OBJECTIVE: To compare the maternal and neonatal outcomes between enema and no-enema in pregnant women on admission in labor. MATERIAL AND METHOD: One thousand and one hundred term pregnant women with labor pain were selected randomly on admission to be assigned into two groups at Rajavithi Hospital from 1 February 2002 to 15 June 2002. Five -hundred and thirty-nine cases received enema and five-hundred and sixty one cases received noenema. Seventy three women (39 and 34 cases from the enema and no-enema groups, respectively) were excluded because of cesarean section due to obstetric indications. Five hundred cases received enema and five-hundred and twenty -seven cases received no-enema. All cases were delivered vaginally. RESULTS: There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups with regards to maternal age, gestational age, gravidity, parity, mode of delivery, type of episiotomy and degree of perineal tear. Fecal contamination rate during the second stage of labor was significantly higher in the women who received no-enema (34.9%) in comparision with those receiving enema (22.8% (p < 0.001). No neonatal infection occurred in both groups. Duration of labor was significantly longer in the women who received no-enema (459.8 min) compared with those who received enema (409.4 min) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: No-enema methods on admission in labor had significantly more increase infecal contamination in the second stage of labor and longer duration of labor than the enema method But there was no difference in perineal wound infection and neonatal infection between both groups.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the maternal and neonatal outcomes between enema and no-enema in pregnant women on admission in labor. MATERIAL AND METHOD: One thousand and one hundred term pregnant women with labor pain were selected randomly on admission to be assigned into two groups at Rajavithi Hospital from 1 February 2002 to 15 June 2002. Five -hundred and thirty-nine cases received enema and five-hundred and sixty one cases received noenema. Seventy three women (39 and 34 cases from the enema and no-enema groups, respectively) were excluded because of cesarean section due to obstetric indications. Five hundred cases received enema and five-hundred and twenty -seven cases received no-enema. All cases were delivered vaginally. RESULTS: There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups with regards to maternal age, gestational age, gravidity, parity, mode of delivery, type of episiotomy and degree of perineal tear. Fecal contamination rate during the second stage of labor was significantly higher in the women who received no-enema (34.9%) in comparision with those receiving enema (22.8% (p < 0.001). No neonatal infection occurred in both groups. Duration of labor was significantly longer in the women who received no-enema (459.8 min) compared with those who received enema (409.4 min) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:No-enema methods on admission in labor had significantly more increase infecal contamination in the second stage of labor and longer duration of labor than the enema method But there was no difference in perineal wound infection and neonatal infection between both groups.