Midwifery · 2022
Management of the active second stage of labor in waterbirths compared with conventional births - a prospective cohort study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ulfsdottir Hanna, Saltvedt Sissel, Edqvist Malin, Georgsson Susanne
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The management of the active second stage in labor and perineal protection varies between countries and is rarely described regarding waterbirths. The objective of this study was to describe how midwives manage the active second stage of labor in waterbirths compared to conventional births. A secondary aim was to compare clinical outcomes between the two groups.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study, based on 323 women who gave birth at three clinics in Sweden, between Dec 2015-May 2019. The women were both primiparous and multiparous; 153 gave birth in water and 170 had a conventional uncomplicated birth. A protocol was completed by the attending midwife after birth, describing characteristics and management of the active second stage of labor as well as perineal protection.
RESULTS: The active second stage of labor differed in several aspects between waterbirths and conventional births. Maternal pushing was spontaneous to a higher extent among women giving birth in water and the use of manual perineal protection was lower. The technique of manual perineal protection differed as well as birth positions. Giving birth in water was associated with less second-degree tears among primiparous women but with no differences among multiparas.
CONCLUSIONS: In waterbirth, the midwife took the role of a more watchful attendee, making less interventions. Waterbirths were associated with less directed pushing and less manual perineal protection. However, there was still a widespread use of manual perineal protection, showing it is possible to use in the same way as in conventional births if needed.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study, based on 323 women who gave birth at three clinics in Sweden, between Dec 2015-May 2019. The women were both primiparous and multiparous; 153 gave birth in water and 170 had a conventional uncomplicated birth. A protocol was completed by the attending midwife after birth, describing characteristics and management of the active second stage of labor as well as perineal protection.
RESULTS: The active second stage of labor differed in several aspects between waterbirths and conventional births. Maternal pushing was spontaneous to a higher extent among women giving birth in water and the use of manual perineal protection was lower. The technique of manual perineal protection differed as well as birth positions. Giving birth in water was associated with less second-degree tears among primiparous women but with no differences among multiparas.
CONCLUSIONS: In waterbirth, the midwife took the role of a more watchful attendee, making less interventions. Waterbirths were associated with less directed pushing and less manual perineal protection. However, there was still a widespread use of manual perineal protection, showing it is possible to use in the same way as in conventional births if needed.