| Literature DB >> 22577468 |
Linda Vixner1, Lena B Mårtensson, Elisabet Stener-Victorin, Erica Schytt.
Abstract
Introduction. Results from previous studies on acupuncture for labour pain are contradictory and lack important information on methodology. However, studies indicate that acupuncture has a positive effect on women's experiences of labour pain. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of two different acupuncture stimulations, manual or electrical stimulation, compared with standard care in the relief of labour pain as the primary outcome. This paper will present in-depth information on the design of the study, following the CONSORT and STRICTA recommendations. Methods. The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial based on western medical theories. Nulliparous women with normal pregnancies admitted to the delivery ward after a spontaneous onset of labour were randomly allocated into one of three groups: manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture, or standard care. Sample size calculation gave 101 women in each group, including a total of 303 women. A Visual Analogue Scale was used for assessing pain every 30 minutes for five hours and thereafter every hour until birth. Questionnaires were distributed before treatment, directly after the birth, and at one day and two months postpartum. Blood samples were collected before and after the first treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01197950.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22577468 PMCID: PMC3345610 DOI: 10.1155/2012/943198
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Study design including recruitment, randomization, interventions, and data collection. MA: Manual acupuncture, EA: Electroacupuncture, SC: Standard care, Q: Questionnaire.
Participating midwives' previous education and experience with administrating acupuncture, prior to study training, n = 38.
|
| |
|---|---|
| Education prior to study training | |
|
| 10 |
| Practical focus with acupuncture points chosen on TCM basis | |
| Included neither acupuncture physiology nor EA | |
|
| 14 |
| Practical and theoretical sessions. | |
| Acupuncture physiology based on both TCM and WM | |
| EA not included. | |
|
| 11 |
| Practical and theoretical sessions | |
| Acupuncture physiology and research within the area of acupuncture and obstetrics | |
| EA included | |
|
| 3 |
| Experience of administrating acupuncture during labour, prior to study | |
| None | 12 |
| <1 year | 5 |
| 1-2 years | 10 |
| 3–10 years | 8 |
| >10 years | 3 |
TCM : traditional Chinese medicine, EA : electroacupuncture, WM : western medical acupuncture.
Acupuncture points used in the study.
| Points | Segmental innervation | Tissue | Depth (cun) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Distal points | |||
|
| |||
| GV 20 | Nn. trigeminus (V), occipitalis minor (C2), occipitalis major (C2-3) | Aponeurosis epicranii | 0.3–0.5 |
| LI 4 | Nn. medianus ulnaris (C8-Th1) | Mm. interosseus dorsalis I, lumbricalis II, adductor pollicis | 0.5–1 |
| SP 6 | N. tibialis (L4-S1) | Mm. flexor digitorum longus, tibialis posterior | 0.5–1 |
| LR 3 | N. plantaris lateralis (S2-3) | M. interosseus dorsalis I | 0.3–0.5 |
| PC6 | N. medianus (C8, Th1) | M. flexor digitorum superficialis | 0.5–0.8 |
| EX2 | N. trigeminus | M. frontalis | 0.3–0.5 |
| LU7 | N. cutaneus antebrachii lateralis (C5-6) | Fibrous tissue | 0.3–0.5 |
|
| |||
| Local points | |||
|
| |||
| SP 12 | N. thoracicus (Th7–12), lumbalis (L1) | Aponeurosis mm. obliquus externus, abdominis internus | 0.5–1 |
| BL 23 | Nn. thoracodorsalis (C6–8), thoracicus (Th9–12), lumbalis (L1–3) | Mm. serratus posterior inferior, erector spinae, fascia thoracolumbalis | 0.8–1 |
| BL 24 | Nn. thoracodorsalis (C6–8), thoracicus (Th9–12), lumbalis (L1–3) | Mm. erector spinae, fascia thoracolumbalis | 0.8–1 |
| BL 25 | Nn. thoracodorsalis (C6-8), thoracicus (Th9–12), lumbalis (L1–3) | Mm. erector spinae, fascia thoracolumbalis | 0.8–1 |
| BL 26 | Nn. thoracodorsalis (C6–8), thoracicus (Th9–12), lumbalis (L1–3) | Mm. erector spinae, fascia thoracolumbalis | 0.8–1 |
| BL 27 | Nn. thoracodorsalis (C6–8), thoracicus (Th9–12), lumbalis (L1-3) | Mm. erector spinae, fascia thoracolumbalis | 0.8–1 |
| BL 28 | Nn. thoracodorsalis (C6–8), thoracicus (Th9–12), lumbalis (L1–3) | Mm. erector spinae, fascia thoracolumbalis | 0.8–1 |
| BL 36 | N. gluteus inferior (L5–S2) | M. gluteus maximus | 1–1.5 |
| BL 54 | N. gluteus inferior | M. gluteus maximus | 1.5–2 |
| GB 25 | N. thoracicus (Th7–12) | M. obliquus externus abdominis | 0.3–0.5 |
| GB 26 | N. thoracicus (Th7–12) | M. obliquus externus abdominis | 0.5–0.8 |
| GB 27 | Nn. thoracicus lumbalis (Th7–L1) | Aponeurosis mm. obliquus externus, internus abdominis | 0.5–1 |
| GB 28 | M. obliquus externus abdominis | Aponeurosis mm. obliquus externus, internus abdominis | 0.5–1 |
| GB 29 | N. gluteus superior (L4–S1) | M. tensor fasciae latae | 0.5–1 |
| LR 10 | N. femoralis (L2-3) | M. pectineus | 0.5–1 |
| LR 11 | N. femoralis (L2-3) | M. pectineus | 0.5–1 |
| KI 11 | Nn. thoracicus (Th6–12), subcostalis (Th12) | Mm. pyramidalis, rectus abdominis. Vagina m. recti abdominis | 0.5–1 |
| ST 29 | N. thoracicus (Th6–12) | M.rectus abdominis | 0.7–1.2 |
| CV3 | N. iliohypogastric (L1) | Fibrous tissue | 0.5–1 |
| CV4 | N. subcostalis (Th12) | Fibrous tissue | 0.5–1 |
GV: governor vessel channel, LI: large intestine channel, SP: spleen channel, LR: liver channel, PC: pericardium channel, EX: extra channel, LU: lung channel, BL: bladder channel, GB: gall bladder channel, KI: kidney channel, ST: stomach channel, CV: conception Vessel, Cun: traditional Chinese unit of length, 1 cun: width of the distal interphalangeal joint of the thumb.
Content of study protocol, similar for all groups.
| Concept | Measurement and response alternatives |
|---|---|
| Mother | |
|
| |
| Pain during contraction | VAS, every 30 minutes for 5 hours, and then every hour until birth |
| Relaxation during contraction | VAS, every 30 minutes for 5 hours, and then every hour until birth |
| Pain localisation | Back/Abdomen/Groin. |
| Cervix dilatation and length | Cm |
| Contractions (duration/interval) | Seconds/Minutes |
| Details of intervention | Point selection from |
| Additional pain relief | Sterile water injections/TENS/Entonox/Opioid epidural and intrathecal analgesia/Pudendal nerve block/Paracervical block/Other |
| Midwives's evaluation of the treatment effect for pain relief and relaxation (MA and EA) | Very effective/Fairly effective/Not so effective/Not effective at all |
| Negative side effects (EA, MA) | Yes, if so, a description of the side effects/No |
| Augmentation of labour | Yes, if so, indication primary and secondary dystocia, other/No |
| Rupture of membranes/Amniotomy | Date/Time |
| Partus | Date/Time |
| Mode of delivery | Vaginal delivery/Vacuum extraction/Forceps/Emergency caesarean section |
| Perineal injury | Degree I–IV |
|
| |
| Infant | |
|
| |
| Apgar score | 1, 5 and 10 min |
| Birth weight | Grams |
| Arterial and venous blood gases | pH/Base Excess (umbilical cord samples) |
| Neonatal transfer | Yes/No |
VAS: visual analogue scale, TENS: transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, MA: manual acupuncture, EA: electroacupuncture.
Content of questionnaires, before treatment (Q1), and postnatal questionnaires (Q2–Q4).
| Concept | Response alternative | Questionnaire |
|---|---|---|
| Previous acupuncture experience | Yes for pain/Yes for other than pain/No | Q1 |
| Dysmenorrhea | Yes, if so, estimation on VAS/No | Q1 |
| Worry of pain in daily life* | Not at all worried/Not very worried/Quite worried/Very worried | Q1 |
| Worry of labour pain* | Not at all worried/Not very worried/Quite worried/Very worried | Q1 |
| Sociodemographic background | Education/Ancestral homeland/Parents citizenship | Q1 |
| Postnatal valuation of treatment effect on pain and relaxation (MA and EA) | Very effective/Rather effective/Not very effective/Not effective at all | Q2, Q3, Q4 |
| Use this treatment again? (EA, MA) | Yes/No | Q2, Q3, Q4 |
| Negative side effects (EA, MA) | Yes, if so, description of side effects/No | Q2, Q3, Q4 |
| Prelabour worries for: (a) labour pain*, (b) not enough pain relief, (c) not enough support from midwife | Not at all worried/Not very worried/Quite worried/Very worried | Q3 |
| Support from midwife during labour | Yes to a high extent/Yes to a rather high extent/No to a rather low extent/No not at all | Q3, Q4 |
| Overall experience of pain during labour | VAS | Q3, Q4 |
| Overall experience of relaxation during labour | VAS | Q3, Q4 |
| Experienced labour pain in relation to expected** | Much more severe than expected/More severe than expected/As expected/Milder than expected/Much milder than expected | Q3, Q4 |
| Assessment of midwife's acupuncture skills (EA, MA) | Very competent/Quite competent/Not very competent/Not competent at all | Q3, Q4 |
| Overall assessment of pain relief | Very effective/Rather effective/Not very effective/Not effective at all | Q3, Q4 |
| Sufficiency of pain relief | Enough/Not enough | Q3, Q4 |
| Emotions during labour* | Strong/Weak/Happy/Sad/Calm/ Frightened/Alert/ Tired/Secure/Worried/Involved/Lonely/ | Q3, Q4 |
| Emotions during labour, overall | Positive/Negative | Q3, Q4 |
| Perception of the midwife* | Calm/Rushed/Supportive/Unhelpful/Clear/ | Q3, Q4 |
| Overall perception of the midwife | Positive/Negative | Q3, Q4 |
| Why participate in this study? | Open-ended | Q3 |
| Satisfaction with the allocation. | Yes satisfied/No, if so, which allocation would you have preferred? | Q3 |
| Overall birth experience† | Very positive/Positive/Mixed feelings/Negative/Very negative | Q3, Q4 |
| Depressive symptoms | Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale†† | Q4 |
| Experience of participating in this study | Positive/Negative | Q4 |
Q1–4: questionnaire 1–4, VAS: visual analogue scale, MA: manual acupuncture, EA: electroacupuncture.
*Schytt et al. [32], adjusted for this study, **Experience of pregnancy and delivery, the women's perspective [33], †Waldenström [34], ††Wickberg and Hwang [35], and Murray and Carothers [36].