Athukorala C, Middleton P, Crowther C A
The University of Adelaide, Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;2006(4):CD005543. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005543.pub2.
The early management of shoulder dystocia involves the administration of various manoeuvres which aim to relieve the dystocia by manipulating the fetal shoulders and increasing the functional size of the maternal pelvis.
To assess the effects of prophylactic manoeuvres in preventing shoulder dystocia.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 June 2006).
Randomised controlled trials comparing the prophylactic implementation of manoeuvres and maternal positioning with routine or standard care.
Two review authors independently applied exclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and extracted data.
Two trials were included; one comparing the McRobert's manoeuvre and suprapubic pressure with no prophylactic manoeuvres in 185 women likely to give birth to a large baby and one trial comparing the use of the McRobert's manoeuvre versus lithotomy positioning in 40 women. We decided not to pool the results of the two trials. One study reported fifteen cases of shoulder dystocia in the therapeutic (control) group compared to five in the prophylactic group (relative risk (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.14) and the other study reported one episode of shoulder dystocia in both prophylactic and lithotomy groups. In the first study, there were significantly more caesarean sections in the prophylactic group and when these were included in the results, significantly fewer instances of shoulder dystocia were seen in the prophylactic group (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.86). In this study, thirteen women in the control group required therapeutic manoeuvres after delivery of the fetal head compared to three in the treatment group (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.02). One study reported no birth injuries or low Apgar scores recorded. In the other study, one infant in the control group had a brachial plexus injury (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.61), and one infant had a five-minute Apgar score less than seven (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.61).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no clear findings to support or refute the use of prophylactic manoeuvres to prevent shoulder dystocia, although one study showed an increased rate of caesareans in the prophylactic group. Both included studies failed to address important maternal outcomes such as maternal injury, psychological outcomes and satisfaction with birth. Due to the low incidence of shoulder dystocia, trials with larger sample sizes investigating the use of such manoeuvres are required.
肩难产的早期处理包括采取各种手法,旨在通过操作胎儿肩部和增加母体骨盆的功能尺寸来缓解难产。
评估预防性手法在预防肩难产中的效果。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2006年6月1日)。
比较手法和产妇体位的预防性实施与常规或标准护理的随机对照试验。
两位综述作者独立应用排除标准、评估试验质量并提取数据。
纳入了两项试验;一项在185名可能分娩巨大儿的女性中比较了麦罗伯茨手法和耻骨上加压与不进行预防性手法的情况,另一项试验在40名女性中比较了麦罗伯茨手法与截石位的使用情况。我们决定不合并这两项试验的结果。一项研究报告治疗(对照)组有15例肩难产,而预防组有5例(相对危险度(RR)0.44,95%置信区间(CI)0.17至1.14),另一项研究报告预防组和截石位组均有1例肩难产。在第一项研究中,预防组的剖宫产明显更多,将这些纳入结果后,预防组的肩难产病例明显更少(RR 0.33,95%CI 0.12至0.86)。在这项研究中,对照组有13名女性在胎头娩出后需要进行治疗性手法,而治疗组有3名(RR 0.31,95%CI 0.09至1.02)。一项研究报告未记录到出生损伤或低Apgar评分。在另一项研究中,对照组有1名婴儿发生臂丛神经损伤(RR 0.44,95%CI 0.02至10.61),1名婴儿5分钟Apgar评分低于7分(RR 0.44,95%CI 0.02至10.61)。
虽然有一项研究显示预防组剖宫产率增加,但没有明确的结果支持或反驳使用预防性手法预防肩难产。两项纳入研究均未涉及重要的母体结局,如母体损伤、心理结局和对分娩的满意度。由于肩难产的发生率较低,需要进行样本量更大的试验来研究此类手法的使用情况。