Neonatal outcomes after water birth: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare neonatal outcomes between water births, births with immersion only during labour, and births in which immersion was never used. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed including mother-baby dyads attended between 2009 and 2019 at the Hospital do Salnés regional hospital (Pontevedra, Spain). These women were categorised into 3 groups: water birth; immersion only during dilation; and women who never used immersion. Several sociodemographic-obstetric variables were studied and the main outcome was the admission of the neonate to the intensive care unit (NICU). Permission was obtained from the responsible provincial ethics committee. Descriptive statistics were used and between-group comparisons were performed using variance for continuous variables and chi-square for categorical variables. Multivariate analysis was performed with backward stepwise logistic regression and incidence risk ratios with 95%CI were calculated for each independent variable. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS® statistical software. RESULTS: A total of 1191 cases were included. 404 births without immersions; 397 immersions only during the first stage of labor; and 390 waterbirths were included. No differences were found in the need to transfer new-borns to a NICU (p = .735). In the waterbirth cohort, neonatal resuscitation (p < .001, OR: 0,1), as well as respiratory distress (p = .005, OR: 0,2) or neonatal problems during admission (p < .001, OR: 0,2), were lower. In the immersion only during labor cohort, less neonatal resuscitation (p = .003; OR: 0,4) and respiratory distress (p = .019; OR: 0,4) were found. The probability of not breastfeeding upon discharge was higher for the land birth cohort (p < .001, OR: 0,4). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicated that water birth did not influence the need for NICU admission, but was associated with fewer adverse neonatal outcomes, such as resuscitation, respiratory distress, or problems during admission.

The perfect birth: a content analysis of midwives' posts about birth on Instagram.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research into how midwives use social media within their professional role. Small pilot studies have explored the introduction of social media into maternity practice and teaching but there is little evidence around how midwives use social media professionally. This is important as 89% of pregnant women turn to social media for advice during pregnancy, and how midwives use social media could be influencing women, their perception of birth and their decision making. METHODS: AIM: To analyse how popular midwives portray birth on the social media platform Instagram. This is an observational mixed methods study using content analysis. Five 'popular' midwives from each country (UK, New Zealand, USA and Australia) were identified and their posts about birth collated from a one-year period (2020-21). Images/videos were then coded. Descriptive statistics enabled comparison of the posts by country. Categorisation was used to analyse and understand the content. RESULTS: The study identified 917 posts from the 20 midwives' accounts, containing 1216 images/videos, with most coming from USA (n = 466), and UK (n = 239), Australia (n = 205) and New Zealand (n = 7) respectively. Images/videos were categorised into 'Birth Positivity', 'Humour', 'Education', 'Birth Story' and 'Advertisement'. Midwives' portrayals of birth represented a greater proportion of vaginal births, waterbirths and homebirths than known national birth statistics. The most popular midwives identified mainly had private businesses (n = 17). Both the midwives and women portrayed in images were primarily white, demonstrating a disproportionate representation. CONCLUSION: There is a small midwifery presence on Instagram that is not representative of the broader profession, or the current picture of midwifery care. This paper is the first study to explore how midwives are using the popular social media platform Instagram to portray birth. It provides insight into how midwives post an un-medicalised, low risk representation of birth. Further research is recommended to explore midwives' motivation behind their posts, and how pregnant and postnatal women engage with social media.

Hemimelia tibial: Presentación de un caso / Tibial Hemimelia

Introducción: La hemimelia tibial o hemimelia paraxial longitudinal tibial, es una deficiencia congénita de la tibia. Esta deficiencia de los miembros inferiores longitudinal tibial, es muy rara y su frecuencia está en el orden de 1: 1 000 000 de niños nacidos vivos. Objetivo: Presentar un caso de hemimelia tibial diagnosticado por medio del cuadro clínico y radiografías y tratado quirúrgicamente. Presentación del caso: Paciente masculino de dos horas de nacido, atendido por presentar malformación congénita a nivel de la pierna derecha que se presentaba acortada con una prominencia dura a nivel proximal y el pie con deformidad marcada en supinación, aducción y rotación interna. Se realizó examen físico exhaustivo de la extremidad afecta y se constató el acortamiento evidente de la misma. Se indicó radiografía anteroposterior y lateral de la pierna y se observó que el segmento proximal de la tibia y el peroné estaban bien, pero con implantación alta, por lo que se diagnosticó una hemimelia tibial tipo II de Jones. Luego del alta el niño recibió seguimiento por consulta de Genética y el servicio de Ortopedia donde se decidió someterlo a un primer tiempo quirúrgico a los 6 meses de edad, mediante tibialización del peroné. A los 10 meses se realizó un segundo tiempo quirúrgico para centrar el astrágalo al peroné. Conclusiones: La hemimelia tibial se considera un diagnóstico poco frecuente en nuestro medio. No existe prevención conocida. El tratamiento es complejo y altamente especializado, y en algunos casos requiere la amputación temprana del miembro afectado para adaptar al paciente al uso de prótesis(AU)

Introduction: Tibial hemimelia or tibial longitudinal paraxial hemimelia is a congenital deficiency of the tibia. This tibial longitudinal lower limb deficiency is very rare and its frequency is in the order of 1: 1,000,000 live births. Objective: To report a case of tibial hemimelia diagnosed through the clinical condition and radiographs and treated surgically. Case report: We report the case of a two-hour-old male patient, treated for a congenital malformation at the level of the right leg that was shortened with a hard prominence at the proximal level and the foot with marked deformity in supination, adduction and internal rotation. An exhaustive physical examination of the affected limb was carried out and its evident shortening was confirmed. Anteroposterior and lateral X-rays of the leg were indicated and it revealed that the proximal segment of the tibia and fibula were fine, but with high implantation, for which a Jones type II tibial hemimelia was diagnosed. After discharge, the child was followed up by the Genetics consultation and the Orthopedics service, where it was decided to undergo a first stage surgery at 6 months of age, by means of tibialization of the fibula. At 10 months, a second surgical time was performed to center the talus to the fibula. Conclusions: Tibial hemimelia is considered a rare diagnosis in our setting. There is no known prevention. Treatment is complex and highly specialized, and in some cases requires early amputation of the affected limb to adapt the patient to the use of a prosthesis(AU)

Systematic review and meta-analysis to examine intrapartum interventions, and maternal and neonatal outcomes following immersion in water during labour and waterbirth.

OBJECTIVES: Water immersion during labour using a birth pool to achieve relaxation and pain relief during the first and possibly part of the second stage of labour is an increasingly popular care option in several countries. It is used particularly by healthy women who experience a straightforward pregnancy, labour spontaneously at term gestation and plan to give birth in a midwifery led care setting. More women are also choosing to give birth in water. There is debate about the safety of intrapartum water immersion, particularly waterbirth. We synthesised the evidence that compared the effect of water immersion during labour or waterbirth on intrapartum interventions and outcomes to standard care with no water immersion. A secondary objective was to synthesise data relating to clinical care practices and birth settings that women experience who immerse in water and women who do not. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted using CINAHL, Medline, Embase, BioMed Central and PsycINFO during March 2020 and was replicated in May 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Primary quantitative studies published in 2000 or later, examining maternal or neonatal interventions and outcomes using the birthing pool for labour and/or birth. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Full-text screening was undertaken independently against inclusion/exclusion criteria in two pairs. Risk of bias assessment included review of seven domains based on the Robbins-I Risk of Bias Tool. All outcomes were summarised using an OR and 95% CI. All calculations were conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V.3, using the inverse variance method. Results of individual studies were converted to log OR and SE for synthesis. Fixed effects models were used when I2 was less than 50%, otherwise random effects models were used. The fail-safe N estimates were calculated to determine the number of studies necessary to change the estimates. Begg's test and Egger's regression risk assessed risk of bias across studies. Trim-and-fill analysis was used to estimate the magnitude of effect of the bias. Meta-regression was completed when at least 10 studies provided data for an outcome. RESULTS: We included 36 studies in the review, (N=157 546 participants). Thirty-one studies were conducted in an obstetric unit setting (n=70 393), four studies were conducted in midwife led settings (n=61 385) and one study was a mixed setting (OU and homebirth) (n=25 768). Midwife led settings included planned home and freestanding midwifery unit (k=1), alongside midwifery units (k=1), planned homebirth (k=1), a freestanding midwifery unit and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1) and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1). For water immersion, 25 studies involved women who planned to have/had a waterbirth (n=151 742), seven involved water immersion for labour only (1901), three studies reported on water immersion during labour and waterbirth (n=3688) and one study was unclear about the timing of water immersion (n=215).Water immersion significantly reduced use of epidural (k=7, n=10 993; OR 0.17 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56), injected opioids (k=8, n=27 391; OR 0.22 95% CI 0.13 to 0.38), episiotomy (k=15, n=36 558; OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.27), maternal pain (k=8, n=1200; OR 0.24 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51) and postpartum haemorrhage (k=15, n=63 891; OR 0.69 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). There was an increase in maternal satisfaction (k=6, n=4144; OR 1.95 95% CI 1.28 to 2.96) and odds of an intact perineum (k=17, n=59 070; OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.79) with water immersion. Waterbirth was associated with increased odds of cord avulsion (OR 1.94 95% CI 1.30 to 2.88), although the absolute risk remained low (4.3 per 1000 vs 1.3 per 1000). There were no differences in any other identified neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This review endorses previous reviews showing clear benefits resulting from intrapartum water immersion for healthy women and their newborns. While most included studies were conducted in obstetric units, to enable the identification of best practice regarding water immersion, future birthing pool research should integrate factors that are known to influence intrapartum interventions and outcomes. These include maternal parity, the care model, care practices and birth setting. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019147001.

Is a randomized controlled trial of waterbirth possible? An Australian feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The safety of waterbirth is contested because of the lack of evidence from randomized trials and conflicting results. This research assessed the feasibility of a prospective study of waterbirth (trial or cohort). METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study at an Australian maternity hospital. Eligible women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 36 weeks of gestation were recruited and surveyed about their willingness for randomization. The primary midwife assessed waterbirth eligibility and intention on admission in labor, and onset of second stage. Primary outcomes measured feasibility. Intention-to-treat analysis, and per-protocol analysis, compared clinical outcomes of women and their babies who intended waterbirth and nonwaterbirth at onset of second stage. RESULTS: 1260 participants were recruited; 15% (n = 188) agreed to randomization in a future trial. 550 women were analyzed by intention-to-treat analysis: 351 (waterbirth) and 199 (nonwaterbirth). In per-protocol analysis, 14% (n = 48) were excluded. Women in the waterbirth group were less likely to have amniotomy and more likely to have water immersion and physiological third stage. There were no differences in other measures of maternal morbidity. There were no significant differences between groups for serious neonatal morbidity; four cord avulsions occurred in the waterbirth group with none in the landbirth group. An RCT would need approximately 6000 women to be approached at onset of second stage. CONCLUSIONS: A randomized trial of waterbirth compared with nonwaterbirth, powered to detect a difference in serious neonatal morbidity, is unlikely to be feasible. A powered prospective study with intention-to-treat analysis at onset of second stage is feasible.

Waterbirth: current knowledge and medico-legal issues.

Water immersion during labour and birth has become increasingly popular and widespread in many countries, in particular in midwifery-led care settings. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of quality data about waterbirth, with currently available findings mostly arising from observational studies and case series. The lack of high-quality evidence and the controversial results reported by different studies determined a "behavioral gap" without clearly objective, consistent indications allowing for a sound and evidence-based decision making process. Although water immersion in the first stage of labour is generally considered a safe and cost-effective method of pain management for women in labor, concerns still linger as to the safety of immersion during the second stage of labor and delivery, particularly in terms of neonatal risks and medico-legal implications.

Management of the active second stage of labor in waterbirths compared with conventional births - a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The management of the active second stage in labor and perineal protection varies between countries and is rarely described regarding waterbirths. The objective of this study was to describe how midwives manage the active second stage of labor in waterbirths compared to conventional births. A secondary aim was to compare clinical outcomes between the two groups. METHODS: A prospective cohort study, based on 323 women who gave birth at three clinics in Sweden, between Dec 2015-May 2019. The women were both primiparous and multiparous; 153 gave birth in water and 170 had a conventional uncomplicated birth. A protocol was completed by the attending midwife after birth, describing characteristics and management of the active second stage of labor as well as perineal protection. RESULTS: The active second stage of labor differed in several aspects between waterbirths and conventional births. Maternal pushing was spontaneous to a higher extent among women giving birth in water and the use of manual perineal protection was lower. The technique of manual perineal protection differed as well as birth positions. Giving birth in water was associated with less second-degree tears among primiparous women but with no differences among multiparas. CONCLUSIONS: In waterbirth, the midwife took the role of a more watchful attendee, making less interventions. Waterbirths were associated with less directed pushing and less manual perineal protection. However, there was still a widespread use of manual perineal protection, showing it is possible to use in the same way as in conventional births if needed.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes following waterbirth: a cohort study of 17 530 waterbirths and 17 530 propensity score-matched land births.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate maternal and neonatal outcomes following waterbirth. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, with propensity score matching to address confounding. SETTING: Community births, United States. SAMPLE: Medical records-based registry data from low-risk births were used to create waterbirth and land birth groups (n = 17 530 each), propensity score-matched on >80 demographic and pregnancy risk covariables. METHODS: Logistic regression models compared outcomes between the matched waterbirth and land birth groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maternal: immediate postpartum transfer to a hospital, any genital tract trauma, severe (3rd/4th degree) trauma, haemorrhage >1000 mL, diagnosed haemorrhage regardless of estimated blood loss, uterine infection, uterine infection requiring hospitalisation, any hospitalisation in the first 6 weeks. Neonatal: umbilical cord avulsion; immediate neonatal transfer to a hospital; respiratory distress syndrome; any hospitalisation, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, or neonatal infection in the first 6 weeks; and neonatal death. RESULTS: Waterbirth was associated with improved or no difference in outcomes for most measures, including neonatal death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.31-1.0), and maternal or neonatal hospitalisation in the first 6 weeks (aOR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.92 and aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-0.99, respectively). Increased morbidity in the waterbirth group was observed for two outcomes only: uterine infection (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05-1.48) (but not hospitalisation for infection) and umbilical cord avulsion (aOR 1.57, 95% CI 1.37-1.82). Our results are concordant with other studies: waterbirth is neither as harmful as some current guidelines suggest, nor as benign as some proponents claim. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: New study demonstrates #waterbirth is neither as harmful as some current guidelines suggest, nor as benign as some proponents claim. @TheUpliftLab @BovbjergMarit @31415926abc @NICHD_NIH.

Waterbirth: a national retrospective cohort study of factors associated with its use among women in England.

BACKGROUND: Waterbirth is widely available in English maternity settings for women who are not at increased risk of complications during labour. Immersion in water during labour is associated with a number of maternal benefits. However for birth in water the situation is less clear, with conclusive evidence on safety lacking and little known about the characteristics of women who give birth in water. This retrospective cohort study uses electronic data routinely collected in the course of maternity care in England in 2015-16 to describe the proportion of births recorded as having occurred in water, the characteristics of women who experienced waterbirth and the odds of key maternal and neonatal complications associated with giving birth in water. METHODS: Data were obtained from three population level electronic datasets linked together for the purposes of a national audit of maternity care. The study cohort included women who had no risk factors requiring them to give birth in an obstetric unit according to national guidelines. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine maternal (postpartum haemorrhage of 1500mls or more, obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI)) and neonatal (Apgar score less than 7, neonatal unit admission) outcomes associated with waterbirth. RESULTS: 46,088 low and intermediate risk singleton term spontaneous vaginal births in 35 NHS Trusts in England were included in the analysis cohort. Of these 6264 (13.6%) were recorded as having occurred in water. Waterbirth was more likely in older women up to the age of 40 (adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) for age group 35-39 1.27, 95% confidence interval (1.15,1.41)) and less common in women under 25 (adjOR 18-24 0.76 (0.70, 0.82)), those of higher parity (parity ≥3 adjOR 0.56 (0.47,0.66)) or who were obese (BMI 30-34.9 adjOR 0.77 (0.70,0.85)). Waterbirth was also less likely in black (adjOR 0.42 (0.36, 0.51)) and Asian (adjOR 0.26 (0.23,0.30)) women and in those from areas of increased socioeconomic deprivation (most affluent versus least affluent areas adjOR 0.47 (0.43, 0.52)). There was no association between delivery in water and low Apgar score (adjOR 0.95 (0.66,1.36)) or incidence of OASI (adjOR 1.00 (0.86,1.16)). There was an association between waterbirth and reduced incidence of postpartum haemorrhage (adjOR 0.68 (0.51,0.90)) and neonatal unit admission (adjOR 0.65 (0.53,0.78)). CONCLUSIONS: In this large observational cohort study, there was no association between waterbirth and specific adverse outcomes for either the mother or the baby. There was evidence that white women from higher socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to be recorded as giving birth in water. Maternity services should focus on ensuring equitable access to waterbirth.

Efectos maternos y neonatales del parto en el agua. Una revisión sistemática / Maternal and neonatal effects of water birth. A systematic review

El objetivo de esta revisión bibliográfica es determinar los efectos de la inmersión en el agua durante el parto, tanto a nivel materno como neonatal. Para ello se llevó a cabo una revisión bibliográfica en las bases de datos Pubmed, Medline, Scopus y Cinahl. Los términos de búsqueda empleados fueron: "Water", "Delivery, Obstetric", "Labor, Obstetric", "Parturition" y "waterbirth". Se obtuvieron 526 resultados publicados en los últimos 5 años, de los cuales 13 artículos fueron seleccionados atendiendo a los criterios de inclusión y exclusión. Los estudios pretenden evaluar los resultados maternos y/o neonatales tras la inmersión en el agua durante el parto, aunque alguno de ellos solo se centra en uno de estos dos aspectos. Como conclusión el parto acuático proporciona a nivel materno una disminución del dolor y de la duración del parto. A nivel neonatal, no se encuentran efectos adversos para los recién nacidos

The objective of this literature review is to determine the maternal and neonatal effects of immersion in water during childbirth. A literature review was carried out in the PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Cinahl databases. The search terms used were: "Water", "Delivery", "Obstetrics", "Labour", "Parturition", and "water birth". A total of 526 results published in the last 5 years were obtained, of which 13 articles were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The studies aimed to evaluate maternal and / or neonatal outcomes after immersion in water during childbirth, although some of them only focus on one of these two aspects. In conclusion, immersion in water provides a reduction in pain and in the duration of labour at maternal level. At neonatal level, no adverse effects are found in newborns

The combined effects of Lamaze breathing training and nursing intervention on the delivery in primipara: A PRISMA systematic review meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lamaze breathing has been widely used as a breathing training method. Nursing intervention including postural nursing, delivery ball, doula nursing, massage and psychological nursing is usually provided by nurses during labor. A number of clinical studies have investigated the effect of Lamaze breathing training combined with nursing intervention on maternal pain relief and outcomes improvement. But there were some scholars who were against it. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials from January 2000 to November 2019 in PubMed, Cochrance Library, Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Chinese Academic Journals, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, VIP Database, Wanfang Database were searched. Two researchers independently screened the literature according to the criteria. After extracting the data, the researchers used Cochrane system to evaluate the literature quality. Statistical analyses were performed by using Comprehensive Meta Analysis V2 software. RESULTS: Twenty-two randomized controlled trials conducted on 7035 primiparas were eligible. The results revealed that Lamaze breathing training combined with nursing intervention increased the rate of natural delivery (relative risk [RR] = 2.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] [2.48, 3.56]), shortened the length of labor (-2.604, 95% CI [-3.120, -2.087]), alleviated labor pain (RR = 0.194, 95% CI [0.115, 0.325]) and reduced postpartum bleeding (-2.966, 95% CI [-4.056, -1.877]). CONCLUSIONS: Lamaze breathing training combined with nursing intervention was effective for ameliorating the process and outcomes of childbirth in primiparae and deserves to be promoted and applied in clinical practice.

Perineal skin tear repair following vaginal birth; skin adhesive versus conventional suture - a randomised controlled trial.

This was a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing the effects of first-degree perineal tear repair using adhesive glue versus conventional suturing in terms of pain score, wound complication and patient's satisfaction. One hundred and twenty one women were randomised. The skin adhesive group had a significantly lower pain score at rest as well as during sitting, walking and micturition during the first week of delivery compared to the suture group. The time taken to become pain free was significantly shorter in the tissue adhesive group (3.18 vs. 8.65 days, p < .001). Only two patients who had skin glue experienced wound gaping. No significant difference was observed in the level of satisfaction between the adhesive and suture groups. Tissue adhesive is better than subcuticular suture for repairing first-degree perineal tear as it causes less pain and has shorter recovery time.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject. First- and second-degree tears following vaginal delivery are common and involved a third of women. Suturing of these tears is advocated to avoid wound gaping and poor healing.What the results of this study add. For first-degree tear repair, tissue adhesive is better than conventional suture in terms of pain reduction and recovery time.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research. Skin adhesive is an ideal method for first-degree perineal tear repair especially in out of hospital settings such as home birth or midwifery-led centre. A larger scale study is needed to establish its feasibility for second- and third-degree tears repair.

Prevalência de parto vaginal após cesárea em uma maternidade de alto risco / Prevalence of vaginal delivery after cesarean in a high-risk maternity / Prevalencia de entrega vaginal después de cesárea en una maternidad de alto riesgo

Objetivo: estimar a prevalência de parto vaginal após cesárea em uma maternidade de alto risco e identificar as complicações maternas e neonatais. Método: trata-se de um estudo transversal, quantitativo e retrospectivo, realizado com 44 mulheres que tiveram parto normal com cesárea prévia, por meio da análise dos prontuários realizou-se a análise descritiva com frequências absolutas e simples. Resultados: a prevalência de parto vaginal após cesárea foi de 13%. Ocorreu complicação em 13,6% das mulheres, porém não houve rotura uterina e em 4,5% dos neonatos. Conclusões: os desfechos favoráveis comprovam a segurança deste procedimento para a mãe e para neonato e servem de estímulo para que os profissionais incentivem as gestantes com cesárea anterior a considerarem a via vaginal como uma possibilidade segura para o próximo parto

Objective: to estimate the prevalence of vaginal delivery after cesarean section in a high-risk maternity and to identify maternal and neonatal complications. Method: this is a cross-sectional, quantitative and retrospective study, carried out with 44 women who had a normal delivery with previous cesarean section, through the analysis of medical records, descriptive analysis was carried out with absolute and simple frequencies. Results: the prevalence of vaginal delivery after cesarean section was 13%. Complication occurred in 13.6% of women, but there was no uterine rupture and in 4.5% of neonates. Conclusions: the favorable outcomes prove the safety of this procedure for the mother and the newborn and serve as a stimulus for professionals to encourage pregnant women with a previous cesarean to consider the vaginal route as a safe possibility for the next delivery

Objetivo: estimar la prevalencia del parto vaginal después de una cesárea en una maternidad de alto riesgo e identificar complicaciones maternas y neonatales. Método: se trata de un estudio transversal, cuantitativo y retrospectivo, realizado con 44 mujeres que tuvieron un parto normal con cesárea previa, a través del análisis de registros médicos, se realizó un análisis descriptivo con frecuencias absolutas y simples. Resultados:la prevalencia del parto vaginal después de una cesárea fue del 13%. La complicación ocurrió en el 13.6% de las mujeres, pero no hubo ruptura uterina y en el 4.5% de los recién nacidos. Conclusiones: los resultados favorables demuestran la seguridad de este procedimiento para la madre y el recién nacido y sirven de estímulo para que los profesionales alienten a las mujeres embarazadas con una cesárea previa a considerar la vía vaginal como una posibilidad segura para el próximo parto

Fatores associados à escolha da via de parto entre estudantes do curso de Medicina no Sul do Brasil / Factors associated with choice of birth delivery route among medical students in Southern Brazil

Objetivo: Identificar os fatores associados à escolha da via de parto entre estudantes do curso de Medicina em uma universidade no Sul do país. Métodos: Estudo transversal realizado com estudantes de Medicina da Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (Unisul) ­ Tubarão, no período de julho a novembro de 2019. Resultados: Fizeram parte da pesquisa 423 alunos, homens e mulheres, dos aproximadamente 600 matriculados no período. A maioria dos alunos considerou o parto vaginal (PV) mais seguro, e 44,1% dos estudantes escolheriam essa via para si/sua companheira. O principal motivo pelo qual os alunos escolheram PV foi a "alta hospitalar precoce", e o principal motivo que levou à escolha de cesariana (PC) foi a "ausência de dor durante o parto". Houve associação entre renda mais baixa e a escolha do PV (p = 0,002). A via de parto pela qual o estudante nasceu também se associou com a que ele escolheria (p = 0,001). Ademais, houve significância estatística entre a via de parto que o aluno considerou mais segura e a que ele de fato escolheria (p = 0,001). Todas as alunas que já tiveram filhos realizaram PC. Conclusão: O fator mais relevante de escolha do PC foi a "ausência de dor durante o parto", enquanto do PV foi "alta hospitalar precoce".(AU)

Objective: To identify the factors associated with the choice of birth delivery route among medical students at a university in the south of Brazil. Methods: Cross-sectional study carried out with medical students from the University of Southern Santa Catarina (Unisul) ­ Tubarão, from July to November 2019. Results: Four hundred twenty three students took part in the research, men and women, out of the approximately 600 enrolled in the period. Most students considered vaginal delivery (VD) to be safer, and 44.1% of students would choose this route for their partner. The main reason why students chose VD was "early hospital discharge", and the main reason that led to the choice of cesarean section (CS) was "no pain during childbirth". There was an association between lower income and the choice of VD (p = 0.002). The route of delivery that the student was born was also associated with the one he would choose (p = 0.001). In addition, there was statistical significance between the route of delivery that the student considered safer with the one he would actually choose (p = 0.001). All female students who already had children underwent CS. Conclusion: The most relevant factor for choosing CS was "no pain during delivery", while for VD was "early hospital discharge".(AU)

Systematic Review of Case Reports of Poor Neonatal Outcomes With Water Immersion During Labor and Birth.

Water immersion is a valuable comfort measure in labor, that can be used during the first or second stage of labor. Case reports of adverse outcomes create suspicion about water birth safety, which restricts the availability of water birth in the United States. The objective of this study was to synthesize the information from case reports of adverse water birth events to identify practices associated with these outcomes, and to identify patterns of negative outcomes. The research team conducted a systematic search for cases reports of poor neonatal outcomes with water immersion. Eligible manuscripts reported any adverse neonatal outcome with immersion during labor or birth; or excluded if no adverse outcome was reported or the birth reported was unattended. A qualitative narrative synthesis was conducted to identify patterns in the reports. There were 47 cases of adverse outcomes from 35 articles included in the analysis. There was a pattern of cases of Pseudomonas and Legionella, but other infections were uncommon. There were cases of unexplained neonatal hyponatremia following water birth that need further investigation to determine the mechanism that contributes to this complication. The synthesis was limited by reporting information of interest to pediatricians with little information about water birth immersion practices. These data did not support concerns of water aspiration or cord rupture, but did identify other potential risks. Water immersion guidelines need to address infection risk, optimal management of compromised water-born infants, and the potential association between immersion practice and hyponatremia.

Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Hospital-Based Deliveries With Water Immersion.

OBJECTIVE: To compare neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) or special care nursery admission for deliveries with water immersion compared with deliveries in the matched control group without water immersion. Secondary outcomes included adverse neonatal diagnoses, maternal infections, and perineal lacerations. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using electronic health record data (2014-2018) from two health systems (eight hospitals), with similar clinical eligibility, associated with low risks of intrapartum complications, and implementation policies for waterbirth. The water immersion group included women intending waterbirth. Water immersion was recorded prospectively during delivery. The comparison population were women who met the clinical eligibility criteria for waterbirth but did not experience water immersion during labor. Comparison cases were matched (1:1) using propensity scores. Outcomes were compared using Fischer's exact tests and logistic regression with stratification by stage of water immersion. RESULTS: Of the 583 women with water immersion, 34.1% (199) experienced first-stage water immersion only, 65.9% (384) experienced second-stage immersion, of whom 12.0% (70) exited during second stage, and 53.9% (314) completed delivery in the water. Neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery admissions were lower for second-stage water immersion deliveries than deliveries in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.7). Lacerations were lower in the second-stage immersion group (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.7). Neonatal intensive care unit or special care nursery admissions and lacerations were not different between the first-stage immersion group and their matched comparisons. Cord avulsions occurred for 0.8% of second-stage water immersion deliveries compared with none in the control groups. Five-minute Apgar score (less than 7), maternal infections, and other adverse outcomes were not significantly different between either the first- or second-stage water immersion groups and their control group. CONCLUSION: Hospital-based deliveries with second-stage water immersion had lower risk of NICU or special care nursery admission and perineal lacerations than matched deliveries in the control group without water immersion.

Elective Labor Induction at 39 Weeks of Gestation Compared With Expectant Management: Factors Associated With Adverse Outcomes in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate characteristics associated with adverse outcomes in low-risk nulliparous women randomized to elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation or expectant management. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of women randomized during the 38th week to induction at 39 weeks of gestation or expectant management. Deliveries before 39 weeks of gestation and those not adherent to study protocol or with fetal anomalies were excluded. A composite of adverse outcomes (perinatal death or severe neonatal complications), third- or fourth-degree lacerations, and postpartum hemorrhage were evaluated. Log binomial regression models estimated relative risks and 95% CIs for associations of outcomes with patient characteristics including randomly assigned treatment group. Interactions between patient characteristics and treatment group were tested. RESULTS: Of 6,096 women with outcome data, 5,007 (82.1%) met criteria for inclusion in this analysis. Frequency of the perinatal composite was 252 (5.0%), 166 (3.3%) for third- or fourth-degree perineal laceration, and 237 (4.7%) for postpartum hemorrhage. In multivariable analysis, intended labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation was associated with a reduced perinatal composite outcome (4.1% vs 6.0%; adjusted relative risk [aRR] 0.71; 95% CI 0.55-0.90), whereas increasing body mass index (BMI) was associated with an increased perinatal composite outcome (aRR 1.04/unit increase; 95% CI 1.02-1.05). Decreased risk of third- or fourth-degree perineal laceration was observed with increasing BMI (aRR 0.96/unit increase; 95% CI 0.93-0.98) and in Black women compared with White women (1.2% vs 3.9%; aRR 0.34; 95% CI 0.19-0.60). Increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage was observed in Hispanic women compared with White women (6.3% vs 4.0%; aRR 1.64; 95% CI 1.18-2.29). Patient characteristics associated with adverse outcomes were similar between treatment groups (P for interaction >.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with expectant management, intended induction at 39 weeks of gestation was associated with reduced risk of adverse perinatal outcome. Patient characteristics associated with adverse outcomes were few and similar between groups. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01990612.

Customized Probability of Vaginal Delivery With Induction of Labor and Expectant Management in Nulliparous Women at 39 Weeks of Gestation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop models to predict vaginal delivery in low-risk, nulliparous women contemplating elective induction of labor or expectant management at 39 weeks of gestation. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of planned elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management for low-risk nulliparous women. Two groups were included for this analysis: 1) women who were randomized to the induction of labor group and underwent elective induction at 39 0/7-39 4/7 weeks of gestation and 2) women who were randomized to the expectant management group who experienced spontaneous labor or medically indicated delivery (including postterm). Multivariable logistic regression models were developed for each group using patient characteristics that would be available at the time of counseling. Model selection was based on k-fold cross-validation using backward elimination and variables that remained significant at P<.05 were retained. To compare estimated with observed rates, the elective induction of labor model was then applied to each woman in both groups to estimate individualized predicted probabilities of vaginal delivery with elective induction of labor. RESULTS: Of 6,106 women enrolled in the trial, 4,661 met criteria for this analysis. Vaginal delivery occurred in 80.6% of the 2,153 women in the elective induction of labor group and 77.2% of the 2,508 women in the expectant management group (P=.005). The final elective induction of labor model included age, height, weight, and modified Bishop score (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.72, 95% CI 0.70-0.75). The same variables were included in the final expectant management model (AUROC 0.70, 95% CI 0.67-0.72). Across the range of predicted probability deciles derived from the elective induction of labor model, almost all women who underwent elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation had a higher observed chance of vaginal delivery than expectant management. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of the individual predicted chance of vaginal delivery from elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation, vaginal delivery is generally more frequent if elective induction of labor is undertaken rather than expectant management. These data can be used to counsel nulliparous women regarding their "customized" chances of vaginal delivery as they choose between elective induction of labor or expectant management at 39 weeks of gestation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01990612.

Outcomes of Waterbirth in a US Hospital-Based Midwifery Practice: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Water Immersion During Labor and Birth.

INTRODUCTION: Although the safety of water immersion during labor is largely supported by evidence from research, the risks to women and neonates during waterbirth are not well established. The purpose of this study was to generate evidence regarding maternal and neonatal outcomes related to water immersion in labor and during birth. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study included a convenience sample of women receiving prenatal care at a nurse-midwifery practice. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: 1) waterbirth, 2) water labor, or 3) neither. Participant characteristics, maternal outcomes, and newborn outcomes were collected at time of birth and health record abstraction. At the 6-week postpartum visit, another maternal outcome, satisfaction with birth, was measured using the Care in Obstetrics: Measure for Testing Satisfaction (COMFORTS) scale. Analysis included effect size, descriptive statistics (sample characteristics), and maternal and neonatal group differences (analysis of variance and chi-square) with a significance level of P < .05. RESULTS: Women in the waterbirth (n = 58), water labor (n = 61), and neither (n = 111) groups were primarily white, married, and college educated and did not differ by age or education. Women in the waterbirth group were more likely to be multiparous. Nulliparous women who had a waterbirth had a significantly shorter second stage of labor than nulliparous women who did not have a waterbirth (P = .03). The most commonly cited reasons for discontinuation of hydrotherapy were maternal choice (42.6%) and need for pain medication (29.5%). Significantly more women in the waterbirth group experienced a postpartum hemorrhage, compared with water labor or neither (n = 5, n = 3, n = 1, respectively; P = .045); there was no difference in related clinical measures. Neonatal outcomes were not significantly different. Maternal satisfaction was high across all groups. DISCUSSION: The results of this study suggest that waterbirth, attended by qualified intrapartum care providers in hospital settings in the United States, is a reasonable option for low-risk women and their neonates.