Pushing method in the expulsive phase of labor. A randomized trial

[Update on the management modalities of expulsive efforts during childbirth]

The second stage of labour includes both the passive and active stages, involving expulsive efforts. The management of this phase of labour aims to minimise the maternal and neonatal complications that could be associated with a prolonged active2nd stage, but also to limit medical interventions. On the maternal side, prolonged duration of expulsive effort appears to be correlated with increased postpartum haemorrhage, perineal injury and, in the long term, urinary and anal incontinence. From a neonatal viewpoint, expulsive efforts carry risks of neonatal acidosis, asphyxia, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit and trauma. Optimal management of expulsive efforts involves several strategies. Various aspects need to be addressed in order to optimise this management, including the timing of the start of expulsive efforts, comparing immediate pushing with delayed pushing, and the duration of expulsive efforts. In addition, it is important to examine the different pushing modalities, whether intense or moderate, using open or closed-glottis pushing, as well as the maternal position during pushing. According to the current literature, no specific technique or predefined duration appears to reduce the risk of neonatal or maternal complications. It therefore seems essential to adopt an individualised approach for each woman, placing her at the centre of the care and decision-making process, in order to take account of her preferences during childbirth.

Comparison of Spontaneous Pushing and Directed Pushing During the Second Stage of Labor Among Chinese Women Without Epidural Analgesia: Protocol for a Noninferior Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Maternal pushing during the second stage of labor could influence labor progress and maternal-neonatal outcomes. Although the image of health care providers directing the laboring women to push during the second stage of labor could be commonly observed globally, this practice is not sufficiently researched and is questioned regarding its effectiveness and outcomes on the mother and baby. Meanwhile, a strategy referred to as "spontaneous pushing," which supports women to push by following their bodily urges, has been evaluated in several trials. However, in China, spontaneous pushing is not common practice. Notwithstanding the evaluation of spontaneous pushing, there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support either strategies of directed pushing or spontaneous pushing.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to test the feasibility of a future randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of spontaneous pushing and directed pushing during the second stage of labor for maternal and neonatal outcomes in China.

METHODS

A nonrandomized, single-group, noninferiority feasibility study will be conducted in a public hospital in Hebei Province, China. In total, 105 women meeting the selection criteria will be recruited to receive the intervention (spontaneous pushing), while 105 sets of medical notes from women who received routine care (directed pushing) will be identified and reviewed to compare outcomes for both cohorts. A mixed methods approach will be used to assess primary outcomes (feasibility and acceptability) and secondary outcomes (effectiveness).

RESULTS

Data collection took place between May and October 2023. A total of 110 women were invited to participate in the intervention of spontaneous pushing. Midwives' interviews were conducted and will be transcribed for analysis in March 2024. The data analysis is planned to be completed by May 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility study will provide important information by conducting a full-scale clinical trial in the future as well as the potential facilitators and barriers of it. A future randomized controlled trial is likely to have considerable policy and funding impacts regarding pushing management during the second stage of labor and improvement in women's childbirth experience.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Register ChiCTR2300071178; https://tinyurl.com/mudtnbft.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/55701.

Effects of different techniques during the second stage of labour on reducing perineal laceration: An overview of systematic reviews

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

To summarize the evidence on the effects of different techniques during the second stage of labour on reducing perineal laceration depending on available systematic reviews to provide optimal evidence for decision-making.

BACKGROUND

Preventing perineal laceration has been considered an important part of improving women's health. Various techniques have been used to prevent perineal laceration during the second stage of labour. However, systematic reviews evaluating the effects of different techniques on reducing perineal laceration show inconsistent results.

DESIGN

Overview of systematic reviews.

METHODS

Five English and four Chinese databases were systematically searched for relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 1 January 2016 and 31 August 2021. The quality of the included reviews was assessed by the AMSTAR 2 tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted to report the results of moderate-to-high quality systematic reviews. The overview was reported according to the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

Eighteen reviews were included, of which four reviews had moderate-to-high methodological quality. Perineal massage and warm compresses significantly decreased the incidence of third- or fourth-degree perineal laceration (moderate-quality evidence). Hands-off technique had no impact on perineal laceration (low-to-moderate quality evidence). Ritgen's manoeuvre could reduce the incidence of first-degree perineal laceration but increase the incidence of second-degree perineal laceration (very low-quality evidence). Spontaneous pushing (low-quality evidence) and delayed pushing (moderate-quality evidence) had no impact on the incidence of third- or fourth-degree perineal laceration. Upright positions did not increase the risk of third- or fourth-degree perineal laceration (very low- to low-quality evidence) but increased the risk of second-degree perineal laceration for women without epidural analgesia (low-quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Perineal massage and warm compresses could be the better choice for preventing perineal laceration in the second stage of labour.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Midwives and obstetricians could use perineal massage and warm compresses to prevent perineal laceration and should consider women's preferences and experience with perineal techniques.

Benefits and risks of spontaneous pushing versus directed pushing during the second stage of labour among women without epidural analgesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the benefits and risks of spontaneous pushing and directed pushing used by labouring women without epidural analgesia during the second stage labour.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trials published in PubMed/ MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, psycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and four Chinese databases were systematically searched from their inception to December, 2021. Grey literature were also searched. Two authors independently screened the literature and evaluated the quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

Ten studies with a total of 1510 women were pooled. Spontaneous pushing in the second stage of labour reduced the rates of Caesarean section and extended episiotomy. The difference was significant among spontaneous pushing group and directed pushing group, with relative risk and 95% confidence intervals of 0.42 and 0.19-0.94, 0.49 and 0.29-0.82, respectively. There was no significant difference in the duration of the second stage of labour, rates of spontaneous vaginal birth and newborn outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that spontaneous pushing during the second stage of labour results in at least the same maternal and newborn outcomes, lower Caesarean section rates and lower incidence of extended episiotomy.

Postpartum urinary incontinence and birth outcomes as a result of the pushing technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Directed pushing while using the Valsalva maneuver is shown to lead to bladder neck descent, especially in women with urinary incontinence (UI). There is insufficient evidence about the benefits or adverse effects between the pushing technique during the second stage of labor and urinary incontinence postpartum. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of the pushing technique for women during labor on postpartum UI and birth outcomes.

METHODS

Scientific databases were searched for studies relating to postpartum urinary incontinence and birth outcomes when the pushing technique was used from 1986 until 2020. RCTs that assessed healthy primiparas who used the pushing technique in the second stage of labor were included. In accordance with Cochrane Handbook guidelines, risk of bias was assessed and meta-analyzed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs (4606 primiparas) were included. The change in UI scores from baseline to postpartum was significantly lower as a result of spontaneous pushing (two studies; 867 primiparas; standardized mean difference: SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.04). Although women were in the recumbent position during the second stage, directed pushing group showed a significantly shorter labor by 21.39 min compared with the spontaneous pushing group: there was no significant difference in the duration of the second stage of labor between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Primiparas who were in the upright position and who experienced spontaneous pushing during the second stage of labor could reduce their UI score from baseline to postpartum.

Is directed open-glottis pushing more effective than directed closed-glottis pushing during the second stage of labor? A pragmatic randomized trial - the EOLE study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of directed open-glottis and directed closed-glottis pushing.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, randomised, controlled, non-blinded superiority study.

SETTINGS

Four French hospitals between July 2015 and June 2017 (2 academic hospitals and 2 general hospitals).

PARTICIPANTS

250 women in labour who had undergone standardised training in the two types of pushing with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation at term (≥37 weeks) were included by midwives and randomised; 125 were allocated to each group. The exclusion criteria were previous caesarean birth or fetal heart rate anomaly. Participants were randomised during labour, after a cervical dilation ≥ 7 cm.

INTERVENTIONS

In the intervention group, open-glottis pushing was defined as a prolonged exhalation contracting the abdominal muscles (pulling the stomach in) to help move the fetus down the birth canal. Closed-glottis pushing was defined as Valsalva pushing.

MEASUREMENTS

The principal outcome was "effectiveness of pushing" defined as a spontaneous birth without any episiotomy, second-, third-, or fourth-degree perineal lesion. The results in our intention-to-treat analysis are reported as crude relative risks (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals. A multivariable analysis was used to take the relevant prognostic and confounding factors into account and obtain an adjusted relative risk (aRR).

FINDINGS

In our intention-to-treat analysis, most characteristics were similar across groups including epidural analgesia (>95% in each group). The mean duration of the expulsion phase was longer among the open-glottis group (24.4 min ± 17.4 vs. 18.0 min ± 15.0, p=0.002). The two groups did not appear to differ in the effectiveness of their pushing (48.0% in the open-glottis group versus 55.2% in the closed-glottis group, for an adjusted relative risk (aRR) of 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-1.14) or in their risk of instrumental birth (aRR 0.97, 95%CI 0.85-1.10).

KEY CONCLUSIONS

In maternity units with a high rate of epidural analgesia, the effectiveness of the type of directed pushing does not appear to differ between the open- and closed-glottis groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

If directed pushing is necessary, women should be able to choose the type of directed pushing they prefer to use during birth. Professionals must therefore be trained in both types so that they can adequately support women as they give birth.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes from a comparison of spontaneous and directed pushing in second stage

AIM

To compare the effect of directed or spontaneous maternal pushing effort on duration of second stage labour, perineal injury and neonatal condition at birth.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional design provided data for term women with singleton, cephalic presentation experiencing a non-operative vaginal birth without regional analgesia from January 2011 to December 2017 (n=69,066) Participants matching the inclusion criteria (n=19,212) were grouped based upon spontaneous or directed pushing. Propensity score matching was used to select equally sized cohorts of similar characteristics (n=10,000). The associations with outcomes of interest were estimated using odds ratios obtained by multivariate analysis.

FINDINGS

Directed pushing was associated with a longer duration of second stage labour for nulliparous (mean 14.4min [12.0-16.8]) and multiparous (mean 8.0min [6.8-9.2]) women, and an increased risk of prolonged 2nd stage of labour in multiparous women. The use of episiotomy in the directed pushing group was significantly higher both prior to and following PS matching and adjustment. Directed pushing was also associated with an significantly increased risk of neonatal resuscitation and nursery admission. There was no difference in rates of Apgar <7 recorded at 5min of age.

CONCLUSION

Directed pushing is associated with an increased duration of second stage labour and risk of adverse neonatal outcomes. Our study suggests that in the absence of regional analgesia women should be supported to follow their own expulsive urges.

Pushing/bearing down methods for the second stage of labour

BACKGROUND

Maternal pushing during the second stage of labour is an important and indispensable contributor to the involuntary expulsive force developed by uterine contraction. There is no consensus on an ideal strategy to facilitate these expulsive efforts and there are contradictory results about the influence on the mother and fetus.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and possible disadvantages of different kinds of techniques regarding maternal pushing/breathing during the expulsive stage of labour on maternal and fetal outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (19 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of pushing/bearing down techniques (type and/or timing) performed during the second stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design and those published in abstract form only were not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included 21 studies in total, eight (884 women) comparing spontaneous pushing versus directed pushing, with or without epidural analgesia and 13 (2879 women) comparing delayed pushing versus immediate pushing with epidural analgesia. Our GRADE assessments of evidence ranged from moderate to very low quality; the main reasons for downgrading were study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates. Overall, the included studies varied in their risk of bias; most were judged to be at unclear risk of bias. Comparison 1: types of pushing: spontaneous pushing versus directed pushingThere was no clear difference in the duration of the second stage of labour (mean difference (MD) 10.26 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to 21.64 minutes, six studies, 667 women, random-effects, I² = 81%) (very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in 3rd or 4th degree perineal laceration (risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.66, one study, 320 women) (low-quality evidence), episiotomy (average RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.85, two studies, 420 women, random-effects, I² = 81%), duration of pushing (MD -9.76 minutes, 95% CI -19.54 to 0.02; two studies; 169 women; I² = 88%) (very low-quality evidence), or rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05; five studies; 688 women; I² = 2%) (moderate-quality evidence). For primary neonatal outcomes such as five-minute Apgar score less than seven, there was no clear difference between groups (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.43, one study, 320 infants) (very low-quality evidence), and the number of admissions to neonatal intensive care (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.30 to 3.79, two studies, 393 infants) (very low-quality evidence) also showed no clear difference between spontaneous and directed pushing. No data were available on hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Comparison 2: timing of pushing: delayed pushing versus immediate pushing (all women with epidural)For the primary maternal outcomes, delayed pushing was associated with an increase of 56 minutes in the duration of the second stage of labour (MD 56.40, 95% CI 42.05 to 70.76; 11 studies; 3049 women; I² = 91%) (very low-quality evidence), but no clear difference in third or 4th degree perineal laceration (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14, seven studies. 2775 women) (moderate-quality evidence) or episiotomy (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.04, five studies, 2320 women). Delayed pushing was also associated with a 19-minute decrease in the duration of pushing (MD -19.05, 95% CI -32.27 to -5.83; 11 studies; 2932 women; I² = 95%) (very low-quality evidence) and an increase in spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11, 12 studies, 3114 women) (moderate-quality evidence).For the primary neonatal outcomes, there was no clear difference between groups in admission to neonatal intensive care (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41, three studies, n = 2197) (low-quality evidence) and five-minute Apgar score less than seven (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.00; three studies; 413 infants) (very low-quality evidence). There were no data on hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Delayed pushing was associated with a greater incidence of low umbilical cord blood pH (RR 2.24; 95% CI 1.37 to 3.68, 4 studies, 2145 infants) and increased the cost of intrapartum care by CDN$ 68.22 (MD 68.22, 95% CI 55.37, 81.07, one study, 1862 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review is based on 21 included studies of moderate to very low quality of evidence (with evidence mainly downgraded due to study design limitations and imprecision of effect estimates).Timing of pushing with epidural is consistent in that delayed pushing leads to a shortening of the actual time pushing and increase of spontaneous vaginal delivery at the expense of an overall longer duration of the second stage of labour and an increased risk of a low umbilical cord pH (based only on one study). Nevertheless, there was no clear difference in serious perineal laceration and episiotomy, and in other neonatal outcomes (admission to neonatal intensive care, five-minute Apgar score less than seven and delivery room resuscitation) between delayed and immediate pushing.Therefore, for the type of pushing, with or without epidural, there is no conclusive evidence to support or refute any specific style as part of routine clinical practice, and in the absence of strong evidence supporting a specific method or timing of pushing, the woman's preference and comfort and clinical context should guide decisions.Further properly well-designed RCTs, addressing clinically important maternal and neonatal outcomes are required to add evidence-based information to the current knowledge. Such trials will provide more complete data to be incorporated into a future update of this review.

Effect of the type of maternal pushing during the second stage of labour on obstetric and neonatal outcome: a multicentre randomised trial-the EOLE study protocol

INTRODUCTION

The scientific data currently available do not allow any definitive conclusion to be reached about what type of pushing should be recommended to women during the second stage of labour. The objective of this trial is to assess and compare the effectiveness of directed open-glottis pushing versus directed closed-glottis pushing. Secondary objectives are to assess, according to the type of pushing: immediate maternal and neonatal morbidity, intermediate-term maternal pelvic floor morbidity, uncomplicated birth, and women's satisfaction at 4 weeks post partum.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicentre randomised clinical trial compares directed closed-glottis pushing (Valsalva) versus directed open-glottis pushing during the second stage of labour in 4 hospitals of France. The study population includes pregnant women who received instruction in both types of pushing, have no previous caesarean delivery, are at term and have a vaginal delivery planned. Randomisation takes place during labour once cervical dilation ≥7 cm. The principal end point is assessed by a composite criterion: spontaneous delivery without perineal lesion (no episiotomy or spontaneous second-degree, third-degree or fourth-degree lacerations). We will need to recruit 125 women per group. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat analysis, with the principal results reported as crude relative risks (RRs) with their 95% CIs. A multivariate analysis will be performed to take prognostic and confounding factors into account to obtain adjusted RRs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by a French Institutional Review Board (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud Est 6:N°AU1168). Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific meetings. This study will make it possible to assess the effectiveness of 2 types of directed pushing used in French practice and to assess their potential maternal, fetal and neonatal effects. Findings from the study will be useful for counselling pregnant women before and during labour.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Agence national de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM): 150099B-22 and IDRCB: 2014-A01920-47. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02474745. Pre-result stage.

Do maternal pushing techniques during labour affect obstetric or neonatal outcomes?

OBJECTIVES

To assess, through a literature review, the maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with the type of pushing used during the second stage of labour.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library and the Medline database for randomised controlled trials from 1980 to 2015, using the following keywords: "delivery", "birth", "birthing", "bearing down, coached, uncoached, pushing", "second and stage and labour", "randomised controlled trials" and "meta-analysis".

RESULTS

Seven randomised controlled trials were found. Interventions varied between the studies. In the intervention groups, open-glottis pushing was spontaneous or coached. The groups did not differ for perineal injuries, episiotomies or type of birth. Impact on pelvic floor structure varied between the studies. Only one study found a better 5-minute Apgar score and a better umbilical artery pH in the "open glottis" group.

CONCLUSION

The low methodological quality of the studies and the differences between the protocols do not justify a recommendation of a particular pushing technique. Further studies appear necessary to study outcomes with each of these techniques.

Pushing/bearing down methods for the second stage of labour

BACKGROUND

Maternal pushing during the second stage of labour is an important and indispensable contributor to the involuntary expulsive force developed by uterus contraction. Currently, there is no consensus on an ideal strategy to facilitate these expulsive efforts and there are contradictory results about the influence on mother and fetus.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and possible disadvantages of different kinds of techniques regarding maternal pushing/breathing during the expulsive stage of labour on maternal and fetal outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 January 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised assessing the effects of pushing/bearing down techniques (type and/or timing) performed during the second stage of labour on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design and those published in abstract form only were not eligible for inclusion.We considered the following comparisons.Timing of pushing: to compare pushing, which begins as soon as full dilatation has been determined versus pushing which begins after the urge to push is felt.Type of pushing: to compare pushing techniques that involve the 'Valsalva Manoeuvre' versus all other pushing techniques.

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.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 studies in total, seven studies (815 women) comparing spontaneous pushing versus directed pushing, with or without epidural analgesia and 13 studies (2879 women) comparing delayed pushing versus immediate pushing with epidural analgesia. The results come from studies with a high or unclear risk of bias, especially selection bias and selective reporting bias. Comparison 1: types of pushing: spontaneous pushing versus directed pushingOverall, for this comparison there was no difference in the duration of the second stage (mean difference (MD) 11.60 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.37 to 27.57, five studies, 598 women, random-effects, I(2): 82%; T(2): 220.06). There was no clear difference in perineal laceration (risk ratio (RR) 0.87; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.66, one study, 320 women) and episiotomy (average RR 1.05 ; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.85, two studies, 420 women, random-effects, I(2) = 81%; T(2) = 0.14). The primary neonatal outcomes such as five-minute Apgar score less than seven was no different between groups (RR 0.35; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.43, one study, 320 infants), and the number of admissions to neonatal intensive care (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.30 to 3.79, two studies, n = 393) also showed no difference between spontaneous and directed pushing and no data were available on hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy.The duration of pushing (secondary maternal outcome) was five minutes less for the spontaneous group (MD -5.20 minutes; 95% CI -7.78 to -2.62, one study, 100 women). Comparison 2: timing of pushing: delayed pushing versus immediate pushing (all women with epidural)For the primary maternal outcomes, delayed pushing was associated with an increase of 54 minutes in the duration of the second stage of labour (MD 54.29 minutes; 95% CI 38.14 to 70.43; 10 studies, 2797 women, random-effects; I(2) = 91%; T(2) = 543.38), and there was no difference in perineal laceration (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14, seven studies. 2775 women) and episiotomy (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.04, five studies, 2320 women). Delayed pushing was also associated with a 20-minute decrease in the duration of pushing (MD - 20.10; 95% CI -36.19 to -4.02, 10 studies, 2680 women, random-effects, I(2) = 96%; T(2) = 604.37) and an increase in spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11, 12 studies, 3114 women).For the primary neonatal outcomes, there was no difference between groups in admission to neonatal intensive care (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41, three studies, n = 2197) and five-minute Apgar score less than seven (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.00, three studies, n = 413). There were no data on hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Delayed pushing was associated with a greater incidence of low umbilical cord blood pH (RR 2.24; 95% CI 1.37 to 3.68) and increased the cost of intrapartum care by CDN$ 68.22 (MD 68.22, 95% CI 55.37, 81.07, one study, 1862 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review is based on a total of 20 included studies that were of a mixed methodological quality.Timing of pushing with epidural is consistent in that delayed pushing leads to a shortening of the actual time pushing and increase of spontaneous vaginal delivery at the expense of an overall longer duration of the second stage of labour and double the risk of a low umbilical cord pH (based only on one study). Nevertheless, there was no difference in the caesarean and instrumental deliveries, perineal laceration and episiotomy, and in the other neonatal outcomes (admission to neonatal intensive care, five-minute Apgar score less than seven and delivery room resuscitation) between delayed and immediate pushing. Futhermore, the adverse effects on maternal pelvic floor is still unclear.Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to justify routine use of any specific timing of pushing since the maternal and neonatal benefits and adverse effects of delayed and immediate pushing are not well established.For the type of pushing, with or without epidural, there is no conclusive evidence to support or refute any specific style or recommendation as part of routine clinical practice. Women should be encouraged to bear down based on their preferences and comfort.In the absence of strong evidence supporting a specific method or timing of pushing, patient preference and clinical situations should guide decisions.Further properly well-designed randomised controlled trials are required to add evidence-based information to the current knowledge. These trials should address clinically important maternal and neonatal outcomes and will provide more complete data to be incorporated into a future update of this review.

[Methods of pushing at vaginal delivery and pelvi-perineal consequences. Review]

INTRODUCTION

The main objective of that review was to evaluate the pelvi-perineal consequences of the different methods of pushing at vaginal delivery.

METHODS

A review on PubMed, the Cochrane Library and EM-Premium was performed from 1984 to 2014. Among 29 manuscripts analysed, only nine randomised controlled trials (including one meta-analysis of three trials) comparing Valsalva and spontaneous pushing were selected. A 10 th study, secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing different methods of perineal protection (warm compresses, massage and manual protection), was also selected.

RESULTS

Two trials have shown that spontaneous pushing reduces the risk of perineal tears, but studies were heterogeneous and discordant results do not allowed definitive conclusions. Results on the duration of the second stage of labour are conflicting. The method of pushing does not seem to affect the rate of episiotomy, instrumental delivery and cesarean section. Maternal satisfaction seems to be better after spontaneous pushing. It seems that there is no negative effect of spontaneous pushing on neonate well-being, and one study has shown a significant improvement of prenatal fetal parameters during the expulsive phase.

CONCLUSION

According to current knowledge, both techniques of pushing during the expulsive phase at delivery seem comparable in terms of duration, risk of perineal tears and neonatal outcome.

Antenatal perineal massage for reducing perineal trauma

BACKGROUND

Perineal trauma following vaginal birth can be associated with significant short-term and long-term morbidity. Antenatal perineal massage has been proposed as one method of decreasing the incidence of perineal trauma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of antenatal digital perineal massage on the incidence of perineal trauma at birth and subsequent morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (22 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10), PubMed (1966 to October 2012), EMBASE (1980 to October 2012) and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating any described method of antenatal digital perineal massage undertaken for at least the last four weeks of pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both review authors independently applied the selection criteria, extracted data from the included studies and assessed study quality. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials (2497 women) comparing digital perineal massage with control. All were of good quality. Antenatal digital perineal massage was associated with an overall reduction in the incidence of trauma requiring suturing (four trials, 2480 women, risk ratio (RR) 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 0.96), number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 15 (10 to 36)) and women practicing perineal massage were less likely to have an episiotomy (four trials, 2480 women, RR 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.95), NNTB 21 (12 to 75)). These findings were significant for women without previous vaginal birth only. No differences were seen in the incidence of first- or second-degree perineal tears or third-/fourth-degree perineal trauma. Only women who have previously birthed vaginally reported a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of pain at three months postpartum (one trial, 376 women, RR 0.45 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.87) NNTB 13 (7 to 60)). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of instrumental deliveries, sexual satisfaction, or incontinence of urine, faeces or flatus for any women who practised perineal massage compared with those who did not massage.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antenatal digital perineal massage reduces the likelihood of perineal trauma (mainly episiotomies) and the reporting of ongoing perineal pain, and is generally well accepted by women. As such, women should be made aware of the likely benefit of perineal massage and provided with information on how to massage.

Spontaneous pushing to prevent postpartum urinary incontinence: a randomized, controlled trial

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The risk for urinary incontinence can be 2.6-fold greater in women after pregnancy and childbirth compared with their never-pregnant counterparts, with the incidence increasing with parity. We tested the hypothesis that the incidence of de novo postpartum urinary incontinence in primiparous women is reduced with the use of spontaneous pushing alone or in combination with perineal massage compared with women who experienced traditional directed pushing for second-stage management.

METHODS

This was a prospective clinical trial enrolling and randomizing 249 women into a four-group design: (1) routine care with coached or directed pushing, (2) spontaneous self-directed pushing, (3) prenatal perineal massage initiated in the third trimester, and (4) the combination of spontaneous pushing plus perineal massage. Self-report of incontinence was assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and covariance (ANCOVA) models in 145 remaining women at 12 months postpartum using the Leakage Index, which is sensitive to minor leakage.

RESULTS

No statistical difference in the incidence of de novo postpartum incontinence was found based on method of pushing (spontaneous/directed) (P value = 0.57) or in combination with prenatal perineal massage (P value = 0.57). Fidelity to pushing treatment of type was assessed and between-groups crossover detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Spontaneous pushing did not reduce the incidence of postpartum incontinence experienced by women 1 year after their first birth due to high cross-over between randomization groups.

Effect of spontaneous pushing versus Valsalva pushing in the second stage of labour on mother and fetus: a systematic review of randomised trials

OBJECTIVES

To critically evaluate any benefit or harm for the mother and her baby of Valsalva pushing versus spontaneous pushing in the second stage of labour.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic databases from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched (last search May 2010). The reference lists of retrieved studies were searched by hand and an internet hand search of master theses and dissertations was performed. No date or language restriction was used.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials that compared instructed pushing with spontaneous pushing in the second stage of labour were considered. Studies were evaluated independently for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion by two authors (MP and JB).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was instrumental/operative delivery. Other outcomes were length of labour, any perineal repair, bladder function, maternal satisfaction. Infant outcomes included low Apgar score < 7 after 5 minutes, umbilical arterial pH <7.2, admission to neonatal intensive care unit and serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death.

MAIN RESULTS

Three randomised controlled studies covering 425 primiparous women met the inclusion criteria. Women who used epidural analgesia were excluded in all three studies. No statistical difference was identified in the number of instrumental/operative deliveries (three studies; 425 women; relative risk 0.70; 95% CI 0.34-1.43), perineal repair, postpartum haemorrhage. Length of labour was significantly shorter in women who used the Valsalva pushing technique (three studies; 425 women; mean difference 18.59 minutes; 95% CI 0.46-36.73 minutes). Neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly. Urodynamic factors measured 3 months postpartum were negatively affected by Valsalva pushing. Measures of first urge to void and bladder capacity were decreased (one study; 128 women; mean difference respectively 41.50 ml, 95% CI 8.40-74.60, and 54.60 ml, 95% CI 13.31-95.89).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSION

The evidence from our review does not support the routine use of Valsalva pushing in the second stage of labour. The Valsalva pushing method has a negative effect on urodynamic factors according to one study. The duration of the second stage of labour is shorter with Valsalva pushing but the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain. The primary studies are sparse, diverse and some flawed. Further research seems warranted. In the mean time supporting spontaneous pushing and encouraging women to choose their own method of pushing should be accepted as best clinical practice.

Why Do Supportive Birth Attendants Become Directive of Maternal Bearing-Down Efforts in Second-Stage Labor?

A supportive approach to care for women during the second stage of labor that primarily relies on the laboring woman's involuntary expulsive urges has been advocated. We aimed to learn about the clinical circumstances surrounding the caregiver shift from being primarily supportive to directing women regarding their bearing-down efforts. This research analyzed the communications of 10 birth attendants and women during the expulsive phase of labor using videotapes recorded from two studies carried out between 1986 and the present. The occasions when a birth attendant shifted verbalizations were identified, and categories of the rationales that may have influenced the modification in caregiver behavior were developed. Birth attendants most frequently provided directions to help the woman push effectively, that is, to focus the woman's bearing-down efforts during maternal distress, fatigue, fear, and pain to expedite the labor process (38% of the occasions of caregiver change in verbalizations). The next most frequent clinical situations when caregivers offered directions about "pushing" were diminished urge to bear-down with epidural analgesia (10%), routine arbitrary practices (9% caregiver and 6% by supportive companion), and fetal distress (<1%). A category of "supportive direction" (20%) was identified. This care strategy has not been previously reported. It combined direction with support in a way that was supportive rather than overriding the woman's involuntary efforts.

Delayed versus immediate pushing in second stage of labor

PURPOSE

Comparison of two different methods for management of second stage of labor: immediate pushing at complete cervical dilation of 10 cm and delayed pushing 90 minutes after complete cervical dilation.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This study was a randomized clinical trial in a labor and delivery unit of a not-for-profit community hospital. A sample of 44 nulliparous mothers with continuous epidural anesthesia were studied after random assignment to treatment groups. Subjects were managed with either immediate or delayed pushing during the second stage of labor at the time cervical dilation was complete. The primary outcome measure was the length of pushing during second stage of labor. Secondary outcomes included length of second stage of labor, maternal fatigue and perineal injuries, and fetal heart rate decelerations. Two-tailed, unpaired Student's t-tests and Chi-square analysis were used for data analysis. Level of significance was set at p < .01 following a Bonferroni correction for multiple t-tests.

RESULTS

A total of 44 subjects received the study intervention (N = 28 immediate pushing; N = 16 delayed pushing). The delayed pushing group had significantly shorter amount of time spent in pushing compared with the immediate pushing group (38.9 +/- 6.9 vs. 78.7 +/- 7.9 minutes, respectively, p = .002). Maternal fatigue scores, perineal injuries, and fetal heart rate decelerations were similar for both groups.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Delaying pushing for up to 90 minutes after complete cervical dilation resulted in a significant decrease in the time mothers spent pushing without a significant increase in total time in second stage of labor.In clinical practice, healthcare providers sometimes resist delaying the onset of pushing after second stage of labor has begun because of a belief it will increase labor time. This study's finding of a 51% reduction in pushing time when mothers delay pushing for up to 90 minutes, with no significant increase in overall time for second stage of labor, disputes that concern.

Evidence-based labor and delivery management

Our objective was to provide evidence-based guidance for management decisions during labor and delivery. We performed MEDLINE, PubMed, and COCHRANE searches with the terms labor, delivery, pregnancy, randomized trials, plus each management aspect of labor and delivery (eg, early admission). Each management step of labor and delivery was reviewed separately. Evidence-based good quality data favor hospital births, delayed admission, support by doula, training birth assistants in developing countries, and upright position in the second stage. Home-like births, enema, shaving, routine vaginal irrigation, early amniotomy, "hands-on" method, fundal pressure, and episiotomy can be associated with complications without sufficient benefits and should probably be avoided. We conclude that labor and delivery interventions supported by good quality data as just described should be routinely performed. All aspects with lower data quality should be researched with adequately powered and designed trials.

Effects of pushing techniques in birth on mother and fetus: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

The Valsalva pushing technique is used routinely in the second stage of labor in many countries, and it is accepted as standard obstetric management in Turkey. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of pushing techniques on mother and fetus in birth in this setting.

METHODS

This randomized study was conducted between July 2003 and June 2004 in Bakirkoy Maternity and Children's Teaching Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. One hundred low-risk primiparas between 38 and 42 weeks' gestation, who expected a spontaneous vaginal delivery, were randomized to either a spontaneous pushing group or a Valsalva-type pushing group. Spontaneous pushing women were informed during the first stage of labor about spontaneous pushing technique (open glottis pushing while breathing out) and were supported in pushing spontaneously in the second stage of labor. Similarly, Valsalva pushing women were informed during the first stage of labor about the Valsalva pushing technique (closed glottis pushing while holding their breath) and were supported in using Valsalva pushing in the second stage of labor. Perineal tears, postpartum hemorrhage, and hemoglobin levels were evaluated in mothers; and umbilical artery pH, Po(2) (mmHg), and Pco(2) (mmHg) levels and Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes were evaluated in newborns in both groups.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the two groups in their demographics, incidence of nonreassuring fetal surveillance patterns, or use of oxytocin. The second stage of labor and duration of the expulsion phase were significantly longer with Valsalva-type pushing. Differences in the incidence of episiotomy, perineal tears, or postpartum hemorrhage were not significant between the groups. The baby fared better with spontaneous pushing, with higher 1- and 5-minute Apgar scores, and higher umbilical cord pH and Po(2) levels. After the birth, women expressed greater satisfaction with spontaneous pushing.

CONCLUSIONS

Educating women about the spontaneous pushing technique in the first stage of labor and providing support for spontaneous pushing in the second stage result in a shorter second stage without interventions and in improved newborn outcomes. Women also stated that they pushed more effectively with the spontaneous pushing technique.

The context & clinical evidence for common nursing practices during labor

The purpose of this article is to review the context and current evidence for common nursing care practices during labor and birth. Although many nursing interventions during labor and birth are based on physician orders, there are a number of care processes that are mainly within the realm of nursing practice. In many cases, particularly in community hospitals, routine physician orders for intrapartum care provide wide latitude for nurses in how they ultimately carry out those orders. An important consideration of common nursing practices during labor is the context or practice model in which those practices occur. Nursing practice is not the same in all clinical environments. Intrapartum nursing practice consists of an assortment of different roles depending on the circumstances, hospital setting, and context in which it takes place. A variety of intrapartum nursing practice models have evolved as a result and in response to the range of sizes, locations, and provider practice styles found in hospitals providing obstetric services. A summary of intrapartum nursing models is presented. The evidence is reviewed for the three most common clinical practices for which nurses have primary responsibility in most settings and that comprise the majority of their time in caring for women during labor: (1) maternal-fetal assessment, (2) management of oxytocin infusions, and (3) second-stage care. Evidence exists for these nursing interventions that can be used to promote maternal-fetal well-being, minimize risk, and enhance patient safety.

Textbook Recommendations for Preventing and Treating Perineal Injury at Vaginal Delivery

OBJECTIVE

To assess general obstetrics textbooks regarding the quality and quantity of information about perineal injury at vaginal delivery.

METHODS

An obstetrics and gynecology resident, a perinatologist, and a urogynecologist evaluated 7 obstetrics textbooks by using a standardized abstraction form that delineated descriptions of anatomy and physiology, episiotomy use, and perineal trauma prevention and repair.

RESULTS

Two textbooks briefly described anal sphincter anatomy, but none provided a detailed discussion of the relative contribution of anatomic components to continence. Four textbooks discussed the evidence for and against midline or mediolateral episiotomy, and 6 advised against routine episiotomy. Six textbooks described grading lacerations, but only one described detailed repair techniques for all grades. Two textbooks discussed techniques to reduce perineal trauma at the time of delivery. Only one textbook discussed the need to reapproximate the normal anal sphincter anatomy during perineal repair.

CONCLUSION

Although most textbooks accurately reflect current literature regarding routine episiotomy, there is limited discussion of advantages and disadvantages of various types of episiotomy and little offered regarding prevention and repair of perineal trauma at delivery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Antenatal perineal massage for reducing perineal trauma

BACKGROUND

Perineal trauma following vaginal birth can be associated with significant short- and long-term morbidity. Antenatal perineal massage has been proposed as one method of decreasing the incidence of perineal trauma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of antenatal perineal massage on the incidence of perineal trauma at birth and subsequent morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 January 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2005), PubMed (1966 to January 2005), EMBASE (1980 to January 2005) and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating any described method of antenatal perineal massage undertaken for at least the last four weeks of pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both review authors independently applied the selection criteria, extracted data from the included studies and assessed study quality. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials (2434 women) comparing digital perineal massage with control were included. All were of good quality. Antenatal perineal massage was associated with an overall reduction in the incidence of trauma requiring suturing (three trials, 2417 women, relative risk (RR) 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 0.96), number needed to treat (NNT) 16 (10 to 39)). This reduction was statistically significant for women without previous vaginal birth only (three trials, 1925 women, RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.96), NNT 14 (9 to 35)). Women who practised perineal massage were less likely to have an episiotomy (three trials, 2417 women, RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.97), NNT 23 (13 to 111)). Again this reduction was statistically significant for women without previous vaginal birth only (three trials, 1925 women, RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.97), NNT 20 (11 to 110)). No differences were seen in the incidence of 1st or 2nd degree perineal tears or 3rd/4th degree perineal trauma. Only women who have previously birthed vaginally reported a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of pain at three months postpartum (one trial, 376 women, RR 0.68 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.91) NNT 13 (7 to 60)). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of instrumental deliveries, sexual satisfaction, or incontinence of urine, faeces or flatus for any women who practised perineal massage compared with those who did not massage.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antenatal perineal massage reduces the likelihood of perineal trauma (mainly episiotomies) and the reporting of ongoing perineal pain and is generally well accepted by women. As such, women should be made aware of the likely benefit of perineal massage and provided with information on how to massage.

Provider Support of Spontaneous Pushing During the Second Stage of Labor

OBJECTIVE

To describe the association between provider communication and actual maternal pushing behavior in second-stage labor and to test differences in length of second stage and total maternal pushing time by maternal pushing behavior.

DESIGN

Descriptive.

SETTING

Midwest hospital birth unit.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty primigravidas who gave birth vaginally.

INTERVENTION

Type of provider communication (supportive of spontaneous or directed pushing).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Maternal pushing behavior (spontaneous or directed) documented by videotape review.

RESULTS

The percentage of provider communication supporting spontaneous pushing versus directed pushing and the percentage of actual spontaneous versus directed maternal pushing behavior were associated (Pearson r = .80, p = .001, for spontaneous and r = .89, p = .001, for directed). Neither duration of second stage (t = .06, p = .95) nor time spent pushing (t = .15, p = .89) differed by spontaneous versus directed pushing style.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of spontaneous pushing by the birthing woman was positively and significantly associated with the proportion of caregiver communication supporting and encouraging spontaneous pushing. Importantly, spontaneous pushing did not significantly lengthen the duration of second-stage labor or total time spent pushing.

Is it possible to predict or prevent third degree tears?

OBJECTIVES

This paper reviews the causes anal sphincter injury during vaginal delivery. It emphasises that they are not usually the result of poor obstetric care. The role of the colorectal surgeon in their management is discussed.

METHODS

Medline was searched using the key words third degree tears, pregnancy, risk factors, prevention and recurrence risk. A hand search of journals and located articles was made. Two hundred and twenty three papers were identified, 84 are referenced.

RESULTS

The reported incidence of anal sphincter tears is usually between 0.5% and 2.5% of vaginal deliveries. Maternal factors such as parity and age and obstetric factors such as mode of presentation, the use of forceps and the size of the baby all influence the incidence of sphincter tears. Predicting tears in individual women is inaccurate and midwifery practices can do little to prevent them. Reducing pelvic floor morbidity by increasing the caesarean section rate would require that a large number of caesarean sections be done to prevent a small number of tears. The recognition of perineal trauma is improved by training. Accurate apposition of the sphincters with antibiotic cover and post-operative laxatives are the important technical aspects of the repair. Colorectal follow up helps to identify those women with symptoms and allows advice about the advisability of subsequent vaginal deliveries. A previous third degree tears increases the risk of a subsequent one, although the overall risk remains low. A second vaginal delivery after a third degree tear that has resulted in a functional deficit predisposes to worsening function. When there is no residual anatomical defect and no functional loss, there is no evidence of increased risk of incontinence following another vaginal delivery.

CONCLUSION

Vaginal delivery will continue to be the main method of delivery and will continue to generate a low incidence of pelvic floor morbidity. The management of injury to the anal sphincter is facilitated by close co-operation between obstetricians and colorectal surgeons.

A randomized trial of the effects of coached vs uncoached maternal pushing during the second stage of labor on postpartum pelvic floor structure and function

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine if refraining from coached pushing during the second stage of labor affects postpartum urogynecologic measures of pelvic floor structure and function.

STUDY DESIGN

Nulliparous women at term were randomized to coached (n = 67) vs uncoached (n = 61) pushing. At 3 months' postpartum women underwent urodynamic testing, pelvic organ prolapse examination (POPQ), and pelvic floor neuromuscular assessment.

RESULTS

Urodynamic testing revealed decreased bladder capacity (427 mL vs 482 mL, P = .051) and decreased first urge to void (160 mL vs 202 mL, P = .025) in the coached group. Detrusor overactivity increased 2-fold in the coached group (16% vs 8%), although this difference was not statistically significant (P = .17). Urodynamic stress incontinence was diagnosed in the coached group in 11/67 (16%) vs 7/61 (12%) in the uncoached group (P = .42).

CONCLUSION

Coached pushing in the second stage of labor significantly affected urodynamic indices, and was associated with a trend towards increased detrusor overactivity.

Obstetric "conveniences": elective induction of labor, cesarean birth on demand, and other potentially unnecessary interventions

Common obstetric interventions are often for "convenience" rather than for clinical indications. Before proceeding, it should be clear who is the beneficiary of the convenience. The primary healthcare provider must make sure that women and their partners have a full understanding of what is known about the associated risks, benefits, and alternative approaches of the proposed intervention. Thorough and accurate information allows women to choose what is best for them and their infant on the basis of the individual clinical situation. Ideally, this discussion takes place during the prenatal period when there is ample opportunity to ask questions, reflect on the potential implications, and confer with partners and family members. A review of common obstetric interventions is provided. While these interventions often are medically indicated for the well-being of mothers and infants, the evidence supporting their benefits when used electively is controversial.

The "push" for evidence: management of the second stage

Recognition that the available evidence does not support arbitrary time limits for the second stage of labor has led to reconsideration of the influence of maternal bearing down efforts on fetal/newborn status as well as on maternal pelvic structural integrity. The evidence that the duration of 'active' pushing is associated with fetal acidosis and denervation injury to maternal perineal musculature has contributed to the delineation of at least two phases during second stage, an early phase of continued fetal descent, and a phase of "active" pushing. The basis for the recommendation that the early phase of passive descent be prolonged and the phase of active pushing shortened by strategies to achieve effective, but non-detrimental pushing efforts is reviewed. The rational includes an emphasis on the obstetric factors that are optimal for birth and conducive to efficient maternal bearing down. Explicit assessment of these obstetric factors and observation of maternal behavior, particularly evidence of an involuntary urge to push, should be coupled with the use of maternal positions that will promote fetal descent as well as reduce maternal pain. The use of epidural analgesia for pain relief can also be accompanied by these same principles, although further research is needed to verify the strategies of "delayed pushing" and maintenance of pain relief along with a reconceptualization of the second stage of labor.

Physiological pushing in the second stage of labour: the future for midwifery care

Current literature indicates that, during the second stage of labour, directed, sustained pushing is the predominant management. Research demonstrates this management has adverse effects upon the mother and baby. The view that the second stage of labour is of high risk, and needs to be hastened, remains unsupported. It is this view that perpetuates the use of directed, sustained pushing. This article demonstrates that physiological pushing during second stage of labour is the way of the future. When midwives work with normal physiology, they work with, not against the woman during the second stage of labour. Midwives must empower women to trust their own instincts.

A second look at the second stage of labor

This article focuses on the primary clinical issues during the second stage of labor: diagnosis, duration, maternal bearing-down efforts, and fetal descent, and ways to help women with their expulsive efforts during this time. A pattern of progression for the second stage/expulsive phase of labor is presented, with an emphasis on the importance of delaying direction to or encouragement of the woman to push until the obstetric conditions are optimal for descent and the women has entered the active phase of the second stage. Ongoing assessment of fetal status and descent, the quality of uterine contractions, and maternal condition are emphasized, rather than arbitrary time limits for the second stage. The use of various care practices, including maternal position and alternative bearing-down techniques, which optimize maternal and fetal outcomes, is described. Finally, women's concerns about this major life experience are considered in the context of the care that they receive during the second stage of labor.