OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare obstetrical outcomes associated with coached versus uncoached pushing during the second stage of labor. STUDY DESIGN: Upon reaching the second stage, previously consented nulliparous women with uncomplicated labors and without epidural analgesia were randomly assigned to coached (n = 163) versus uncoached (n = 157) pushing. Women allocated to coaching received standardized closed glottis pushing instructions by certified nurse-midwives with proper ventilation encouraged between contractions. These midwives also attended those women assigned to no coaching to ensure that any expulsive efforts were involuntary. RESULTS: The second stage of labor was abbreviated by approximately 13 minutes in coached women (P = .01). There were no other clinically significant immediate maternal or neonatal outcomes between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Although associated with a slightly shorter second stage, coached maternal pushing confers no other advantages and withholding such coaching is not harmful.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare obstetrical outcomes associated with coached versus uncoached pushing during the second stage of labor. STUDY DESIGN: Upon reaching the second stage, previously consented nulliparous women with uncomplicated labors and without epidural analgesia were randomly assigned to coached (n = 163) versus uncoached (n = 157) pushing. Women allocated to coaching received standardized closed glottis pushing instructions by certified nurse-midwives with proper ventilation encouraged between contractions. These midwives also attended those women assigned to no coaching to ensure that any expulsive efforts were involuntary. RESULTS: The second stage of labor was abbreviated by approximately 13 minutes in coached women (P = .01). There were no other clinically significant immediate maternal or neonatal outcomes between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Although associated with a slightly shorter second stage, coached maternal pushing confers no other advantages and withholding such coaching is not harmful.
Authors: Lawrence Leeman; Anne M Fullilove; Noelle Borders; Regina Manocchio; Leah L Albers; Rebecca G Rogers Journal: Birth Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.689
Authors: Andrea Lemos; Melania Mr Amorim; Armele Dornelas de Andrade; Ariani I de Souza; José Eulálio Cabral Filho; Jailson B Correia Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-03-26
Authors: Lisa Kane Low; Janis M Miller; Ying Guo; James A Ashton-Miller; John O L DeLancey; Carolyn M Sampselle Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Mónica de la Cueva-Reguera; David Rodríguez-Sanz; César Calvo-Lobo; Silvia Fernández-Martínez; Beatriz Martínez-Pascual; Yolanda Robledo-Do-Nascimento; María Blanco-Morales; Carlos Romero-Morales Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2020-06-13 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Maria C P Vila Pouca; João P S Ferreira; Marco P L Parente; Renato M Natal Jorge; James A Ashton-Miller Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 10.693