-
American Journal of Obstetrics and... Aug 2022We aimed to systematically determine the incidences of wound infection and dehiscence after primary obstetric anal sphincter injury repair. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to systematically determine the incidences of wound infection and dehiscence after primary obstetric anal sphincter injury repair.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, EmCare, the Cochrane Library, and Trip Pro databases were searched from inception to February 2021.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included observational clinical studies reporting the incidences of wound infection and dehiscence after primary obstetric anal sphincter injury repair. Case series and reports were excluded. Conference articles and observational study abstracts were included if they contained enough information regarding study design and outcome data.
METHODS
Data were analyzed as incidence (percentage) with 95% confidence intervals. Moreover, the prediction intervals were calculated to provide a predicted range for the potential incidence of wound complications when applied to an individual study setting. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the relevant tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute.
RESULTS
Of 956 studies found, 39 were selected for full-text review. Moreover, 10 studies (n=4767 women) were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. All 10 studies were conducted in high-income countries (Denmark [n=1], the United Kingdom [n=3], and the United States [n=6]). The incidences of wound infection (n=4593 women) and wound dehiscence (n=3866 women) after primary obstetric anal sphincter injury repair ranged between 0.1% to 19.8% and 1.9% to 24.6%, respectively. The overall incidences were 4.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.4-8.4) for wound infection and 6.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.6-12.2) for wound dehiscence. The prediction intervals were wide and suggested that the true incidences of wound infection and dehiscence in future studies could lie between 0.0% to 11.7% and 0.0% to 16.4%, respectively. Overall, 8 studies had a high or unclear risk of bias across ≥1 assessed element. None of the studies used the same set of clinical parameters to define wound infection or dehiscence. Furthermore, microbiological confirmation with wound swabs was never used as a diagnostic measure.
CONCLUSION
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of wound infection and dehiscence incidences after primary obstetric anal sphincter injury repair. The incidence estimates from this review will be useful for clinicians when counseling women with obstetric anal sphincter injury and when consenting them for primary surgical repair.
Topics: Anal Canal; Delivery, Obstetric; Fecal Incontinence; Female; Humans; Incidence; Observational Studies as Topic; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Pregnancy; United Kingdom; Wound Infection
PubMed: 35550375
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.05.012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Epidural analgesia is often used for pain relief during labour and childbirth, and involves administration of local anaesthetics (LA) into the epidural space resulting... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia is often used for pain relief during labour and childbirth, and involves administration of local anaesthetics (LA) into the epidural space resulting in sensory blockade of the abdomen, pelvis, and perineum. Epidural opioids are often co-administered to improve analgesia. Administration of epidural medications can be accomplished by basal infusion (BI) or automated mandatory bolus (AMB). With BI, medications are administered continuously, while AMB involves injecting medications at set time intervals. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) on top of AMB or BI enables patients to initiate additional boluses of epidural medications. The superior method of delivering epidural medications would result in lower incidence of pain requiring anaesthesiologist intervention (breakthrough pain). Also, it should be associated with lower incidence of epidural-related adverse effects including caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery (use of forceps or vacuum devices), prolonged duration of labour analgesia, and LA consumption. However, clear evidence of the superiority of one technique over the other is lacking. Also, differences in the initiation of epidural analgesia such as combined spinal-epidural (CSE) (medications given into the intrathecal space in addition to the epidural space) compared to epidural only, and medications used (types and doses of LA or opioids) may not have been accounted for in previous reviews. Our prior systematic review suggested that AMB reduces the incidence of breakthrough pain compared to BI with no significant difference in the incidence of caesarean delivery or instrumental delivery, duration of labour analgesia, and LA consumption. However, several studies comparing AMB and BI have been performed since then, and inclusion of their data may improve the precision of our effect estimates.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of AMB versus BI for maintaining labour epidural analgesia in women at term.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, Wiley Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, (National Library of Medicine), Embase(Elseiver), Web of Science (Clarivate), the WHO-ICTRP (World Health Organization) and ClinicalTrials.gov (National Library of Medicine) on 31 December 2022. Additionally, we screened the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews for eligible citations, and we contacted authors of included studies to identify unpublished research and ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled studies that compared bolus dosing AMB with continuous BI during epidural analgesia. We excluded studies of women in preterm labour, with multiple pregnancies, with fetal malposition, intrathecal catheters, those that did not use automated delivery of medications, and those where AMB and BI were combined.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodology for systematic review and meta-analysis described by Cochrane. Primary outcomes included: incidence of breakthrough pain requiring anaesthesiologist intervention; incidence of caesarean delivery; and incidence of instrumental delivery. Secondly, we assessed the duration of labour; hourly LA consumption in bupivacaine equivalents, maternal satisfaction after fetal delivery, and neonatal Apgar scores. The following subgroup analyses were chosen a priori: epidural alone versus CSE technique; regimens that used PCEA versus those that did not; and nulliparous versus combination of nulli- and multi-parous women. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence associated with our outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 studies of 4590 women, of which 13 enrolled healthy nulliparous women and five included healthy nulli- and multiparous women. All studies excluded women with preterm or complicated pregnancies. Techniques used to initiate epidural analgesia differed between the studies: seven used combined spinal epidural, 10 used epidural, and one used dural puncture epidural (DPE). There was also variation in analgesics used. Eight studies utilised ropivacaine with fentanyl, three used ropivacaine with sufentanil, two utilised levobupivacaine with sufentanil, one used levobupivacaine with fentanyl, and four utilised bupivacaine with fentanyl. Most of the studies were assessed to have low risk of randomisation, blinding, attrition, and reporting biases, except for allocation concealment where eight studies were assessed to have uncertain risk and three with high risk. Our results showed that AMB was associated with lower incidence of breakthrough pain compared to BI (risk ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.91; I = 57%) (16 studies, 1528 participants), and lower hourly LA consumption in bupivacaine equivalents (mean difference (MD) -0.84 mg/h; 95% CI -1.29 to -0.38, I = 87%) (16 studies, 1642 participants), both with moderate certainty. AMB was associated with an estimated reduction in breakthrough pain incidence of 29.1% (incidence 202 per 1000, 95% CI 157 to 259), and was therefore considered clinically significant. The incidence of caesarean delivery (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; I = 0%) (16 studies, 1735 participants) and instrumental delivery (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; I = 0%) (17 studies, 4550 participants) were not significantly, both with moderate certainty. There was no significant difference in duration of labour analgesia (MD -8.81 min; 95% CI -19.38 to 1.77; I = 50%) (17 studies, 4544 participants) with moderate certainty. Due to differences in the methods and timing of outcome measurements, we did not pool data for maternal satisfaction and Apgar scores. Results reported narratively suggest AMB may be associated with increased maternal satisfaction (eight studies reported increased satisfaction and six reported no difference), and all studies showed no difference in Apgar scores. WIth the exception of epidural alone versus CSE which found significant subgroup differences in LA consumption between AMB and BI, no significant differences were detected in the remaining subgroup analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, AMB is associated with lower incidence of breakthrough pain, reduced LA consumption, and may improve maternal satisfaction. There were no significant differences between AMB and BI in the incidence of caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery, duration of labour analgesia, and Apgar scores. Larger studies assessing the incidence of caesarean and instrumental delivery are required.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Breakthrough Pain; Levobupivacaine; Ropivacaine; Sufentanil; United States
PubMed: 37276327
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011344.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Postpartum constipation, with symptoms such as pain or discomfort, straining, and hard stool, is a common condition affecting mothers. Haemorrhoids, pain at the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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 is usually encouraged, although laxatives are commonly used in relieving constipation. The effectiveness and safety of available interventions for preventing postpartum constipation needs to be ascertained.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interventions for preventing postpartum constipation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), Stellenbosch University database, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 April 2015) and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention for preventing postpartum constipation versus another intervention, placebo or no intervention. Interventions could include pharmacological (e.g. laxatives) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. acupuncture, educational and behavioural interventions).We included quasi-randomised trials. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results were pooled in a meta-analysis only where there was no substantial statistical heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five trials (1208 postpartum mothers); four compared a laxative with placebo and one compared a laxative alone versus the same laxative plus a bulking agent in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears. Trials were poorly reported and risk of bias was unclear for most domains. Overall, there was a high risk of selection and attrition bias. Laxative versus placeboNone of the four trials included in this comparison assessed any of our pre-specified primary outcomes (pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation or changes in quality of life).All four trials reported time to first bowel movement (not pre-specified in our protocol). In one trial, more women in the laxative group had their first bowel movement less than 24 hours after delivery compared to women in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 2.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24 to 3.75, 471 women). Individual trials also reported inconsistent results for days one, two and three after delivery. Pooled results of two trials showed that fewer women in the laxative group were having their first bowel movement at day four compared with controls (average RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61, 671 women).Regarding secondary outcomes, no trials reported on stool consistency using the Bristol stool form scale orrelief of abdominal pain/discomfort . One trial reported the number of women having loose or watery stools and there were more women who experienced this in the laxative group compared to the placebo group (RR 26.96, 95% CI 3.81 to 191.03, 106 women). One trial found no clear difference in the number of enemas between groups (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.05, 244 women). One trial reported more women having more than two bowel movements per day in the laxative compared to the placebo group (RR 26.02, 95% CI 1.59 to 426.73, 106 women). Adverse effects were poorly reported; two trials reported the number of women having abdominal cramps, but their results could not be pooled in a meta-analysis due to substantial statistical heterogeneity. In one trial, more women in the laxative group had abdominal cramps compared to the placebo group (RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.19, 471 women), while the other trial showed no difference between groups (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.20, 200 women). With regards to adverse effects of the intervention on the baby , one trial found no difference in the incidence of loose stools (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.41, 281 women) or diarrhoea (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 26.82, 281 women) between the two groups. Laxative versus laxative plus bulking agentOnly one trial was included in this comparison and reported on pain or straining on defecation in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears; there was no reported difference between groups (median (range) data only). No difference was reported in the incidence of postpartum constipation (data not reported) and the outcome changes in quality of life was not mentioned.Time to first bowel movement was reported as a median (range) with no difference between the two groups. In terms of adverse effects , women in the laxative plus stool-bulking group were reported to be at a greater risk of faecal incontinence during the immediate postpartum period (median (range) data only). However the number of women having any episode of faecal incontinence during first 10 days postpartum was reported with no clear difference between the two groups (14/77 (18.2%) versus 23/70 (32.9%), RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99, 147 women). The trial did not report on adverse effects of the intervention on the babies.The trial reported none of the following pre-specified secondary outcomes: stool consistency using Bristol stool form scale , use of alternative products , laxative agents , enemas , relief of abdominal pain/discomfort and stool frequency .
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
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. Results from trials were inconsistent and there is insufficient evidence to make general conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of laxatives.Further rigorous trials are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of laxatives during the postpartum period for preventing constipation. Trials assessing educational and behavioural interventions and positions that enhance defecation are also needed. Future trials should report on the following important outcomes: 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; Dietary Fiber; Female; Humans; Laxatives; Perineum; Postpartum Period; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26387487
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011625.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2011Perineal tears commonly occur during childbirth. They are sutured most of the time. Surgical repair can be associated with adverse outcomes, such as pain, discomfort and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Perineal tears commonly occur during childbirth. They are sutured most of the time. Surgical repair can be associated with adverse outcomes, such as pain, discomfort and interference with normal activities during puerperium and possibly breastfeeding. Surgical repair also has an impact on clinical workload and human and financial resources.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for surgical versus non-surgical management of first- and second-degree perineal tears sustained during childbirth.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 May 2011), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2 of 4) and MEDLINE (Jan 1966 to 2 May 2011). We also searched the reference lists of reviews, guidelines and other publications and contacted authors of identified eligible trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect on clinical outcomes of suturing versus non-suturing techniques to repair first- and second-degree perineal tears sustained during childbirth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Three review authors independently extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two RCTs (involving 154 women) with a low risk of bias. It was not possible to pool the available studies. The two studies do not consistently report outcomes defined in the review. However, no significant differences were observed between the two groups (surgical versus non-surgical repair) in incidence of pain and wound complications, self-evaluated measures of pain at hospital discharge and postpartum and re-initiation of sexual activity. Differences in the use of analgesia varied between the studies, being high in the sutured group in one study. The other trial showed differences in wound closure and poor wound approximation in the non-suturing group, but noted incidentally also that more women were breastfeeding in this group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence available from RCTs to guide the choice between surgical or non-surgical repair of first- or second-degree perineal tears sustained during childbirth. Two studies find no difference between the two types of management with regard to clinical outcomes up to eight weeks postpartum. Therefore, at present there is insufficient evidence to suggest that one method is superior to the other with regard to healing and recovery in the early or late postnatal periods. Until further evidence becomes available, clinicians' decisions whether to suture or not can be based on their clinical judgement and the women's preference after informing them about the lack of long-term outcomes and the possible chance of a slower wound healing process, but possible better overall feeling of well being if left un-sutured.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Lacerations; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rupture, Spontaneous; Soft Tissue Injuries; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 21833968
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008534.pub2 -
BMC Public Health Apr 2011Annually over 520,000 newborns die from neonatal sepsis, and 60,000 more from tetanus. Estimates of the effect of clean birth and postnatal care practices are required... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Annually over 520,000 newborns die from neonatal sepsis, and 60,000 more from tetanus. Estimates of the effect of clean birth and postnatal care practices are required for evidence-based program planning.
OBJECTIVE
To review the evidence for clean birth and postnatal care practices and estimate the effect on neonatal mortality from sepsis and tetanus for the Lives Saved Tool (LiST).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of multiple databases. Data were abstracted into standard tables and assessed by GRADE criteria. Where appropriate, meta-analyses were undertaken. For interventions with low quality evidence but a strong GRADE recommendation, a Delphi process was conducted.
RESULTS
Low quality evidence supports a reduction in all-cause neonatal mortality (19% (95% c.i. 1-34%)), cord infection (30% (95% c.i. 20-39%)) and neonatal tetanus (49% (95% c.i. 35-62%)) with birth attendant handwashing. Very low quality evidence supports a reduction in neonatal tetanus mortality with a clean birth surface (93% (95% c.i. 77-100%)) and no relationship between a clean perineum and tetanus. Low quality evidence supports a reduction of neonatal tetanus with facility birth (68% (95% c.i. 47-88%). No relationship was found between birth place and cord infections or sepsis mortality. For postnatal clean practices, all-cause mortality is reduced with chlorhexidine cord applications in the first 24 hours of life (34% (95% c.i. 5-54%, moderate quality evidence) and antimicrobial cord applications (63% (95% c.i. 41-86%, low quality evidence). One study of postnatal maternal handwashing reported reductions in all-cause mortality (44% (95% c.i. 18-62%)) and cord infection ((24% (95% c.i. 5-40%)).Given the low quality of evidence, a Delphi expert opinion process was undertaken. Thirty experts reached consensus regarding reduction of neonatal sepsis deaths by clean birth practices at home (15% (IQR 10-20)) or in a facility (27% IQR 24-36)), and by clean postnatal care practices (40% (IQR 25-50)). The panel estimated that neonatal tetanus mortality was reduced by clean birth practices at home (30% (IQR(20-30)), or in a facility (38% (IQR 34-40)), and by clean postnatal care practices (40% (IQR 30-50)).
CONCLUSION
According to expert opinion, clean birth and particularly postnatal care practices are effective in reducing neonatal mortality from sepsis and tetanus. Further research is required regarding optimal implementation strategies.
Topics: Delphi Technique; Female; Humans; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Postnatal Care; Pregnancy; Sepsis; Tetanus
PubMed: 21501428
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S11 -
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2021Patients suffering from hematological malignancies are at increased risk of Fournier's gangrene (FG) due to immunosuppression caused by the disease itself or by... (Review)
Review
Patients suffering from hematological malignancies are at increased risk of Fournier's gangrene (FG) due to immunosuppression caused by the disease itself or by disease-related treatments. A systematic review of PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus databases was performed in June 2021. We included full papers that met the following criteria: original research, human studies, and describing clinical presentation, treatment, and outcomes of FG in patients with oncohematological diseases. We identified 35 papers published from 1983 to 2021 involving 44 patients (34 males, 8 females) aged between 4 days and 83 years. The most common malignant hematological disorders were acute myeloid leukemia ( 21) and acute lymphocytic leukemia ( 9). In 10 patients FG represented the first presentation of hematological malignancy. Scrotum (= 27) and perineum ( 11) were the sites most commonly involved. ( 21) and ( 6) were the most commonly isolated microorganisms. Surgery was performed in 39 patients. Vacuum-assisted closure and hyperbaric oxygen therapy were adopted in 4 and in 3 patients, respectively. Recovery was achieved in 30 patients. FG-related mortality was observed in 11 patients. FG should be carefully considered in patients with oncohematological diseases.
PubMed: 34574898
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare9091123 -
Iranian Journal of Public Health May 2021Group B streptococcus or streptococcus Agalactia is a gram positive beta hemolytic bacteria which is the main factor in neonatal infections. This study aimed at... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Group B streptococcus or streptococcus Agalactia is a gram positive beta hemolytic bacteria which is the main factor in neonatal infections. This study aimed at determining the prevalence of GBS in world and clarifying the rate of this infection in Islamic and non-Islamic countries.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search by using different databases including Medline, Scopus, Science Direct, Psycho-Info ProQuest and Web of Science published up to Feb 2019. We undertook meta-analysis to obtain the pooled estimate of prevalence of GBS colonization in Islamic and non-Islamic countries.
RESULTS
Among 3324 papers searched, we identified 245 full texts of prevalence of GBS in pregnancy; 131 were included in final analysis. The estimated mean prevalence of maternal GBS colonization was 15.5% (CI:95% (14.2-17)) worldwide; which was 14% (CI:95% (11-16.8)) in Islamic and 16.3% (CI:95% (14.6-18.1)) in non-Islamic countries and was statistically significant. Moreover, with regards to sampling area, prevalence of GBS colonization was 11.1 in vagina and 18.1 in vagina-rectum.
CONCLUSION
Frequent washing of perineum based on religious instructions in Islamic countries can diminish the rate of GBS colonization in pregnant women.
PubMed: 34183947
DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v50i5.6106 -
International Journal of Gynaecology... Jul 2022Women with previous obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIs) are at a higher risk of recurrence in the subsequent pregnancy, which may lead to the development or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Women with previous obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIs) are at a higher risk of recurrence in the subsequent pregnancy, which may lead to the development or worsening of anal incontinence. Due to a lack of evidence, few recommendations can be made about the factors that may affect the risk of OASI recurrence.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate potential risk factors for recurrent OASIs.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Studies up to May 2019 were identified from PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies assessing the impact of risk factors on OASI recurrence in subsequent pregnancies were included. Reviews, letters to the editor, conference abstracts, book chapters, guidelines, Cochrane reviews, and expert opinions were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Odds ratio and standardized mean difference were chosen as effect measures. Pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects model.
MAIN RESULTS
The meta-analysis showed that maternal age, gestational age, occiput posterior presentation, oxytocin augmentation, operative delivery, and shoulder dystocia were associated with the risk of recurrent OASIs in the subsequent delivery.
CONCLUSION
Prenatal and intrapartum risk factors are associated with recurrence of OASI. PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020178125.
Topics: Anal Canal; Delivery, Obstetric; Fecal Incontinence; Female; Humans; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Pregnancy; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34559892
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13950 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2020Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics may be prescribed to prevent these infections. However, the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal deliveries is still unclear. This is an update of a review last published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries including vacuum or forceps delivery, or both.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials comparing any prophylactic antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing vacuum or forceps deliveries were eligible. Participants were all pregnant women without evidence of infections or other indications for antibiotics of any gestational age. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Two review authors extracted the data independently using prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and a consensus reached through discussion with all review authors. We assessed methodological quality of the two included studies using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Two studies, involving 3813 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, were included. One study involving 393 women compared the antibiotic intravenous cefotetan after cord clamping compared with no treatment. The other study involving 3420 women compared a single dose of intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid with placebo using 20 mL of intravenous sterile 0.9% saline. The evidence suggests that prophylactic antibiotics reduce superficial perineal wound infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence), deep perineal wound infection (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence) and probably reduce wound breakdown (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; women = 2593; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). We are unclear about the effect on organ or space perineal wound infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.05; women = 3420; 1 study) and endometritis (average RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.64; 15/1907 versus 30/1906; women = 3813; 2 studies) based on low-certainty evidence with wide CIs that include no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics probably lower serious infectious complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). They also have an important effect on reduction of confirmed or suspected maternal infection. The two included studies did not report on fever or urinary tract infection. It is unclear, based on low-certainty evidence, whether prophylactic antibiotics have any impact on maternal adverse reactions (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.05; women = 2593; 1 study) and maternal length of stay (MD 0.09 days, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41; women = 393; 1 study) as the CIs were wide and included no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain and probably reduce costs. Prophylactic antibiotics did not have an important effect on dyspareunia (difficult or painful sexual intercourse) or breastfeeding at six weeks. Antibiotic prophylaxis may slightly improve maternal hospital re-admission and maternal health-related quality of life. Neonatal adverse reactions were not reported in any included trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Prophylactic intravenous antibiotics are effective in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in terms of superficial and deep perineal wound infection or serious infectious complications in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries without clinical indications for antibiotic administration after delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain, probably reduce the costs, and may slightly reduce the maternal hospital re-admission and health-related quality of life. However, the effect on reduction of endometritis, organ or space perineal wound infection, maternal adverse reactions and maternal length of stay is unclear due to low-certainty evidence. As the evidence was mainly derived from a single multi-centre study conducted in a high-income setting, future well-designed randomised trials in other settings, particularly in low- and middle-income settings, are required to confirm the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery.
Topics: Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cefotetan; Endometritis; Episiotomy; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Obstetrical Forceps; Perineum; Pregnancy; Puerperal Infection; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Vacuum Extraction, Obstetrical; Vaginal Diseases
PubMed: 32215906
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004455.pub5