Literature DB >> 19821352

Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour.

Evelyn C Verheijen1, Joanna H Raven, G Justus Hofmeyr.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour involves application of manual pressure to the uppermost part of the uterus directed towards the birth canal in an attempt to assist spontaneous vaginal delivery and avoid prolonged second stage or the need for operative delivery. Fundal pressure has also been applied using an inflatable girdle. A survey in the United States found that 84% of the respondents used fundal pressure in their obstetric centres.There is little evidence to demonstrate that the use of fundal pressure is effective to improve maternal and/or neonatal outcomes. Several anecdotal reports suggest that fundal pressure is associated with maternal and neonatal complications: for example, uterine rupture, neonatal fractures and brain damage. There is a need for objective evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of fundal pressure in the second stage of labour.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and adverse effects of fundal pressure in the second stage of labour. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of fundal pressure versus no fundal pressure in women in the second stage of labour with singleton cephalic presentation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies. We extracted the data using a pre-designed form. We entered data into Review Manager software and checked for accuracy. MAIN
RESULTS: We excluded two of three identified trials from the analyses for methodological reasons. This left no studies on manual fundal pressure. We included one study (500 women) of fundal pressure by means of an inflatable belt versus no fundal pressure to reduce operative delivery rates. The methodological quality of the included study was good.Use of the inflatable belt did not change the rate of operative deliveries (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11). Fetal outcomes in terms of five-minute Apgar scores below seven (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 95.68), low arterial cord pH (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.55) and admission to the neonatal unit (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.49 to 4.45) were also not different between the groups. There was no severe neonatal or maternal mortality or morbidity. There was an increase in intact perineum (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.77), as well as anal sphincter tears (RR 15.69, 95% CI 2.10 to 117.02) in the belt group. There were no data on long-term outcomes. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence available to conclude on beneficial or harmful effects of manual fundal pressure. Good quality randomised controlled trials are needed to study the effect of manual fundal pressure. Fundal pressure by an insufflatable belt during the second stage of labour does not appear to increase the rate of spontaneous vaginal births in women with epidural analgesia. There is insufficient evidence regarding safety for the baby. The effects on the maternal perineum are inconclusive.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19821352     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006067.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  9 in total

1.  Prevention of pelvic floor disorders: international urogynecological association research and development committee opinion.

Authors:  Tony Bazi; Satoru Takahashi; Sharif Ismail; Kari Bø; Alejandra M Ruiz-Zapata; Jonathan Duckett; Dorothy Kammerer-Doak
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-03-12       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 2.  Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour.

Authors:  G Justus Hofmeyr; Joshua P Vogel; Anna Cuthbert; Mandisa Singata
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-03-07

Review 3.  The prevalence of uterine fundal pressure during the second stage of labour for women giving birth in health facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Elise Farrington; Mairead Connolly; Laura Phung; Alyce N Wilson; Liz Comrie-Thomson; Meghan A Bohren; Caroline S E Homer; Joshua P Vogel
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 3.223

4.  A cross-sectional survey of policies guiding second stage labor in urban Japanese hospitals, clinics and midwifery birth centers.

Authors:  Kaori Baba; Yaeko Kataoka; Kaori Nakayama; Yukari Yaju; Shigeko Horiuchi; Hiromi Eto
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Labor and birth care by nurse with midwifery skills in Brazil.

Authors:  Silvana Granado Nogueira da Gama; Elaine Fernandes Viellas; Jacqueline Alves Torres; Maria Helena Bastos; Odaléa Maria Brüggemann; Mariza Miranda Theme Filha; Arthur Orlando Correa Schilithz; Maria do Carmo Leal
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 3.223

6.  Profile and birthing practices of Maranao traditional birth attendants.

Authors:  Roselyn Maghuyop-Butalid; Norhanifa A Mayo; Hania T Polangi
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2015-10-27

7.  Comparing the outcomes of physiologic delivery with non-physiologic delivery group.

Authors:  Nasrin Soufizadeh; Farnaz Zandvakili; Fariba Farhadifar; Fariba Seyedoshohadaie
Journal:  Int J Prev Med       Date:  2013-05

8.  A multicentre randomized controlled trial of gentle assisted pushing in the upright posture (GAP) or upright posture alone compared with routine practice to reduce prolonged second stage of labour (the Gentle Assisted Pushing study): study protocol.

Authors:  G Justus Hofmeyr; Mandisa Singata; Theresa Lawrie; Joshua P Vogel; Sihem Landoulsi; Armando H Seuc; A Metin Gülmezoglu
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2015-12-16       Impact factor: 3.223

9.  First do no harm - interventions during labor and maternal satisfaction: a descriptive cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Kıymet Yeşilçiçek Çalik; Özlem Karabulutlu; Canan Yavuz
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 3.007

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.