Cluett E R, Nikodem V C, McCandlish R E, Burns E E
School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Southampton, Nightingale Building (67), Highfield, Southampton, Hants, UK, SO17 1BJ.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(2):CD000111. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub2.
Enthusiasts for immersion in water during labour, and birth have advocated its use to increase maternal relaxation, reduce analgesia requirements and promote a midwifery model of supportive care. Sceptics are concerned that there may be greater harm to women and/or babies, for example, a perceived risk associated with neonatal inhalation of water and maternal/neonatal infection.
To assess the evidence from randomised controlled trials about the effects of immersion in water during pregnancy, labour, or birth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and caregiver outcomes.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (September 2003).
All randomised controlled trials comparing any kind of bath tub/pool with no immersion during pregnancy, labour or birth.
We assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted data independently. One reviewer entered the data and another checked them for accuracy.
: Eight trials are included (2939 women). No trials were identified that evaluated immersion versus no immersion during pregnancy, considered different types of baths/pools, or considered the management of third stage of labour. There was a statistically significant reduction in the use of epidural/spinal/paracervical analgesia/anaesthesia amongst women allocated to water immersion water during the first stage of labour compared to those not allocated to water immersion (odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.99, four trials). There was no significant difference in vaginal operative deliveries (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05, six trials), or caesarean sections (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.91). Women who used water immersion during the first stage of labour reported statistically significantly less pain than those not labouring in water (40/59 versus 55/61) (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.63, one trial). There were no significant differences in incidence of an Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.01), neonatal unit admissions (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.61), or neonatal infection rates (OR 2.01, 95% CI 0.50 to 8.07).
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that water immersion during the first stage of labour reduces the use of analgesia and reported maternal pain, without adverse outcomes on labour duration, operative delivery or neonatal outcomes. The effects of immersion in water during pregnancy or in the third stage are unclear. One trial explores birth in water, but is too small to determine the outcomes for women or neonates.
支持分娩及生产过程中进行水中分娩的人主张,水中分娩可使产妇更放松,减少镇痛需求,并推动助产护理模式。怀疑者则担心这可能对产妇和/或婴儿造成更大伤害,例如,新生儿吸入羊水以及产妇/新生儿感染的潜在风险。
评估随机对照试验得出的关于孕期、分娩期或生产过程中进行水中分娩对产妇、胎儿、新生儿及护理人员结局影响的证据。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2003年9月)。
所有比较孕期、分娩期或生产过程中使用任何类型浴缸/水池进行水中分娩与不进行水中分娩的随机对照试验。
我们评估试验的合格性和质量,并独立提取数据。一名评审员录入数据,另一名进行准确性核对。
纳入8项试验(2939名女性)。未发现评估孕期水中分娩与非水中分娩、不同类型浴缸/水池或第三产程管理的试验。与未分配至水中分娩的女性相比,分配至第一产程水中分娩的女性使用硬膜外/脊髓/宫颈旁镇痛/麻醉的比例在统计学上显著降低(比值比(OR)0.84,95%置信区间(CI)0.71至0.99,4项试验)。阴道助产分娩(OR 0.83,95% CI 0.66至1.05,6项试验)或剖宫产(OR 1.33,95% CI 0.92至1.91)无显著差异。第一产程使用水中分娩的女性报告的疼痛在统计学上显著低于未在水中分娩的女性(40/59对55/61)(OR 0.23,95% CI 0.08至0.63,1项试验)。5分钟时阿氏评分低于7分的发生率(OR 1.59,95% CI 0.63至4.01)、新生儿入住新生儿重症监护病房率(OR 1.05,95% CI 0.68至1.61)或新生儿感染率(OR 2.01,95% CI 0.50至8.07)无显著差异。
有证据表明,第一产程进行水中分娩可减少镇痛药物使用及产妇报告的疼痛,且对产程时长、助产分娩或新生儿结局无不良影响。孕期或第三产程进行水中分娩的影响尚不清楚。一项试验探索了水中分娩,但样本量过小,无法确定对产妇或新生儿的结局。