compatibility of NSAIDs with breastfeeding, and could assess other secondary outcomes. Future research could consider women with and without perineal trauma, including perineal tears. High-quality studies could be conducted to further assess the efficacy of NSAIDs versus paracetamol and the efficacy of multimodal treatments.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Oral; Analgesia; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Humans; Neuralgia; Perineum; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33427305
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011352.pub3 -
Urologia Internationalis 2021Fournier's gangrene (FG) is a sporadic, life-threatening, necrotizing infection affecting the perineum, perineal region, and genitals. Hyperbaric oxygenation (HBO)...
INTRODUCTION
Fournier's gangrene (FG) is a sporadic, life-threatening, necrotizing infection affecting the perineum, perineal region, and genitals. Hyperbaric oxygenation (HBO) improves tissue perfusion and promotes angiogenesis and collagen synthesis. Despite these positive effects of HBO, the indication and the effects on outcome as adjunct therapy in FG remain controversial. Consequently, we decided to perform a systematic review to compare the treatment of FG with or without the use of HBO as an adjunct therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a systematic review following the recommendations provided in the Cochrane Handbook of systematic Reviews and the PRISMA reporting guidelines. Due to the paucity of data and a suspected lack of randomized controlled trials, we considered all the available information for this systematic review.
RESULTS
The literature search for primary studies yielded 79 results. Finally, 13 studies were considered, which included a total of 376 patients with FG, of whom 202 received HBO therapy. Five of these studies had a retrospective case-control design. However, these 5 studies included a total of 319 patients; 145 of these patients were treated with adjunct HBO therapy. Overall, this leads to a mortality rate of 16.6% in the HBO group and 25.9% in the non-HBO group. Overall, risk of bias was assessed as moderate to high.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that despite the risk of bias, HBO has potential as an adjunct in FG treatment, but it is challenging to carry out further studies, mainly due to the rareness of FG and availability of HBO.
Topics: Fournier Gangrene; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation
PubMed: 33285541
DOI: 10.1159/000511615 -
Plastic Surgery (Oakville, Ont.) Nov 2020Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is a life-threatening infection that involves spreading necrosis of the subcutaneous tissue and fascia that affects the extremities, abdominal... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is a life-threatening infection that involves spreading necrosis of the subcutaneous tissue and fascia that affects the extremities, abdominal wall, and perineum. Primary infection of the breast is a rare occurrence. Shah et al described the first case of primary breast NF and recommended radical "pseudotumor" excision and delayed skin closure months after resolution. Numerous other cases reported were successfully managed with different strategies. We aimed to summarize management options for primary breast NF through a systematic review of the literature.
METHODS
A systematic review of English literature was performed using PubMed. A total of 58 abstracts were reviewed. Data were abstracted from 25 cases that met inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
A total of 25 cases of primary NF of the breast without an inciting event were found within the literature. Common initial operations included total mastectomy (36.0%), excisional debridement (32.0%), and partial mastectomy (12.0%). A total or radical mastectomy was completed for definitive source control in 13 (52.0%) cases. A total of 18 cases underwent reconstruction. Split-thickness skin grafts (44.4%) and delayed primary closures (33.3%) were the most common methods of reconstruction.
CONCLUSION
Majority of cases with primary breast NF are managed with a total mastectomy to gain source control. Reconstruction using split-thickness skin grafts was most common. Other options included delayed primary closure, full thickness skin grafts, local tissue rearrangement, and pedicle flap reconstruction. Reconstruction should be patient dependent, but the whole arsenal of the reconstructive ladder may be used.
PubMed: 33215036
DOI: 10.1177/2292550320928557 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Feb 2021Perineal pressure associated with bicycle riding is the cause of several genitourinary pathologies, most notably Alcock's syndrome and subsequent perineal numbness. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Perineal pressure associated with bicycle riding is the cause of several genitourinary pathologies, most notably Alcock's syndrome and subsequent perineal numbness. The possible link between cycling-induced perineal numbness and erectile dysfunction makes the development of strategies for perineal protection in bicycle users critical.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of strategies for reducing the impact of cycling on the perineum in healthy males.
METHODS
We have conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies examining various means of reducing the impact of cycling on the perineum under the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Out of 2217 screened studies, 22 met our inclusion criteria, and 6 qualified for meta-analysis. The strategies included various designs of saddles, changes in the cycling position, seat shock absorber, shorts with different padding, using the recumbent bike. Using the no-nose saddle and recumbent bike resulted in a significant reduction of perineal pressure and higher penile oxygen pressure compared with a standard saddle. Indirect evidence supports the protective effect of standing on the pedals every few minutes during cycling. More evidence is needed to support-or dismiss-other strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence supports the use of no-nose saddles as a mean to reduce the negative impact of cycling on the perineum in healthy males at the cost of worse stability and increase of posterior seat pressure. Standing on the pedals every ten minutes might be an effective and potentially widely applicable strategy. The use of a recumbent bike appears to protect the perineum, but several concerns prevent its widespread use.
Topics: Bicycling; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Oxygen; Penis; Perineum
PubMed: 33074460
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-020-01363-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Perineal trauma is common during childbirth and may be painful. Contemporary maternity practice includes offering women numerous forms of pain relief, including the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Perineal trauma is common during childbirth and may be painful. Contemporary maternity practice includes offering women numerous forms of pain relief, including the local application of cooling treatments. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review last updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of localised cooling treatments compared with no treatment, placebo, or other cooling treatments applied to the perineum for pain relief following perineal trauma sustained during childbirth.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 October 2019) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised trials (RCTs) that compared a localised cooling treatment applied to the perineum with no treatment, placebo, or another cooling treatment applied to relieve pain related to perineal trauma sustained during childbirth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were double checked for accuracy. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs that enrolled 1233 women randomised to the use of one cooling treatment (ice, cold gel pad, cooling plus compression, cooling plus compression plus (being) horizontal) compared with another cooling treatment, no treatment, or placebo (water pack, compression). The included trials were at low or uncertain risk of bias overall, with the exception that the inability to blind participants and personnel to group allocation meant that we rated all trials at unclear or high risk for this domain. We undertook a number of comparisons to evaluate the different treatments. Cooling treatment (ice pack or cold gel pad) versus no treatment There was limited very low-certainty evidence that cooling treatment may reduce women's self-reported perineal pain within four to six hours (mean difference (MD) -4.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to -3.85 on a 10-point scale; 1 study, 100 participants) or between 24 and 48 hours of giving birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94; 1 study, 316 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the various measures of wound healing, for example, wound edges gaping when inspected five days after giving birth (RR 2.56, 95% CI 0.58 to 11.33; 1 study, 315 participants). Women generally rated their satisfaction with perineal care similarly following cooling or no treatment. The potential exception was that there may be a trivially lower mean difference of -0.1 on a five-point scale of psychospiritual comfort with cooling treatment, that is unlikely to be of clinical importance. Cooling treatment (cold gel pad) + compression versus placebo (gel pad + compression) There was limited low-certainty evidence that there may be a trivial MD of -0.43 in pain on a 10-point scale at 24 to 48 hours after giving birth (95% CI -0.73 to -0.13; 1 study, 250 participants) when a cooling treatment plus compression from a well-secured perineal pad was compared with the placebo. Levels of perineal oedema may be similar for the two groups (low-certainty evidence) and perineal bruising was not observed. There was low-certainty evidence that women may rate their satisfaction as being slightly higher with perineal care in the cold gel pad and compression group (MD 0.88, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.38; 1 trial, 250 participants). Cooling treatment (ice pack) versus placebo (water pack) One study reported that no women reported pain after using an ice pack or a water pack when asked within 24 hours of giving birth. There was low-certainty evidence that oedema may be similar for the two groups when assessed at four to six hours (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.86; 1 study, 63 participants) or within 24 hours of giving birth (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.59). No women were observed to have perineal bruising at these times. The trialists reported that no women in either group experienced any adverse effects on wound healing. There was very low-certainty evidence that women may rate their views and experiences with the treatments similarly (for example, satisfied with treatment: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.08; 63 participants). Cooling treatment (ice pack) versus cooling treatment (cold gel pad) The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of using ice packs or cold gel pads on women's self-rated perineal pain, on perineal bruising, or on perineal oedema at four to six hours or within 24 hours of giving birth. Perineal oedema may persist 24 to 48 hours after giving birth in women using the ice packs (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.7; 2 trials, 264 participants; very low-certainty). The risk of gaping wound edges five days after giving birth may be decreased in women who had used ice packs (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.01; 215 participants; very low-certainty). However, this did not appear to persist to day 10 (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 14.81; 214 participants). Women may rate their opinion of treatment less favourably following the use of ice packs five days after giving birth (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; 1 study, 49 participants) and when assessed on day 10 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92; 1 study, 208 participants), both very low-certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited very low-certainty evidence that may support the use of cooling treatments, in the form or ice packs or cold gel pads, for the relief of perineal pain in the first two days following childbirth. It is likely that concurrent use of several treatments is required to adequately address this issue, including prescription and non-prescription analgesia. Studies included in this review involved the use of cooling treatments for 10 to 20 minutes, and although no adverse effects were noted, these findings came from studies of relatively small numbers of women, or were not reported at all. The continued lack of high-certainty evidence of the benefits of cooling treatments should be viewed with caution, and further well-designed trials should be conducted.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Hypothermia, Induced; Pain Management; Parturition; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33034900
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006304.pub4 -
Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem Da U S P 2020To investigate whether the adoption of upright positions by women during childbirth prevents perineal lacerations compared to the lithotomy position. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether the adoption of upright positions by women during childbirth prevents perineal lacerations compared to the lithotomy position.
METHOD
A systematic review with meta-analysis. The searches were carried out in the databases: LILACS, Medline/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Science Direct and Scopus. Searches in the gray literature were conducted on Google Scholar and OpenGrey databases. Reference lists of included articles were also considered. The Cochrane collaboration tool and ACROBAT-NRSI were used to analyze the methodological quality of the articles.
RESULTS
There were 26 studies listed and 8 were selected for the meta-analysis. The level of scientific evidence was classified by the GRADE System and considered high. There was no statistically significant difference between upright positions in relation to horizontal positions. Despite this finding, the upright positions showed reduced rates of severe perineal lacerations.
CONCLUSION
Adopting upright positions in normal delivery can be encouraged by professionals as it can prevent severe perineal lacerations; however, it is not possible to accurately affirm their effectiveness to the detriment of horizontal positions for an intact perineum outcome.
Topics: Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Lacerations; Parturition; Patient Positioning; Perineum; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32935765
DOI: 10.1590/S1980-220X2018027503610 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Jan 2021Closed perineal wounds often fail to heal by primary intention after abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and are often complicated by surgical site infection (SSI) and/or... (Review)
Review
The role of perineal application of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy for prevention of wound-related complications after abdomino-perineal resection: a systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Closed perineal wounds often fail to heal by primary intention after abdomino-perineal resection (APR) and are often complicated by surgical site infection (SSI) and/or wound dehiscence. Recent evidence showed encouraging results of prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy (pNPWT) for prevention of wound-related complications in surgery. Our objective was to gather and discuss the early existing literature regarding the use of pNPWT to prevent wound-related complications on perineal wounds after APR.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for original publications and congress abstracts reporting the use of pNPWT after APR on closed perineal wounds.
RESULTS
Seven publications were included for analysis. Two publications reported significantly lower incidence of SSI in pNPWT patients than in controls with a risk reduction of about 25-30%. Two other publications described similar incidences of SSI between the two groups of patients but described SSI in pNPWT patients to be less severe. One study reported significantly lower incidence of wound dehiscence in pNPWT patients than in controls.
CONCLUSION
The largest non-randomized studies investigating the effect of pNPWT on the prevention of wound-related complications after APR showed encouraging results in terms of reduction of SSI and wound dehiscence that deserve further investigation and confirmation.
Topics: Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Perineum; Proctectomy; Rectal Neoplasms; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32886194
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03732-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Postpartum constipation, with symptoms, such as pain or discomfort, straining, and hard stool, is a common condition affecting mothers. Haemorrhoids, pain at the...
BACKGROUND
Postpartum constipation, with symptoms, such as pain or discomfort, straining, and hard stool, is a common condition affecting mothers. Haemorrhoids, pain at the episiotomy site, effects of pregnancy hormones, and haematinics used in pregnancy can increase the risk of postpartum constipation. Eating a high-fibre diet and increasing fluid intake are usually encouraged. Although laxatives are commonly used in relieving constipation, the effectiveness and safety of available interventions for preventing postpartum constipation should be ascertained. This is an update of a review first published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interventions for preventing postpartum constipation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, and two trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 October 2019), and screened reference lists of retrieved trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention for preventing postpartum constipation versus another intervention, placebo, or no intervention in postpartum women. Interventions could include pharmacological (e.g. laxatives) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. acupuncture, educational and behavioural interventions). Quasi-randomised trials and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion; none were identified. Trials using a cross-over design were not eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. We did not pool results in a meta-analysis, but reported them per study.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five trials (1208 postpartum mothers); three RCTs and two quasi-RCTs. Four trials compared a laxative with placebo; one compared a laxative plus a bulking agent versus the same laxative alone, in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears. Trials were poorly reported, and four of the five trials were published over 40 years ago. We judged the risk of bias to be unclear for most domains. Overall, we found a high risk of selection and attrition bias. Laxative versus placebo We included four trials in this comparison. Two of the trials examined the effects of laxatives that are no longer used; one has been found to have carcinogenic properties (Danthron), and the other is not recommended for lactating women (Bisoxatin acetate); therefore, we did not include their results in our main findings. None of the trials included in this comparison assessed our primary outcomes: pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation, or quality of life; or many of our secondary outcomes. A laxative (senna) may increase the number of women having their first bowel movement within 24 hours after delivery (risk ratio (RR) 2.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24 to 3.75; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); may have little or no effect on the number of women having their first bowel movement on day one after delivery (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.22; 1 trial, 471 women; very low-certainty evidence); may reduce the number of women having their first bowel movement on day two (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.45; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); and day three (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); and may have little or no effect on the number of women having their first bowel movement on day four after delivery (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.87; 1 trial, 471 women; very low-certainty evidence), but some of the evidence is very uncertain. Adverse effects were poorly reported. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the laxative (senna) may increase the number of women experiencing abdominal cramps (RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.19; 1 trial, 471 women). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that laxatives taken by the mother may have little or no effect on loose stools in the baby (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.41; 1 trial, 281 babies); or diarrhoea (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 26.82; 1 trial, 281 babies). Laxative plus bulking agent versus laxative only Very low-certainty evidence from one trial (147 women) suggests no evidence of a difference between these two groups of women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears; only median and range data were reported. The trial also reported no evidence of a difference in the incidence of postpartum constipation (data not reported), but did not report on quality of life. Time to first bowel movement was reported as a median (range); very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two groups. A laxative plus bulking agent may increase the number of women having any episode of faecal incontinence during the first 10 days postpartum (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.23; 1 trial, 147 women; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on adverse effects of the intervention on babies, or many of our secondary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to make general conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of laxatives for preventing postpartum constipation. The evidence in this review was assessed as low to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on limitations in study design, indirectness and imprecision. We did not identify any trials assessing educational or behavioural interventions. We identified four trials that examined laxatives versus placebo, and one that examined laxatives versus laxatives plus stool bulking agents. Further, rigorous trials are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of laxatives during the postpartum period for preventing constipation. Trials should assess educational and behavioural interventions, and positions that enhance defecation. They should report on the primary outcomes from this review: pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation, quality of life, time to first bowel movement after delivery, and adverse effects caused by the intervention, such as: nausea or vomiting, pain, and flatus.
Topics: Adult; Constipation; Defecation; Dietary Fiber; Female; Humans; Laxatives; Perineum; Postpartum Period; Puerperal Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 32761813
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011625.pub3 -
PloS One 2020Both nationally and internationally, midwives' practices during the second stage of labour vary. A midwife's practice can be influenced by education and cultural...
Both nationally and internationally, midwives' practices during the second stage of labour vary. A midwife's practice can be influenced by education and cultural practices but ultimately it should be informed by up-to-date scientific evidence. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to retrieve evidence that supports high quality intrapartum care during the second stage of labour. A systematic literature search was performed to September 2019 in collaboration with a medical information specialist. Bibliographic databases searched included: PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Maternity and Infant Care Database and The Cochrane Library, resulting in 6,382 references to be screened after duplicates were removed. Articles were then assessed for quality by two independent researchers and data extracted. 17 studies focusing on midwives' practices during physiological second stage of labour were included. Two studies surveyed midwives regarding their practice and one study utilising focus groups explored how midwives facilitate women's birthing positions, while another focus group study explored expert midwives' views of their practice of preserving an intact perineum during physiological birth. The remainder of the included studies were primarily intervention studies, highlighting aspects of midwifery practice during the second stage of labour. The empirical findings were synthesised into four main themes namely: birthing positions, non-pharmacological pain relief, pushing techniques and optimising perineal outcomes; the results were outlined and discussed. By implementing this evidence midwives may enable women during the second stage of labour to optimise physiological processes to give birth. There is, however, a dearth of evidence relating to midwives' practice, which provides a positive experience for women during the second stage of labour. Perhaps this is because not all midwives' practices during the second stage of labour are researched and documented. This systematic review provides a valuable insight of the empirical evidence relating to midwifery practice during the physiological second stage of labour, which can also inform education and future research. The majority of the authors were members of the EU COST Action IS1405: Building Intrapartum Research Through Health (BIRTH). The study protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; Registration CRD42018088300) and is published (Verhoeven, Spence, Nyman, Otten, Healy, 2019).
Topics: Female; Focus Groups; Humans; Labor Stage, Second; Midwifery; Patient Positioning; Perineum; Pregnancy; Quality of Health Care
PubMed: 32722680
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226502