| Literature DB >> 32527247 |
Vladimir Kalis1,2, Zdenek Rusavy1,2, Linda Havelkova3, Tomas Zitka3, David Tolar3, Khaled M Ismail4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Manual perineal protection (MPP) is an intrapartum intervention suggested to protect perineal integrity during childbirth. Proper execution of MPP is complex and evaluation of its true contribution is difficult in the clinical setting because of the large number of obstetric variables, some of which are hardly quantifiable. In this study we aimed to gather initial data on the forces executed by the accoucheur's thumb, index and middle fingers during MPP at the time of fetal head expulsion, quantify the duration of the intervention and investigate the timely interaction of the different components of MPP.Entities:
Keywords: Computational modelling; Duration; Finnish method; Forces; Keys: Manual perineal protection; Physiology; Pressure; Vaginal delivery; Variability
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32527247 PMCID: PMC7291533 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-03042-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Fig. 1The measurement glove
Obstetric data of the study group
| Procedure - independent characteristics | Median (range 25–75%) | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|
| Maternal age, y | 29.0 (26.0–30.0) | 29.2 ± 5.9 |
| Body mass indexa | 29.6 (26.1–32.2) | 29.8 ± 4.3 |
| Duration of the 2nd stage of labor, min | 35.5 (15.3–49.0) | 37.8 ± 27.2 |
| Head circumference, cm | 34.5 (33.9–35.1) | 34.5 ± 1.2 |
| Perineal trauma, degrees | 1 (0–1) | 0.9 ± 0.8 |
| Neonatal weight, g | 3560 (3418–3875) | 3549 ± 378 |
| Apgar score at 1 min | 9 (9–10) | 9.1 ± 0.9 |
| Apgar score at 5 min | 10 (9–10) | 9.7 ± 0.6 |
| Neonatal pH | 7.29 (7.26–7.36) | 7.29 ± 0.09 |
aCalculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters
MPP measurement data
| MPP variable | Accoucheur | Mean ± SD | Median (interquartile range) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duration, s | Overall | 13.6 ± 8.2 | 13.6 (8.8–15.4) | |
| A 1 | 12.5 ± 5.7 | 12.5 (10.3–14.1) | .76 | |
| A 2 | 14.7 ± 10.4 | 14.1 (6.9–17.2) | ||
| Thumb mean force, N | Overall | 26.7 ± 6.8 | 26.1 (20.3–31.8) | |
| A 1 | 30.5 ± 6.5 | 30.0 (26.7–34.8) | .008 | |
| A 2 | 22.9 ± 4.8 | 21.9 (19.3–25.6) | ||
| Index finger mean force, N | Overall | 25.5 ± 5.7 | 26.8 (22.0–29.6) | |
| A 1 | 27.7 ± 5,7 | 28.3 (26.3–30.0) | .06 | |
| A 2 | 23.3 ± 5.0 | 22.3 (21.8–26.8) | ||
| Middle finger mean force, N | Overall | 20.2 ± 7.8 | 20.5 (13.7–26.2) | |
| A 1 | 18.1 ± 7.7 | 20.2 (11.9–24.2) | .23 | |
| A 2 | 22.2 ± 7.8 | 23.1 (14.5–27.8) | ||
| Thumb maximum force, N | Overall | 34.3 ± 7.2 | 35.1 (28.6–38.7) | |
| A 1 | 37.8 ± 7.0 | 38.1 (32.5–42.5) | .03 | |
| A 2 | 30.9 ± 5.7 | 29.8 (25.7–35.9) | ||
| Index finger maximum force, N | Overall | 32.6 ± 6.6 | 33.1 (27.3–38.6) | |
| A 1 | 34.6 ± 5.7 | 33.9 (32.3–38.4) | .17 | |
| A 2 | 30.4 ± 7.0 | 27.9 (25.5–37.1) | ||
| Middle finger maximum force, N | Overall | 27.6 ± 10.1 | 27.0 (21.8–33.0) | |
| A 1 | 23.9 ± 8.7 | 24.7 (18.6–31.5) | .20 | |
| A 2 | 31.2 ± 10.6 | 29.7 (24.4–39.0) |
A1 Accoucher 1, A2 Accoucher 2
a non-parametric ANOVA (2-sample Kruskal-Wallis test) of medians
Fig. 2Mean and maximum forces applied by the thumb, index and middle fingers