Position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia

Birthing positions and mother`s satisfaction with childbirth: a cross-sectional study on the relevance of self determination

INTRODUCTION

Considering the inconclusive evidence regarding the clinical benefits of specific birthing positions, emphasis has been placed on adhering to women's preferences during the second stage of labour. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the association between birthing position, the freedom to choose a birth position during the second stage of labour, and women's subjective satisfaction with childbirth.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional survey of women 8 or 12 months after a vaginal birth in a hospital. The women were recruited via two cooperating health insurance companies. Multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the strength of the association between birthing position and maternal satisfaction with childbirth, with a particular focus on interactions with self-determination.

RESULTS

In total, the data from 761 women were analysed. The supine position was the most frequently reported birthing position in the second stage of labour at 77.5%. Notably, 39.0% and 30.5% of the women who gave birth in the dorsal and lateral supine positions, respectively, stated that the birth position was not chosen voluntarily. The regression models show a significant negative association between supine birthing position and satisfaction with childbirth, which is significantly related to self-determination. The most common reason for the adoption of a specific birthing position was instructions from medical staff.

DISCUSSION

The data provide insight into the perceived satisfaction with childbirth depending on the birthing position, whereby the relevance of self-determination is particularly evident. At the same time, self-determination is often not given, which is associated with reduced birth satisfaction.

Prevalence and associated factors of maternal birth trauma following vaginal delivery at University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, North-West Ethiopia, 2022

BACKGROUND

Maternal injury with any form of perineal trauma following vaginal delivery is very common which ranges globally from 16.2 to 90.4%. The frequency of Obstetric anal sphincter Injuries and the incidence of cervical laceration increases rapidly. However, in Ethiopia, there is limited evidence on the prevalence of maternal birth trauma and its determinant factors after vaginal delivery.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the magnitude and associated factors of Maternal Birth Trauma after vaginal delivery at University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Gondar, North-West Ethiopia, 2022.

METHODS

An Institution based cross-sectional study was conducted among mothers with singleton vaginal delivery at University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital from 9th May to 9th August 2022 among 424 study participants. Pre-tested semi-structured questioner was utilized. Epi-Data version 4.6 was used for data entry and exported to SPSS version 25 for data management and analysis. To identify the determinant factors, binary logistic regression model was fitted and variables with p-value < 0.2 were considered for the multivariable binary logistic regression analysis. In the multivariable binary logistic regression analysis, Variables with P-value < 0.05 were considered to have statistical significant association with the outcome variable. The Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) with 95% CI was reported to declare the statistical significance and strength of association between Maternal Birth Trauma and independent variables.

RESULTS

A total of 424 mothers who delivered vaginally were included. The mean age of participants was 26.83 years (± 5.220 years). The proportion of birth trauma among mothers after vaginal delivery was47.4% (95%CI: 43.1, 51.7). Of different forms of perineal trauma, First degree tear in 42.8%, OASIs in 1.5% and Cervical laceration in 2.5% study participants. In the multivariable binary logistic regression analysis being primiparous (AOR = 3.00; 95%CI: 1.68, 5.38), Gestational age ≥ 39 weeks at delivery (AOR = 2.96; 95%CI: 1.57, 5.57), heavier birth weight (AOR = 12.3; 95%CI: 7.21, 40.1), bigger head circumference (AOR = 5.45; 95%CI: 2.62, 11.31), operative vaginal delivery (AOR = 6.59; 95%CI: 1.44, 30.03) and delivery without perineum and/or fetal head support (AOR = 6.30; 95%CI: 2.21, 17.94) were significantly associated with the presence of maternal birth trauma.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Maternal birth trauma following vaginal delivery was relatively high in this study. Prim parity, gestational age beyond 39 weeks at delivery, heavier birth weight, bigger head circumference, operative vaginal delivery and delivery without perineum and/or fetal head supported were factors affecting perineal outcome. The Ministry of Health of Ethiopia should provide regular interventional training as to reduce maternal birth trauma.

Impact of maternal posture on fetal physiology in human pregnancy: a narrative review

In numerous medical conditions, including pregnancy, gravity and posture interact to impact physiology and pathophysiology. Recent investigations, for example, pertaining to maternal sleeping posture during the third trimester and possible impact on fetal growth and stillbirth risk highlight the importance and potential clinical implications of the subject. In this review, we provide an extensive discussion of the impact of maternal posture on fetal physiology from conception to the postpartum period in human pregnancy. We conducted a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE database and identified 242 studies from 1991 through 2021, inclusive, that met our inclusion criteria. Herein, we provide a synthesis of the resulting literature. In the first section of the review, we group the results by the impact of maternal posture at rest on the cervix, uterus, placenta, umbilical cord, amniotic fluid, and fetus. In the second section of the review, we address the impact on fetal-related outcomes of maternal posture during various maternal activities (e.g., sleep, work, exercise), medical procedures (e.g., fertility, imaging, surgery), and labor and birth. We present the published literature, highlight gaps and discrepancies, and suggest future research opportunities and clinical practice changes. In sum, we anticipate that this review will shed light on the impact of maternal posture on fetal physiology in a manner that lends utility to researchers and clinicians who are working to improve maternal, fetal, and child health.

Influence of Laboring People's Mobility and Positional Changes on Birth Outcomes in Low-Dose Epidural Analgesia Labor: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Freedom of movement has been identified as a key issue for pregnant individuals during the birthing process, even if they opt for epidural analgesia, which has relegated people to more static positions during birth for many years. The aims of this systematic review were to evaluate the influence of mobility and positional changes on perinatal and neonatal outcomes in people in labor with epidural analgesia, describe the range of movement interventions used during the first and second stage of labor, and describe the level of motor blockade among people with low-dose epidural analgesia.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases (Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL) were consulted from December 2020 to January 2021. The articles selected were clinical trials and observational or analytical studies, the subject of which was mobilization during labor in people with epidural analgesia. The outcome measures were mode of birth, duration of labor, and extrauterine adaptation after birth. A narrative synthesis was used to describe the types of movements interventions employed during the stages of labor and the level of motor blockade among people with low-dose epidural analgesia.

RESULTS

Ten articles were selected (8 clinical trials, one cross-sectional study, and one quasiexperimental study), with a total sample of 6086 individuals. A meta-analysis showed nonsignificant results between groups for mode of birth (relative risk [RR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.14), duration of labor (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, -34.57 to 37.86), and extrauterine adaptation after birth (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.39-1.93). There was heterogeneity among studies in the type of movement interventions used during the first and second stage of labor.

DISCUSSION

Although no clear benefit was observed for mobilization in epidural labor, no detrimental effects were found either, so perinatal care providers should encourage mobilization if the laboring person so desires, throughout the entire childbirth process.

Methodological challenges and solution strategies during implementation of a midwife-led multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) in maternity hospitals

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), especially multicentric, with complex interventions are methodically challenging. Careful planning under everyday conditions in compliance with the relevant international quality standard (Good Clinical Practice [GCP] guideline) is crucial. Specific challenges exist for RCTs conducted in delivery rooms due to various factors that cannot be planned beforehand. Few published RCTs report challenges and problems in implementing complex interventions in maternity wards. In Germany as well as in other countries, midwives and obstetricians have frequently little experience as investigators in clinical trials.

Methods

The aim is to describe the key methodological and organizational challenges in conducting a multicenter study in maternity wards and the solution strategies applied to them. In particular, project-related and process-oriented challenges for hospital staff are considered. The exemplarily presented randomized controlled trial “BE-UP” investigates the effectiveness of an alternative design of a birthing room on the rate of vaginal births and women-specific outcomes.

Results

The results are presented in five sectors:

1) Selection of and support for cooperating hospitals: they are to be selected according to predefined criteria, and strategies to offer continuous support in trial implementation must be mapped out.

2) Establishing a process of requesting informed consent: a quality-assured process to inform pregnant women early on must be feasible and effective.

3) Individual digital real-time randomization: In addition to instructing maternity teams, appropriate measures for technical failure must be provided.

4) The standardized birthing room: The complex intervention is to be implemented according to the study protocol yet adapted to the prevailing conditions in the delivery rooms.

5) GCP-compliant documentation: midwives and obstetricians will be instructed in high-quality data collection, supported by external monitoring throughout the trial.

Conclusion

Since not all potential challenges can be anticipated in the planning of a trial, study teams need to be flexible and react promptly to any problems that threaten recruitment or the implementation of the complex intervention. Thought should be given to the perspectives of midwives and obstetricians as recruiters and how clinic-intern processes could be adapted to correspond with the trial’s requirements.

Trial registration

The BE-UP study was registered on 07/03/ 2018 in the German Register for Clinical Trials under Reference No. DRKS00012854 and can also be found on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (see https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS0001285).

Maternal positions during labor: Midwives' knowledge and educational needs in northern Italy

INTRODUCTION

Maternal positions and mobility during childbirth can have different and specific effects on labor and affect some birth outcomes. The aim of the survey is to investigate the knowledge and skills regarding maternal positions in labor among midwives and to consider the need of training.

METHODS

A semi-structured questionnaire was distributed in August and September 2020 among midwives working in eight hospitals of Brescia, Northern Italy. The sample consisted of 115 midwives and data were analyzed using a quantitative, descriptive approach.

RESULTS

The majority of the sample identified the general and specific benefits of maternal positions. Factors limiting the proposal of maternal positions were the context, the relationships with healthcare providers, the woman features, the fetal heart rate registration, continuous cardiotocography, amniotomy, episiotomy, operative vaginal birth, and epidural analgesia. Vaginal examination, the detection of uterine contractions, intrapartum ultrasounds, and 'hands-on' perineum technique were considered irrelevant by the participating midwives. The promoting factors were the presence of the partner, the telemetry, and the partogram with a section dedicated to positions. Nearly the totality of the sample considered appropriate to deepen the topic with training.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-graduate courses are desirable to improve midwives' skills. An educational toolkit is proposed to make the promotion of maternal positions more effective and appropriate. In order to improve midwifery intrapartum care, further research addressed to midwives of other settings appears essential to compare different training contexts, to expand the proposed toolkit, and to invest on midwifery practice and education.

Fishing for (in)continence: long-term follow-up of women with OASIS-still a taboo

PURPOSE

Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) increase the risk for pelvic floor dysfunctions. The goal of this study was to examine the long-term outcomes after OASIS on pelvic floor functions and quality of life.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between 2005 and 2013, 424 women had an OASIS at the Women University Hospital Ulm. Out of these 71 women completed the German pelvic floor questionnaire, which includes questions regarding prolapse symptoms as well as bladder, bowel and sexual function. In addition, 64 women were physically examined, including a speculum examination to evaluate the degree of prolapse, a cough test to evaluate urinary stress incontinence (SI) and an evaluation of both pelvic floor sphincter (modified Oxford score) and anal sphincter contraction.

RESULTS

A high rate of pelvic floor disorders after OASIS was found, as 74.6% of women reported SI, 64.8% flatus incontinence and 18.3% stool incontinence, respectively. However, only few women stated a substantial negative impact on quality of life. The clinical examination showed that a positive cough test, a weak anal sphincter tone and a diagnosed prolapse correlated with the results of the self-reported questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

On one hand, OASIS has an influence on pelvic floor function going along with lots of complaints, while on the other hand, it still seems to be a taboo topic, as none of the participants spoke about the complaints after OASIS with a doctor. Therefore, the gynecologist should actively address these issues and offer therapy options for the women with persisting problems.

The AEDUCATE Collaboration. Comprehensive antenatal education birth preparation programmes to reduce the rates of caesarean section in nulliparous women. Protocol for an individual participant data prospective meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Rates of medical interventions in normal labour and birth are increasing. This prospective meta-analysis (PMA) proposes to assess whether the addition of a comprehensive multicomponent birth preparation programme reduces caesarean section (CS) in nulliparous women compared with standard hospital care. Additionally, do participant characteristics, intervention components or hospital characteristics modify the effectiveness of the programme? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Population: women with singleton vertex pregnancies, no planned caesarean section (CS) or epidural.Intervention: in addition to hospital-based standard care, a comprehensive antenatal education programme that includes multiple components for birth preparation, addressing the three objectives: preparing women and their birth partner/support person for childbirth through education on physiological/hormonal birth (knowledge and understanding); building women's confidence through psychological preparation (positive mindset) and support their ability to birth without pain relief using evidence-based tools (tools and techniques). The intervention could occur in a hospital-based or community setting.Comparator: standard care alone in hospital-based maternity units.

OUTCOMES

Primary: CS.Secondary: epidural analgesia, mode of birth, perineal trauma, postpartum haemorrhage, newborn resuscitation, psychosocial well-being.Subgroup analysis: parity, model of care, maternal risk status, maternal education, maternal socio-economic status, intervention components.

STUDY DESIGN

An individual participant data (IPD) prospective meta-analysis (PMA) of randomised controlled trials, including cluster design. Each trial is conducted independently but share core protocol elements to contribute data to the PMA. Participating trials are deemed eligible for the PMA if their results are not yet known outside their Data Monitoring Committees.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Participants in the individual trials will consent to participation, with respective trials receiving ethical approval by their local Human Research Ethics Committees. Individual datasets remain the property of trialists, and can be published prior to the publication of final PMA results. The overall data for meta-analysis will be held, analysed and published by the collaborative group, led by the Cochrane PMA group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020103857.

Effect of maternal birth positions on duration of second stage of labor: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is believed that giving birth in an upright position is beneficial for both mother and the infant for several physiologic reasons. An upright positioning helps the uterus to contract more strongly and efficiently, the baby gets in a better position and thus can pass through the pelvis faster. Upright and lateral positions enables flexibility in the pelvis and facilitates the extension of the outlet. Before implementing a change in birthing positions in our clinics we need to review evidences available and context valid related to duration of second stage of labor and birthing positions. Therefore this review aimed to examine the effect of maternal flexible sacrum birth position on duration of second stage of labor.

METHOD

The research searched articles using bibliographical Databases: Medline/PUBMED, SCOPUS, Google scholar and Google. All study designs were considered while investigating the impact of maternal flexible sacrum birthing positioning in relation duration of second stage of labor. Studies including laboring mothers with normal labor and delivery. A total of 1985 women were included in the reviewed studies. We included both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 1680 potential citations, of which 8 articles assessed the effect of maternal upright birth positioning on the reduction during the duration of second stage of labor. Two studies were excluded because of incomplete reports for meta analysis. The result suggested a reduction in duration of second stage of labor among women in a flexible sacrum birthing position, with a mean duration from 3.2-34.8. The pooled weighted mean difference with random effect model was 21.118(CI: 11.839-30.396) minutes, with the same significant heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 96.8%, p < 000).

CONCLUSION

The second stage duration was reduced in cases of a flexible sacrum birthing position. Even though the reduction in duration varies across studies with considerable heterogeneity, laboring women should be encouraged to choose her comfortable birth position. Researchers who aim to compare different birthing positions should consider study designs which enable women to choose birthing position. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: [CRD42019120618].

Effects of the birthing room environment on vaginal births and client-centred outcomes for women at term planning a vaginal birth: BE-UP, a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background

Caesarean sections (CSs) are associated with increased risk for maternal morbidity and mortality. The recommendations of the recently published German national health goal ‘Health in Childbirth’ (Gesundheit rund um die Geburt) promote vaginal births (VBs).

This randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluates the effects of a complex intervention pertaining to the birth environment, based on the sociology of technical artefacts and symbolic interactionism. The intervention is intended to foster an upright position and mobility during labour, which lead to a higher probability of VB.

Methods/design

This study is an active controlled superiority trial with a two-arm parallel design. The complex intervention involves making changes to the birthing room to encourage an upright position and mobility of women in labour and to relax them, which may help them to cope with labour and may increase self-determination. This may result in more VBs. Included in the study are primiparae and multiparae with a singleton foetus in cephalic presentation at term planning a VB. According to the sample size calculation, 3800 women in 12 obstetrical units are to be included. Randomisation will be performed centrally and controlled by an independent coordination centre. Blinding of participants and staff is not possible. Key outcomes are VB, episiotomy, perineal tears, epidural analgesia, critical outcome of newborn at term and maternal self-determination during birth. Additionally, a health economic evaluation will be performed.

Discussion

This is the first adequately powered multicentre RCT examining the effect of a redesigned birthing room on the probability of a VB and patient-centred physical and emotional outcomes. An increase in the number of VBs by 5% from a baseline of 74% to 79% would result in 21,000 women per year experiencing a VB rather than a CS in Germany. Expected benefits are greater self-determination during labour, improved physical and emotional client-centred outcomes, fewer medical interventions and a reduction in health-care costs.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), DRKS00012854. Registered on 7 March 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2979-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Maternal position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia in labour prolongs the second stage and increases instrumental delivery. It has been suggested that a more upright maternal position during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright or recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 June 2018), and the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind. Cluster-randomised controlled trials would have been eligible for inclusion but we found none. Studies published in abstract form only were also eligible.We assumed the experimental intervention to be maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control condition of remaining in any recumbent position.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors to obtain missing data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.We carried out a planned sensitivity analysis of the three studies with low risks of bias for allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data reporting, and further excluded one study with a co-intervention (this was not prespecified).

MAIN RESULTS

We include eight randomised controlled trials, involving 4464 women, comparing upright positions versus recumbent positions in this update. Five were conducted in the UK, one in France and two in Spain.The largest UK trial accounted for three-quarters of all review participants, and we judged it to have low risk of bias. We assessed two other trials as being at low risk of selection and attrition bias. We rated four studies at unclear or high risk of bias for both selection and attrition bias and one study as high risk of bias due to a co-intervention. The trials varied in their comparators, with five studies comparing different positions (upright and recumbent), two comparing ambulation with (recumbent) non-ambulation, and one study comparing postural changes guided by a physiotherapist to a recumbent position.Overall, there may be little or no difference between upright and recumbent positions for our combined primary outcome of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal): average risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.07; 8 trials, 4316 women; I² = 78%; low-quality evidence. It is uncertain whether the upright position has any impact on caesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46; 8 trials, 4316 women; I² = 47%; very low-quality evidence), instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 8 trials, 4316 women; I² = 69%) and the duration of the second stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 6.00 minutes, 95% CI -37.46 to 49.46; 3 trials, 456 women; I² = 96%), because we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for these outcomes. Maternal position in the second stage of labour probably makes little or no difference to postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), (PPH requiring blood transfusion): RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.72; 1 trial, 3093 women; moderate-quality evidence. Maternal satisfaction with the overall childbirth experience was slightly lower in the upright group: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.99; 1 trial, 2373 women. Fewer babies were born with low cord pH in the upright group: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.90; 2 trials, 3159 infants; moderate-quality evidence.The results were less clear for other maternal or fetal outcomes, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.13; 3 trials, 3266 women; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence), abnormal fetal heart patterns requiring intervention (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.84; 1 trial, 107 women; very low-quality evidence), or admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.02 to 12.73; 1 trial, 66 infants; very low-quality evidence). However, the CIs around some of these estimates were wide, and we cannot rule out clinically important effects.In our sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias, upright positions increase the chance of women having an operative birth: RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.20; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence. In absolute terms, this equates to 63 more operative births per 1000 women (from 17 more to 115 more). This increase appears to be due to the increase in caesarean section in the upright group (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.57; 3 trials, 3609 women; high-quality evidence), which equates to 25 more caesarean sections per 1000 women (from 4 more to 49 more). In the sensitivity analysis there was no clear impact on instrumental vaginal births: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 3 trials, 3609 women; low-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There may be little or no difference in operative birth between women who adopt recumbent or supine positions during the second stage of labour with an epidural analgesia. However, the studies are heterogeneous, probably related to differing study designs and interventions, differing adherence to the allocated intervention and possible selection and attrition bias. Sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias indicated that recumbent positions may reduce the need for operative birth and caesarean section, without increasing instrumental delivery. Mothers may be more satisfied with their experience of childbirth by adopting a recumbent position. The studies in this review looked at left or right lateral and semi-recumbent positions. Recumbent positions such as flat on the back or lithotomy are not generally used due to the possibility of aorto-caval compression, although we acknowledge that these recumbent positions were not the focus of trials included in this review.

Upright versus lying down position in second stage of labour in nulliparous women with low dose epidural: BUMPES randomised controlled trial

Objective To determine whether being upright in the second stage of labour in nulliparous women with a low dose epidural increases the chance of spontaneous vaginal birth compared with lying down.Design Multicentre pragmatic individually randomised controlled trial.Setting 41 UK hospital labour wards.Participants 3093 nulliparous women aged 16 or older, at term with a singleton cephalic presentation and in the second stage of labour with epidural analgesia.Interventions Women were allocated to an upright or lying down position, using a secure web based randomisation service, stratified by centre, with no masking of participants or clinicians to the trial interventions.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was spontaneous vaginal birth. Women were analysed in the groups into which they were randomly allocated, regardless of position recorded at any time during the second stage of labour (excluding women with no valid consent, who withdrew, or who did not reach second stage before delivery). Secondary outcomes included mode of birth, perineal trauma, infant Apgar score <4 at five minutes, admission to a neonatal unit, and longer term included maternal physical and psychological health, incontinence, and infant gross developmental delay. Results Between 4 October 2010 and 31 January 2014, 3236 women were randomised and 3093 (95.6%) included in the primary analysis (1556 in the upright group and 1537 in the lying down group). Significantly fewer spontaneous vaginal births occurred in women in the upright group: 35.2% (548/1556) compared with 41.1% (632/1537) in the lying down group (adjusted risk ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.94). This represents a 5.9% absolute increase in the chance of spontaneous vaginal birth in the lying down group (number needed to treat 17, 95% confidence interval 11 to 40). No evidence of differences was found for most of the secondary maternal, neonatal, or longer term outcomes including instrumental vaginal delivery (adjusted risk ratio 1.08, 99% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.18), obstetric anal sphincter injury (1.27, 0.88 to 1.84), infant Apgar score <4 at five minutes (0.66, 0.06 to 6.88), and maternal faecal incontinence at one year (1.18, 0.61 to 2.28).Conclusions Evidence shows that lying down in the second stage of labour results in more spontaneous vaginal births in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia, with no apparent disadvantages in relation to short or longer term outcomes for mother or baby.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35706297.

Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The pain that women experience during labour is affected by multiple physiological and psychosocial factors and its intensity can vary greatly.  Most women in labour require pain relief. Pain management strategies include non-pharmacological interventions (that aim to help women cope with pain in labour) and pharmacological interventions (that aim to relieve the pain of labour).

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage pain in labour. We considered findings from non-Cochrane systematic reviews if there was no relevant Cochrane review.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 5), The Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to 31 May 2011) to identify all relevant systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of pain management in labour. Each of the contributing Cochrane reviews (nine new, six updated) followed a generic protocol with 13 common primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Each Cochrane review included comparisons with placebo, standard care or with a different intervention according to a predefined hierarchy of interventions. Two review authors extracted data and assessed methodological quality, and data were checked by a third author. This overview is a narrative summary of the results obtained from individual reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 Cochrane reviews (255 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (55 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. For all interventions, with available data, results are presented as comparisons of: 1. Intervention versus placebo or standard care; 2. Different forms of the same intervention (e.g. one opioid versus another opioid); 3. One type of intervention versus a different type of intervention (e.g. TENS versus opioid). Not all reviews included results for all comparisons. Most reviews compared the intervention with placebo or standard care, but with the exception of opioids and epidural analgesia, there were few direct comparisons between different forms of the same intervention, and even fewer comparisons between different interventions. Based on these three comparisons, we have categorised interventions into: " What works" ,"What may work", and "Insufficient evidence to make a judgement".WHAT WORKSEvidence suggests that epidural, combined spinal epidural (CSE) and inhaled analgesia effectively manage pain in labour, but may give rise to adverse effects. Epidural, and inhaled analgesia effectively relieve pain when compared with placebo or a different type of intervention (epidural versus opioids). Combined-spinal epidurals relieve pain more quickly than traditional or low dose epidurals. Women receiving inhaled analgesia were more likely to experience vomiting, nausea and dizziness.When compared with placebo or opioids, women receiving epidural analgesia had more instrumental vaginal births and caesarean sections for fetal distress, although there was no difference in the rates of caesarean section overall. Women receiving epidural analgesia were more likely to experience hypotension, motor blockade, fever or urinary retention. Less urinary retention was observed in women receiving CSE than in women receiving traditional epidurals. More women receiving CSE than low-dose epidural experienced pruritus.  WHAT MAY WORKThere is some evidence to suggest that immersion in water, relaxation, acupuncture, massage and local anaesthetic nerve blocks or non-opioid drugs may improve management of labour pain, with few adverse effects.  Evidence was mainly limited to single trials. These interventions relieved pain and improved satisfaction with pain relief (immersion, relaxation, acupuncture, local anaesthetic nerve blocks, non-opioids) and childbirth experience (immersion, relaxation, non-opioids) when compared with placebo or standard care. Relaxation was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and acupuncture was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and caesarean sections.INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCEThere is insufficient evidence to make judgements on whether or not hypnosis, biofeedback, sterile water injection, aromatherapy, TENS, or parenteral opioids are more effective than placebo or other interventions for pain management in labour. In comparison with other opioids more women receiving pethidine experienced adverse effects including drowsiness and nausea. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most methods of non-pharmacological pain management are non-invasive and appear to be safe for mother and baby, however, their efficacy is unclear, due to limited high quality evidence. In many reviews, only one or two trials provided outcome data for analysis and the overall methodological quality of the trials was low. High quality trials are needed.There is more evidence to support the efficacy of pharmacological methods, but these have more adverse effects. Thus, epidural analgesia provides effective pain relief but at the cost of increased instrumental vaginal birth.It remains important to tailor methods used to each woman's wishes, needs and circumstances, such as anticipated duration of labour, the infant's condition, and any augmentation or induction of labour.A major challenge in compiling this overview, and the individual systematic reviews on which it is based, has been the variation in use of different process and outcome measures in different trials, particularly assessment of pain and its relief, and effects on the neonate after birth. This made it difficult to pool results from otherwise similar studies, and to derive conclusions from the totality of evidence. Other important outcomes have simply not been assessed in trials; thus, despite concerns for 30 years or more about the effects of maternal opioid administration during labour on subsequent neonatal behaviour and its influence on breastfeeding, only two out of 57 trials of opioids reported breastfeeding as an outcome. We therefore strongly recommend that the outcome measures, agreed through wide consultation for this project, are used in all future trials of methods of pain management.