Breast stimulation for cervical ripening and induction of labour

‘Birthgasm’

Childbirth is a fundamental component of a woman’s sexual cycle. The sexuality of childbirth is not well recognized in Western society despite research showing that some women experience orgasm(s) during labor and childbirth. Current thinking supports the view that labor and childbirth are perceived to be physically painful events, and more women are relying on medical interventions for pain relief in labor. This review explores the potential of orgasm as a mode of pain relief in childbirth and outlines the physiological explanations for its occurrence. Potential barriers to sexual expression during childbirth and labor, including the influence of deeply held cultural beliefs about sexuality, the importance of privacy and intimacy in facilitating orgasmic birth experiences, and the value of including prospective fathers in the birthing experience, are discussed. The role of midwives and their perceptions of the use of complementary and alternative therapies for pain relief in labor are examined. While there are indications of widespread use of complementary and alternative therapies such as hydrotherapy, herbal remedies, and breathing techniques for pain relief in childbirth, orgasm was not among those mentioned. Lack of recognition of the sexuality of childbirth, despite findings that orgasm can attenuate the effects of labor pain, suggests the need for greater awareness among expectant parents, educators, and health professionals of the potential of orgasm as a means of pain relief in childbirth.

Use of nonmedical methods of labor induction and pain management among U.S. women

BACKGROUND

There exists limited documentation of nonmedical methods of labor induction and pain management during childbirth in the United States. We estimated the prevalence of nonmedical interventions for induction and pain management and examined the association between medical and nonmedical care during labor.

METHODS

We used a nationally representative survey of U.S. women who gave birth in 2005 (N = 1,382) to examine use of nonmedical methods of labor induction and pain management. Using logistic regression, we calculated odds of nonmedical and medical interventions to induce labor or mitigate pain, and the odds of medical induction and obstetric analgesia by whether nonmedical methods were reported.

RESULTS

Nearly 30 percent of women used nonmedical methods to start labor, and over 70 percent of women used nonmedical pain management. Doula support was the strongest predictor of nonmedical methods of labor induction (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 3.0) and labor pain management (AOR = 5.7). Use of nonmedical pain management was significantly associated with decreased odds of medical pain management (OR = 0.65); this relationship was attenuated with covariate adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonmedical methods to induce labor and manage pain during childbirth are commonly used by U.S. women. Future research should examine effectiveness of these strategies and their influence on medical services use.

Morning versus evening induction of labour for improving outcomes

BACKGROUND

Induction of labour is a common intervention in obstetric practice. Traditionally, in most hospitals induction of labour with medication starts early in the morning, with the start of the working day for the day shift. In human and animal studies spontaneous onset of labour is proven to have a circadian rhythm with a preference for start of labour in the evening. Moreover, when spontaneous labour starts in the evening, the total duration of labour and delivery shortens and fewer obstetric interventions are needed. Based on these observations one might assume that starting induction of labour in the evening, in harmony with the circadian rhythm of natural birth, is more beneficial for both mother and child.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether induction of labour starting in the evening, coinciding with the endogenous circadian rhythm, improves the outcome of labour compared with induction of labour starting in the early morning, organised to coincide with office hours.

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the Trials Search Co-ordinator to search the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 February 2012). In addition, we searched MEDLINE (1966 to 16 February 2012) and EMBASE (1980 to 16 February 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials. We excluded trials that employed quasi-random methods of treatment allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

The search resulted in 2693 articles that we screened on title and abstract for eligibility.Thirteen studies were selected for full text assessment. We included three randomised trials involving 1150 women. Two trials compared the administration of prostaglandins in the morning versus the evening in women with an unfavourable cervix, and one trial compared induction of labour in the morning versus the evening in women with a favourable cervix and/or ruptured membranes with intravenous oxytocin. Because of the different mechanism, we have reported results for these two comparisons separately.In the two trials comparing prostaglandins in the morning versus the evening there were few clinically significant differences between study groups for maternal or neonatal outcomes. One study reported a statistically significant preference by women to start induction of labour with prostaglandins in the morning.In the trial examining induction of labour with intravenous oxytocin, the number of neonatal admissions was statistically significantly increased in the group of women that started induction in the morning. This finding was unexpected, and while the trial authors offered some possible explanations for this, it is important that any future trials examine neonatal outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Taking into account women's preferences that favoured administration of prostaglandins in the morning, we conclude that caregivers should preferably consider administering prostaglandins in the morning.There is no strong evidence that induction of labour with intravenous oxytocin in the evening is more or less effective than induction in the morning. Consideration may be given to start induction of labour with oxytocin in the evening when indicated.

Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Rates of labour induction are increasing. We conducted this systematic review to assess the evidence supporting use of each method of labour induction.

METHODS

We listed methods of labour induction then reviewed the evidence supporting each. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library between 1980 and November 2010 using multiple terms and combinations, including labor, induced/or induction of labor, prostaglandin or prostaglandins, misoprostol, Cytotec, 16,16,-dimethylprostaglandin E2 or E2, dinoprostone; Prepidil, Cervidil, Dinoprost, Carboprost or hemabate; prostin, oxytocin, misoprostol, membrane sweeping or membrane stripping, amniotomy, balloon catheter or Foley catheter, hygroscopic dilators, laminaria, dilapan, saline injection, nipple stimulation, intercourse, acupuncture, castor oil, herbs. We performed a best evidence review of the literature supporting each method. We identified 2048 abstracts and reviewed 283 full text articles. We preferentially included high quality systematic reviews or large randomised trials. Where no such studies existed, we included the best evidence available from smaller randomised or quasi-randomised trials.

RESULTS

We included 46 full text articles. We assigned a quality rating to each included article and a strength of evidence rating to each body of literature. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and vaginal misoprostol were more effective than oxytocin in bringing about vaginal delivery within 24 hours but were associated with more uterine hyperstimulation. Mechanical methods reduced uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2 and misoprostol, but increased maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity compared with other methods. Membrane sweeping reduced post-term gestations. Most included studies were too small to evaluate risk for rare adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Research is needed to determine benefits and harms of many induction methods.