Verheijen Evelyn C, Raven Joanna H, Hofmeyr G Justus
Women's Health Care, Royal Bolton Hospital, Minerva Road, Farnworth, Bolton, UK, BL4 0JR.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 7(4):CD006067. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006067.pub2.
Fundal pressure during the second stage of labour involves application of manual pressure to the uppermost part of the uterus directed towards the birth canal in an attempt to assist spontaneous vaginal delivery and avoid prolonged second stage or the need for operative delivery. Fundal pressure has also been applied using an inflatable girdle. A survey in the United States found that 84% of the respondents used fundal pressure in their obstetric centres.There is little evidence to demonstrate that the use of fundal pressure is effective to improve maternal and/or neonatal outcomes. Several anecdotal reports suggest that fundal pressure is associated with maternal and neonatal complications: for example, uterine rupture, neonatal fractures and brain damage. There is a need for objective evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of fundal pressure in the second stage of labour.
To determine the benefits and adverse effects of fundal pressure in the second stage of labour.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2008).
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of fundal pressure versus no fundal pressure in women in the second stage of labour with singleton cephalic presentation.
Three review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies. We extracted the data using a pre-designed form. We entered data into Review Manager software and checked for accuracy.
We excluded two of three identified trials from the analyses for methodological reasons. This left no studies on manual fundal pressure. We included one study (500 women) of fundal pressure by means of an inflatable belt versus no fundal pressure to reduce operative delivery rates. The methodological quality of the included study was good.Use of the inflatable belt did not change the rate of operative deliveries (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.11). Fetal outcomes in terms of five-minute Apgar scores below seven (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 95.68), low arterial cord pH (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.55) and admission to the neonatal unit (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.49 to 4.45) were also not different between the groups. There was no severe neonatal or maternal mortality or morbidity. There was an increase in intact perineum (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.77), as well as anal sphincter tears (RR 15.69, 95% CI 2.10 to 117.02) in the belt group. There were no data on long-term outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence available to conclude on beneficial or harmful effects of manual fundal pressure. Good quality randomised controlled trials are needed to study the effect of manual fundal pressure. Fundal pressure by an insufflatable belt during the second stage of labour does not appear to increase the rate of spontaneous vaginal births in women with epidural analgesia. There is insufficient evidence regarding safety for the baby. The effects on the maternal perineum are inconclusive.
分娩第二产程中的宫底加压是指对手放在子宫最上部并朝着产道方向施加压力,试图协助自然阴道分娩,避免第二产程延长或需要手术助产。也有人使用充气束带进行宫底加压。美国的一项调查发现,84%的受访者在其产科中心使用宫底加压。几乎没有证据表明使用宫底加压能有效改善孕产妇和/或新生儿结局。一些传闻报道提示宫底加压与孕产妇和新生儿并发症有关,例如子宫破裂、新生儿骨折和脑损伤。有必要对分娩第二产程中宫底加压的有效性和安全性进行客观评估。
确定分娩第二产程中宫底加压的益处和不良影响。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2008年11月)。
对分娩第二产程中单胎头先露的妇女进行宫底加压与不进行宫底加压的随机和半随机对照试验。
三位综述作者独立评估所有潜在研究是否符合纳入标准。我们使用预先设计的表格提取数据。我们将数据录入Review Manager软件并检查准确性。
由于方法学原因,我们从分析中排除了三项已识别试验中的两项。这使得没有关于手法宫底加压的研究纳入。我们纳入了一项研究(500名妇女),该研究比较了使用充气束带进行宫底加压与不进行宫底加压以降低手术助产率的情况。纳入研究的方法学质量良好。使用充气束带并未改变手术助产率(相对危险度0.94,95%可信区间0.80至1.11)。两组在5分钟阿氏评分低于7分(相对危险度4.62,95%可信区间0.22至95.68)、脐动脉血pH值低(相对危险度0.47,95%可信区间0.09至2.55)以及新生儿入住新生儿病房(相对危险度1.48,95%可信区间0.49至4.45)方面的胎儿结局也无差异。没有严重的新生儿或孕产妇死亡或发病情况。束带组会阴完整率增加(相对危险度1.73,95%可信区间1.07至2.77),以及肛门括约肌撕裂率增加(相对危险度15.69,95%可信区间2.10至117.02)。没有关于长期结局的数据。
没有证据可得出手法宫底加压有益或有害的结论。需要高质量的随机对照试验来研究手法宫底加压的效果。分娩第二产程中使用充气束带进行宫底加压似乎并未增加硬膜外镇痛妇女的自然阴道分娩率。关于对婴儿的安全性证据不足。对产妇会阴的影响尚无定论。