-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour (also known as the 'Kristeller manoeuvre') involves application of manual pressure to the uppermost part of the uterus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour (also known as the 'Kristeller manoeuvre') involves application of manual pressure to the uppermost part of the uterus directed towards the birth canal, in an attempt to assist spontaneous vaginal birth and avoid prolonged second stage or the need for operative birth. Fundal pressure has also been applied using an inflatable belt. Fundal pressure is widely used, however methods of its use vary widely. Despite strongly held opinions in favour of and against the use of fundal pressure, there is limited evidence regarding its maternal and neonatal benefits and harms. There is a need for objective evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of fundal pressure in the second stage of labour.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if fundal pressure is effective in achieving spontaneous vaginal birth, and preventing prolonged second stage or the need for operative birth, and to explore maternal and neonatal adverse effects related to fundal pressure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of fundal pressure (manual or by inflatable belt) versus no fundal pressure in women in the second stage of labour with singleton cephalic presentation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two or more review authors independently assessed potential studies for inclusion and quality. We extracted data using a pre-designed form. We entered data into Review Manager 5 software and checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials are included in this updated review. Five trials (3057 women) compared manual fundal pressure versus no fundal pressure. Four trials (891 women) compared fundal pressure by means of an inflatable belt versus no fundal pressure. It was not possible to blind women and staff to this intervention. We assessed two trials as being at high risk of attrition bias and another at high risk of reporting bias. All other trials were low or unclear for other risk of bias domains. Most of the trials had design limitations. Heterogeneity was high for the majority of outcomes. Manual fundal pressure versus no fundal pressureManual fundal pressure was not associated with changes in: spontaneous vaginal birth within a specified time (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.28; 120 women; 1 trial; very low-quality evidence), instrumental births (RR 3.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 79.65; 197 women; 1 trial), caesarean births (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.27; 197 women; 1 trial), operative birth (average RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.55; 317 women; 2 studies; I² = 43%; Tau² = 0.71; very low-quality evidence), duration of second stage (mean difference (MD) -0.80 minutes, 95% CI -3.66 to 2.06 minutes; 194 women; 1 study; very low-quality evidence), low arterial cord pH in newborn babies (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; 297 women; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (average RR 4.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 71.45; 2759 infants; 4 trials; I² = 89%; Tau² = 3.55; very low-quality evidence). More women who received manual fundal pressure had cervical tears than in the control group (RR 4.90, 95% CI 1.09 to 21.98; 295 women; 1 trial). No neonatal deaths occurred in either of the two studies reporting this outcome (very low-quality evidence). No trial reported the outcome severe maternal morbidity or death. Fundal pressure by inflatable belt versus no fundal pressureFundal pressure by inflatable belt did not reduce the number of women havinginstrumental births (average RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 891 women; 4 trials; I² = 52%; Tau² = 0.05) or operative births (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.01; 891 women; 4 trials; I² = 78%; Tau² = 0.14; very low-quality evidence). Heterogeneity was high for both outcomes. Duration of second stage was reported in two trials, which both showed that inflatable belts shortened duration of labour in nulliparous women (average MD -50.80 minutes, 95% CI -94.85 to -6.74 minutes; 253 women; 2 trials; I² = 97%; Tau² = 975.94; very low-quality evidence). No data on this outcome were available for multiparous women. The inflatable belt did not make any difference to rates of caesarean births (average RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.26; 891 women; 4 trials; I² = 70%; Tau² = 0.98), low arterial cord pH in newborn babies (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.55; 461 infants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence), or Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 95.68; 500 infants; 1 trial; very low-quality evidence). Third degree perineal tears were increased in the inflatable belt group (RR 15.69, 95% CI 2.10 to 117.02; 500 women; 1 trial). Spontaneous vaginal birth within a specified time, neonatal death, andsevere maternal morbidity or death were not reported in any trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the beneficial or harmful effects of fundal pressure, either manually or by inflatable belt. Fundal pressure by an inflatable belt during the second stage of labour may shorten duration of second stage for nulliparous women, and lower rates of operative birth. However, existing studies are small and their generalizability is uncertain. There is insufficient evidence regarding safety for the baby. There is no evidence on the use of fundal pressure in specific clinical settings such as inability of the mother to bear down due to exhaustion or unconsciousness. There is currently insufficient evidence for the routine use of fundal pressure by any method on women in the second stage of labour. Because of current widespread use of the procedure and the potential for use in settings where other methods of assisted birth are not available, further good quality trials are needed. Further evaluation in other groups of women (such as multiparous women) will also be required. Future research should describe in detail how fundal pressure was applied and consider safety of the unborn baby, perineal outcomes, longer-term maternal and infant outcomes and maternal satisfaction.
Topics: Apgar Score; Cervix Uteri; Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Labor Stage, Second; Perineum; Pregnancy; Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 28267223
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006067.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Perineal trauma (due to spontaneous tears, surgical incision (episiotomy) or in association with operative vaginal birth) is common after vaginal birth, and is often... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Perineal trauma (due to spontaneous tears, surgical incision (episiotomy) or in association with operative vaginal birth) is common after vaginal birth, and is often associated with postpartum perineal pain. Birth over an intact perineum may also lead to perineal pain. There are adverse health consequences associated with perineal pain for the women and their babies in the short- and long-term, and the pain may interfere with newborn care and the establishment of breastfeeding. Aspirin has been used in the management of postpartum perineal pain and its effectiveness and safety should be assessed.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of a single dose of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), including at different doses, in the relief of acute postpartum perineal pain.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 August 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing single dose aspirin compared with placebo, no treatment, a different dose of aspirin, or single dose paracetamol/acetaminophen for women with perineal pain in the early postpartum period. We planned to include cluster-RCTs but none were identified. Quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence for the main comparison (aspirin versus placebo) was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 RCTs, with 16 involving 1132 women randomised to aspirin or placebo (one RCT did not report numbers of women). Two RCTs (of 16) did not contribute data to review meta-analyses. All women had perineal pain post-episiotomy, and were not breastfeeding. Studies were published between 1967 and 1997, and the risk of bias was often unclear due to poor reporting.We included four comparisons: aspirin versus placebo (data from 15 RCTs); 300 mg versus 600 mg aspirin (1 RCT); 600 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (2 RCTs); and 300 mg versus 1200 mg aspirin (1 RCT). Primary outcomes Aspirin versus placeboMore women who received aspirin experienced adequate pain relief compared with women who received placebo over four to eight hours after administration (risk ratio (RR) 2.03, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.69 to 2.42; 13 RCTs, 1001 women; low-quality evidence). Women who received aspirin were less likely to need additional pain relief over four to eight hours after administration (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.37; 10 RCTs, 744 women; very low-quality evidence). There was no difference in maternal adverse effects over four to eight hours post-administration (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.06; 14 RCTs, 1067 women; very low-quality evidence). Subgroup analyses based on dose did not reveal any clear subgroup differences.There was no clear difference over four hours after administration between 300 mg and 600 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.86; 1 RCT, 81 women) or need for additional pain relief (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.88; 1 RCT, 81 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group.There was no clear difference over four to eight hours after administration between 600 mg and 1200 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 121 women), need for additional pain relief (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.68; 2 RCTs, 121 women), or maternal adverse effects (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; 2 RCTs, 121 women).There was no clear difference over four hours after administration between 300 mg and 1200 mg aspirin for adequate pain relief (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.32; 1 RCT, 80 women) or need for additional pain relief (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 21.18; 1 RCT, 80 women). There were no maternal adverse effects in either aspirin group.None of the included RCTs reported on neonatal adverse effects. Secondary outcomesNo studies reported on secondary review outcomes: prolonged hospitalisation due to perineal pain; re-hospitalisation due to perineal pain; fully breastfeeding at discharge; mixed feeding at discharge; fully breastfeeding at six weeks; mixed feeding at six weeks; perineal pain at six weeks; maternal views; maternal postpartum depression.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-quality evidence to suggest that single dose aspirin compared with placebo can increase pain relief in women with perineal pain post-episiotomy. Very low-quality evidence also suggested that aspirin can reduce the need for additional analgesia, without increasing maternal adverse effects. Evidence was downgraded based on study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision, and publication bias or both. RCTs excluded breastfeeding women so there is no evidence to assess the effects of aspirin on neonatal adverse effects or breastfeeding.With international guidance recommending mothers initiate breastfeeding within one hour of birth, and exclusively breastfeed for the first six months, the evidence from this review is not applicable to current recommended best practice. Aspirin may be considered for use in non-breastfeeding women with post-episiotomy perineal pain. Although formal assessment was beyond the remit of this review, current guidance suggests that other analgesic drugs (including paracetamol) should be considered first for postpartum perineal pain. Such agents are the focus of other reviews in this series on drugs for perineal pain in the early postpartum period. It is considered most likely that if RCTs are conducted in the future they could compare aspirin with other pain relievers. Future RCTs should be designed to ensure high methodological quality, and address gaps in the evidence, such as the secondary outcomes established for this review. Current research has focused on women with post-episiotomy pain, future RCTs could be extended to women with perineal pain associated with spontaneous tears or operative birth.
Topics: Acute Pain; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Aspirin; Female; Humans; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Placebo Effect; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 28181214
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012129.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Some clinicians believe that routine episiotomy, a surgical cut of the vagina and perineum, will prevent serious tears during childbirth. On the other hand, an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Some clinicians believe that routine episiotomy, a surgical cut of the vagina and perineum, will prevent serious tears during childbirth. On the other hand, an episiotomy guarantees perineal trauma and sutures.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects on mother and baby of a policy of selective episiotomy ('only if needed') compared with a policy of routine episiotomy ('part of routine management') for vaginal births.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (14 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selective versus routine use of episiotomy, irrespective of parity, setting or surgical type of episiotomy. We included trials where either unassisted or assisted vaginal births were intended. Quasi-RCTs, trials using a cross-over design or those published in abstract form only were not eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third author mediated where there was no clear consensus. We observed good practice for data analysis and interpretation where trialists were review authors. We used fixed-effect models unless heterogeneity precluded this, expressed results as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
This updated review includes 12 studies (6177 women), 11 in women in labour for whom a vaginal birth was intended, and one in women where an assisted birth was anticipated. Two were trials each with more than 1000 women (Argentina and the UK), and the rest were smaller (from Canada, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Malaysia, Pakistan, Columbia and Saudi Arabia). Eight trials included primiparous women only, and four trials were in both primiparous and multiparous women. For risk of bias, allocation was adequately concealed and reported in nine trials; sequence generation random and adequately reported in three trials; blinding of outcomes adequate and reported in one trial, blinding of participants and personnel reported in one trial.For women where an unassisted vaginal birth was anticipated, a policy of selective episiotomy may result in 30% fewer women experiencing severe perineal/vaginal trauma (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; 5375 women; eight RCTs; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if there is a difference for blood loss at delivery (an average of 27 mL less with selective episiotomy, 95% CI from 75 mL less to 20 mL more; two trials, 336 women, very low-certainty evidence). Both selective and routine episiotomy have little or no effect on infants with Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (four trials, no events; 3908 women, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference in perineal infection (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.82, three trials, 1467 participants, low-certainty evidence).For pain, we do not know if selective episiotomy compared with routine results in fewer women with moderate or severe perineal pain (measured on a visual analogue scale) at three days postpartum (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.05, one trial, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) dyspareunia (RR1.14, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.53, three trials, 1107 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) urinary incontinence (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.44, three trials, 1107 participants, low-certainty evidence). One trial reported genital prolapse at three years postpartum. There was no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.41; 365 women; one trial, low certainty evidence). Other outcomes relating to long-term effects were not reported (urinary fistula, rectal fistula, and faecal incontinence). Subgroup analyses by parity (primiparae versus multiparae) and by surgical method (midline versus mediolateral episiotomy) did not identify any modifying effects. Pain was not well assessed, and women's preferences were not reported.One trial examined selective episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy in women where an operative vaginal delivery was intended in 175 women, and did not show clear difference on severe perineal trauma between the restrictive and routine use of episiotomy, but the analysis was underpowered.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In women where no instrumental delivery is intended, selective episiotomy policies result in fewer women with severe perineal/vaginal trauma. Other findings, both in the short or long term, provide no clear evidence that selective episiotomy policies results in harm to mother or baby.The review thus demonstrates that believing that routine episiotomy reduces perineal/vaginal trauma is not justified by current evidence. Further research in women where instrumental delivery is intended may help clarify if routine episiotomy is useful in this particular group. These trials should use better, standardised outcome assessment methods.
Topics: Apgar Score; Blood Loss, Surgical; Dyspareunia; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Pain Measurement; Parity; Parturition; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 28176333
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub3 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Oct 2017In recent years, a large number of studies have been published on the clinical relevance of pelvic floor three-dimensional (3D) transperineal ultrasound. Several studies... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
In recent years, a large number of studies have been published on the clinical relevance of pelvic floor three-dimensional (3D) transperineal ultrasound. Several studies compare sonography with other imaging modalities or clinical examination. The quality of reporting in these studies is not known. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the compliance of diagnostic accuracy studies investigating pelvic floor 3D ultrasound with the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines.
METHODS
Published articles on pelvic floor 3D ultrasound were identified by a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Prospective and retrospective studies that compared pelvic floor 3D ultrasound with other clinical and imaging diagnostics were included in the analysis. STARD compliance was assessed and quantified by two independent investigators, using 22 of the original 25 STARD checklist items. Items with the qualifier 'if done' (Items 13, 23 and 24) were excluded because they were not applicable to all papers. Each item was scored as reported (score = 1) or not reported (score = 0). Observer variability, the total number of reported STARD items per article and summary scores for each item were calculated. The difference in total score between STARD-adopting and non-adopting journals was tested statistically, as was the effect of year of publication.
RESULTS
Forty studies published in 13 scientific journals were included in the analysis. Mean ± SD STARD checklist score of the included articles was 16.0 ± 2.5 out of a maximum of 22 points. The lowest scores (< 50%) were found for reporting of handling of indeterminate results or missing responses, adverse events and the time interval between tests. Interobserver agreement for rating the STARD items was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.77). An independent t-test showed no significant mean difference ± SD in total STARD checklist score between STARD-adopting and non-adopting journals (16.4 ± 2.2 vs 15.9 ± 2.6, respectively). Mean ± SD STARD checklist score for articles published in 2003-2009 was lower, but not statistically different, compared with those published in 2010-2015 (15.2 ± 2.5 vs 16.6 ± 2.4, respectively).
CONCLUSION
The overall compliance with reporting guidelines of diagnostic accuracy studies on pelvic floor 3D transperineal ultrasound is relatively good compared with other fields of medicine. However, specific checklist items require more attention when reported. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Anatomic Landmarks; Checklist; Female; Guideline Adherence; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Pelvic Floor; Perineum; Quality Control; Reproducibility of Results; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 28000958
DOI: 10.1002/uog.17390 -
International Journal of Surgery... Sep 2016The Anterior Perineal PlanE for ultra-low Anterior Resection of the rectum (APPEAR) technique utilises a perineal incision to facilitate resection of the distal rectum.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The Anterior Perineal PlanE for ultra-low Anterior Resection of the rectum (APPEAR) technique utilises a perineal incision to facilitate resection of the distal rectum. The aim of this study was to review use of the APPEAR technique, assessing patient selection, indications, complications and outcomes, both oncological and functional.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was carried out to identify studies reporting outcomes following rectal resection via an anterior perineal incision, with no limits on year or language. All studies were included. Quality of studies was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomised studies (MINORS) score.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were identified from 1985 to 2013. 174 patients (102 male), ranging from 21 to 82 years, underwent surgery at eleven centres in seven countries. Maximum experience at one centre is 60 cases. 9 cases were performed for rectal dysplasia, 141 for rectal cancer; 96 resections were R0 (remaining 45 unstated). 14 cases were carried out laparoscopically. 30-day mortality was 2.3% (4 patients); there were 2 further deaths from systemic recurrence. Permanent stoma rate was 8/155 (5%). The most frequent complication was perineal or vaginal fistulation (26 patients): 6 underwent reoperation; 15 healed with conservative management; 5 required a permanent stoma. Functional outcomes were variably reported; median stool frequency was 3/24hrs with average Wexner scores of 5-5.5.
CONCLUSION
In selected patients the APPEAR technique offers avoidance of permanent colostomy with good oncological outcomes. The majority of studies had short follow up periods and longer-term outcomes will need evaluation.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colostomy; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Perineum; Rectal Diseases; Reoperation; Surgical Stomas; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 27500960
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.07.075 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016Many women experience perineal pain after childbirth, especially after having sustained perineal trauma. Perineal pain-management strategies are thus an important part... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many women experience perineal pain after childbirth, especially after having sustained perineal trauma. Perineal pain-management strategies are thus 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.
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
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2016), OpenSIGLE, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, the ISRCTN Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov (31 March 2016). We also reviewed reference lists of retrieved papers and contacted experts in the field.
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. Quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (FW and VS) independently assessed all identified papers for inclusion and risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus. Data extraction, including calculations of pain relief scores, was also conducted independently by two review authors and checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 28 studies that examined 13 different NSAIDs and involved 4181 women (none of whom were breastfeeding). Studies were published between 1967 and 2013, with the majority published in the 1980s. Of the 4181 women involved in the studies, 2642 received a NSAID and 1539 received placebo or paracetamol. Risk of bias was generally unclear due to poor reporting, but in most studies the participants and personnel were blinded, outcome data were complete and the outcomes that were specified in the methods section were reported.None of the included studies reported on any of this review's secondary outcomes: prolonged hospitalisation or re-hospitalisation due to perineal pain; breastfeeding (fully or mixed) at discharge; breastfeeding (fully or mixed) at six weeks; perineal pain at six weeks; maternal views; postpartum depression; instrumental measures of disability due to perineal pain. NSAID versus placeboCompared to women who received a placebo, more women who received a single dose NSAID achieved adequate pain relief at four hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 2.23, 10 studies, 1573 participants (low-quality evidence)) and adequate pain relief at six hours (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.17, 17 studies, 2079 participants (very low-quality evidence)). Women who received a NSAID were also less likely to need additional analgesia compared to women who received placebo at four hours (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.58, four studies, 486 participants (low-quality evidence)) and at six hours after initial administration (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.40, 10 studies, 1012 participants (low-quality 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 headed (1), nausea (1), backache (1), dizziness (1), epigastric pain (1), not specified (1)), although not all studies assessed adverse effects. There was no difference in overall 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 participants (very low-quality evidence)). One small study (with two treatment arms) assessed maternal adverse effects at four hours post-administration, but there were no maternal adverse effects observed (one study, 90 participants (low-quality evidence)). Neonatal adverse effects were not assessed in any of the included studies. NSAID versus paracetamolNSAIDs versus paracetamol were also more effective for adequate pain relief at four hours (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.22, three studies, 342 participants) but not at six hours post-administration. There was no difference in the need for additional analgesia between the two groups at four hours (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.13, one study, 73 participants), but women in the NSAID group were less likely to need any additional analgesia at six hours (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67, one study, 59 participants). No maternal adverse effects were reported four hours after drug administration (one study). Six hours post-administration, there was no difference between the groups in the number of maternal adverse effects (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.08, three studies, 300 participants), 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 and different doses of the same NSAID did not demonstrate any differences in their effectiveness on any of the primary outcome measures; however, few data were available on some NSAIDs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In women who are not breastfeeding and who sustained perineal trauma, NSAIDs (compared to placebo) provide greater pain relief for acute postpartum perineal pain and fewer women need additional analgesia when treated with a NSAID. However, the risk of bias was unclear for many of the included studies, adverse effects were often not assessed and breastfeeding women were not included in the studies. The overall quality of the evidence (GRADE) was low with the evidence for all outcomes rated as low or very low. The main reasons for downgrading were inclusion of studies with high risk of bias and inconsistency of findings of individual studies.NSAIDs also appear to be more effective in providing relief for perineal pain than paracetamol, but few studies were included in this analysis.Future studies should examine NSAIDs' adverse effects profile including neonatal adverse effects and the compatibility of NSAIDs with breastfeeding, and assess other important secondary outcomes of this review. Moreover, studies mostly included women who had episiotomies. Future research should consider women with and without perineal trauma, including perineal tears. High-quality studies should 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: 27412362
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011352.pub2 -
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 -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... May 2016Several sphincter-preserving techniques have been described with extremely encouraging initial reports. However, more recent studies have failed to confirm the positive... (Review)
Review
AIM
Several sphincter-preserving techniques have been described with extremely encouraging initial reports. However, more recent studies have failed to confirm the positive early results. We evaluate the adoption and success rates of advancement flap procedures (AFP), fibrin glue sealant (FGS), anal collagen plug (ACP) and ligation of intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) procedures based on their evolution in time for the management of anal fistula.
METHOD
A PubMed search from 1992 to 2015. An assessment of adoption, duration of study and success rate was undertaken.
RESULTS
We found 133 studies (5604 patients): AFP (40 studies, 2333 patients), FGS (31 studies, 871 patients), LIFT (19 studies, 759 patients), ACP (43 studies, 1641 patients). Success rates ranged from 0% to 100%. Study duration was significantly associated with success rates in AFP (P = 0.01) and FGS (P = 0.02) but not in LIFT or ACP. The duration of use of individual procedures since first publication was associated with success rate only in AFP (P = 0.027). There were no statistically significant differences in success rates relative to the number of the patients included in each study.
CONCLUSION
Success and adoption rates tend to decrease with time. Differences in patient selection, duration of follow-up, length of availability of the individual procedure and heterogeneity of treatment protocols contribute to the diverse results in the literature. Differences in success rates over time were evident, suggesting that both international trials and global best practice consensus are desirable. Further prospective randomized controlled trials with homogeneity and clear objective parameters would be needed to substantiate these findings.
Topics: Anal Canal; Collagen; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Fibrin Tissue Adhesive; Humans; Ligation; Patient Selection; Perineum; Rectal Fistula; Surgical Flaps; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26990602
DOI: 10.1111/codi.13330 -
International Urogynecology Journal Oct 2016There is conflicting evidence on whether mediolateral episiotomy (MLE) reduces the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI) in spontaneous vaginal deliveries... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
There is conflicting evidence on whether mediolateral episiotomy (MLE) reduces the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI) in spontaneous vaginal deliveries (SVD).
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review was undertaken to compare rates of OASI amongst women who had undergone mediolateral episiotomy versus those who did not.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Electronic searches were performed in literature databases: CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, Medline and MIDIRS from database inception to July 2015. Studies were eligible if MLE was compared to spontaneous tears and if OASI was the outcome of interest. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data on study characteristics, quality and results. We computed events of OASI in those who did and did not have an episiotomy from individual studies and pooled these results in a meta-analysis where possible.
MAIN RESULTS
Of the 2090 citations, 16 were included in the review. All were non-randomised, population based or retrospective cohort studies. There was great variation in quality amongst these studies. Data from 7 studies was used for meta-analysis. On collating data from these studies where the majority of women (636755/651114) were nulliparous, MLE reduced the risk of OASI (RR 0.67 95 % CI 0.49-0.92) in vaginal delivery.
CONCLUSION
The pooled analysis of a large number of women undergoing vaginal birth, most of who were nulliparous, indicates that MLE has a beneficial effect in prevention of OASI. An accurately given MLE might have a role in reducing OASI and should not be withheld, especially in nulliparous women. Caution is advised as the data is from non-randomised studies.
Topics: Anal Canal; Case-Control Studies; Delivery, Obstetric; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Perineum; Pregnancy; Retrospective Studies; Risk; Vagina
PubMed: 26894605
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-016-2956-1