Bodner-Adler Barbara, Bodner Klaus, Kimberger Oliver, Lozanov Plamen, Husslein Peter, Mayerhofer Klaus
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Vienna Medical School, Vienna, Austria.
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2004 Jun 30;116(11-12):379-84. doi: 10.1007/BF03040917.
The purpose of this study was to compare the obstetric outcome of low-risk maternity patients attended by certified midwives with that of low-risk maternity patients attended by obstetricians.
Obstetric outcome of 1352 midwife patients was compared with that of 1352 age- and parity-matched physician patients with normal spontaneous vaginal delivery at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University Hospital Vienna during the period from January 1997 to July 2002. Our analysis was restricted to a sample of low-risk pregnant women. Women with medical or obstetric risk factors were excluded.
A significant decrease in the use of oxytocin (p=0.0001) was observed in women who selected a midwife as their primary birth attendant compared with women in the physician group. In both groups most women gave birth in a supine position; however, significantly more alternative birth positions were used by midwife patients (p = 0.0001). Concerning perineal trauma, a significantly lower rate of episiotomies (p = 0.0001) and perineal tears of all degrees (p=0.006) were found in midwife patients. When analyzing severe postpartum hemorrhage and postpartum infections, there were no significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05). Concerning neonatal outcome, there were no significant differences in APGAR score < 7 at 5 minutes (p > 0.05). Our data clearly show the ability of certified midwives to successfully provide prenatal care and delivery to low-risk maternity patients, with neonatal outcomes comparable to those of physician patients. The use of certified midwives supervised by obstetricians may provide the optimum model for perinatal care, particularly for those women who are low-risk maternity patients, leaving physicians free to attend to the high-risk elements of care.
本研究的目的是比较由注册助产士护理的低风险产妇与由产科医生护理的低风险产妇的产科结局。
1997年1月至2002年7月期间,在维也纳大学医院妇产科,将1352名由助产士护理的患者的产科结局与1352名年龄和产次匹配、自然阴道分娩正常的由医生护理的患者的产科结局进行比较。我们的分析仅限于低风险孕妇样本。有医学或产科风险因素的妇女被排除在外。
与医生组的妇女相比,选择助产士作为主要接生人员的妇女中催产素的使用显著减少(p = 0.0001)。两组中大多数妇女均仰卧分娩;然而,助产士护理的患者使用更多不同的分娩姿势(p = 0.0001)。关于会阴创伤,助产士护理的患者中会阴切开术(p = 0.0001)和所有程度会阴撕裂的发生率显著较低(p = 0.006)。在分析严重产后出血和产后感染时,两组之间无显著差异(p > 0.05)。关于新生儿结局,5分钟时阿氏评分<7的情况无显著差异(p > 0.05)。我们的数据清楚地表明,注册助产士有能力成功地为低风险产妇提供产前护理和分娩服务,其新生儿结局与医生护理的患者相当。由产科医生监督使用注册助产士可能为围产期护理提供最佳模式,特别是对于那些低风险产妇,使医生能够腾出精力处理高风险护理问题。