Kemp Emily, Kingswood Claire J, Kibuka Marion, Thornton Jim G
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 31(1):CD008070. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008070.pub2.
Epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour prolongs the second stage of labour and results in more instrumental deliveries. It has been suggested that a more upright position of the mother during all or part of the second stage may counteract these adverse effects.
To assess the effects of different birthing positions (upright versus recumbent) during the second stage of labour, on important maternal and fetal outcomes for women with epidural analgesia.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2012) and reference lists of retrieved studies
All randomised or quasi-randomised trials including pregnant women (either primigravidae or multigravidae) in the second stage of induced or spontaneous labour receiving epidural analgesia of any kind.We assumed the experimental type of intervention to be the maternal use of any upright position during the second stage of labour, compared with the control intervention of the use of any recumbent position.
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We contacted authors to try to obtain missing data.
Five randomised controlled trials, involving 879 women, were included in the review.Overall, we identified no statistically significant difference between upright and recumbent positions on our primary outcomes of operative birth (caesarean or instrumental vaginal) (average risk ratio (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.29; five trials, 874 women), or duration of the second stage of labour measured as the randomisation to birth interval (average mean difference -22.98 minutes; 95% CI -99.09 to 53.13; two trials, 322 women). Nor did we identify any clear differences in the incidence of instrumental birth or caesarean section separately, nor in any other important maternal or fetal outcome, including trauma to the birth canal requiring suturing, operative birth for fetal distress, low cord pH or admission to neonatal intensive care unit. However, the CIs around each estimate were wide, and clinically important effects have not been ruled out.There were no data reported on excess blood loss, prolonged second stage or maternal experience and satisfaction with labour. Similarly, there were no analysable data on Apgar scores, and no data reported on the need for ventilation or for perinatal death.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data to say anything conclusive about the effect of position for the second stage of labour for women with epidural analgesia. Women with an epidural should be encouraged to use whatever position they find comfortable in the second stage of labour. Future research should involve large trials of positions that women can maintain and predefined endpoints. One large trial is ongoing.
分娩时采用硬膜外镇痛缓解疼痛会延长第二产程,并导致更多器械助产分娩。有人提出,在第二产程的全部或部分时间让母亲采取更直立的姿势可能会抵消这些不利影响。
评估第二产程中不同分娩姿势(直立与卧位)对接受硬膜外镇痛的产妇和胎儿重要结局的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2012年6月30日)以及检索到的研究的参考文献列表。
所有随机或半随机试验,包括引产或自然分娩第二产程中接受任何类型硬膜外镇痛的孕妇(初产妇或经产妇)。我们假定试验性干预措施为产妇在第二产程中采用任何直立姿势,与之相比,对照干预措施为采用任何卧位姿势。
两位综述作者独立评估试验是否纳入、评估偏倚风险并提取数据。对数据进行准确性检查。我们联系作者以获取缺失数据。
本综述纳入了5项随机对照试验,涉及879名女性。总体而言,我们发现,在手术分娩(剖宫产或器械助产阴道分娩)这一主要结局方面,直立姿势与卧位姿势之间无统计学显著差异(平均风险比(RR)0.97;95%置信区间(CI)0.76至1.29;5项试验,874名女性),以随机分组至分娩间隔衡量的第二产程持续时间方面也无差异(平均差值-22.98分钟;95%CI -99.09至53.13;2项试验,322名女性)。我们也未发现器械助产分娩或剖宫产的发生率分别有任何明显差异,在任何其他重要的产妇或胎儿结局方面也无差异,包括需要缝合的产道创伤、因胎儿窘迫行手术分娩、脐带血pH值低或入住新生儿重症监护病房。然而,每项估计值的置信区间都很宽,尚未排除具有临床重要意义的影响。未报告有关失血过多、第二产程延长或产妇对分娩的体验及满意度的数据。同样,没有关于阿普加评分的可分析数据,也没有报告关于通气需求或围产期死亡的数据。
关于硬膜外镇痛产妇第二产程姿势的影响,现有数据不足以得出任何确凿结论。应鼓励接受硬膜外镇痛的产妇在第二产程中采用她们觉得舒适的任何姿势。未来的研究应纳入大型试验,涉及女性能够保持的姿势以及预先定义的终点。一项大型试验正在进行中。