Suppr超能文献

轻柔宫底加压促进阴道分娩:一项随机临床试验。

Gentle fundal pressure to facilitate vaginal delivery: A randomized clinical trial.

作者信息

Guo Qing, Du Hui, Feng Ying, Jiao Ruifen, Xie Xu, Li Mingwei, Coonrod Dean V, Zheng Thomas Q

机构信息

Hebei Provincial Key Laboratory of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Hebei Provincial Center for Obstetric Quality Control, Shijiazhuang Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.

出版信息

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2025 Jul;104(7):1357-1365. doi: 10.1111/aogs.15130. Epub 2025 Apr 16.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Fundal pressure during the second stage of labor is widely practiced but understudied. Violent fundal pressure can cause maternal and fetal injuries. Many providers believe the maneuver is effective. Administrative efforts to ban fundal pressure are unsuccessful and only drive the procedure to an underground practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this single-center, open-label, randomized trial, nulliparous women with term singleton cephalic pregnancy under epidural analgesia were assigned to receive gentle manual fundal pressure (GMFP) or routine labor care. The GMFP was designed not to exceed a maximum of 120 mmHg. Women were randomized after 30 min of pushing in the second stage of labor. The primary outcome was the time from randomization to delivery. Secondary outcomes were mode of delivery, episiotomy, perineal laceration, cord blood pH, and other maternal and fetal outcomes.

RESULTS

Between July 2023 and January 2024, 164 women were randomized to GMFP (n = 82) or to routine care (n = 82). The time from randomization to vaginal delivery did not show statistical significance between the fundal pressure group and the control group (mean [SD], 46.3 [33.3] vs. 55.9 [45.8] min; p = 0.13). Significantly fewer women in the fundal pressure group had operative vaginal deliveries (4 of 82 [4.9%]) than women in the control group (13 of 82 [15.9%]; relative risk [RR] 0.308, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.105-0.904; p = 0.021). Similarly, mediolateral episiotomy was performed in fewer women in the fundal pressure group (6 of 82 [7.32%]) than in the control group (16 of 82 [19.51%], RR 0.375, 95% CI 0.154-0.910; p = 0.022). Other maternal and fetal outcomes were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

GMFP resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in the second stage of labor and a significant reduction in operative vaginal delivery and episiotomy without an increase in adverse outcomes. Fundal pressure during the second stage of labor deserves further investigation.

摘要

引言

分娩第二产程中使用宫底加压法很常见,但相关研究较少。暴力宫底加压会导致母婴受伤。许多医护人员认为这种操作是有效的。行政上禁止宫底加压法的努力并未成功,反而使该操作转入地下进行。

材料与方法

在这项单中心、开放标签的随机试验中,将接受硬膜外镇痛的足月单胎头位妊娠初产妇分为两组,分别接受轻柔手法宫底加压(GMFP)或常规分娩护理。GMFP设计的最大压力不超过120mmHg。在第二产程用力30分钟后对产妇进行随机分组。主要结局是从随机分组到分娩的时间。次要结局包括分娩方式、会阴切开术、会阴裂伤、脐血pH值以及其他母婴结局。

结果

2023年7月至2024年1月期间,164名女性被随机分为GMFP组(n = 82)或常规护理组(n = 82)。宫底加压组和对照组从随机分组到阴道分娩的时间没有统计学差异(均值[标准差],46.3[33.3]分钟对55.9[45.8]分钟;p = 0.13)。宫底加压组经阴道助产分娩的女性(82例中有4例[4.9%])明显少于对照组(82例中有13例[15.9%];相对危险度[RR]0.308,95%置信区间[CI]0.105 - 0.904;p = 0.021)。同样,宫底加压组进行会阴侧切术的女性(82例中有6例[7.32%])少于对照组(82例中有16例[19.51%],RR 0.375,95% CI 0.154 - 0.910;p = 0.022)。两组的其他母婴结局相似。

结论

GMFP使第二产程时间有不显著缩短,经阴道助产分娩和会阴切开术显著减少,且未增加不良结局。分娩第二产程中的宫底加压法值得进一步研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/88fd/12144581/6bc7a6eeb268/AOGS-104-1357-g003.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验