Bonarska Marta, Adasik Damian, Szymczyk Simone, Łocik Gabriela, Stanirowski Paweł
1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-015 Warsaw, Poland.
J Clin Med. 2025 Jun 5;14(11):3977. doi: 10.3390/jcm14113977.
: Effective labor analgesia is a cornerstone of obstetric care, influencing maternal satisfaction and birth outcomes. This systematic review evaluates both conventional and emerging analgesia techniques for natural vaginal delivery, emphasizing multimodal and patient-centered strategies. : We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from January 2018 to September 2024 using MeSH terms such as "labor anesthesia", "natural delivery", "multimodal analgesia", and "non-pharmacological pain management". Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and cohort studies were included. Studies focusing exclusively on cesarean delivery or non-clinical interventions were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed qualitatively using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for observational studies. However, no detailed study-by-study reporting was performed. Seventy studies met the inclusion criteria for full analysis. : Included studies were categorized into four themes: (1) neuraxial techniques (e.g., epidural, CSEA), (2) intrathecal and systemic opioids, (3) non-pharmacological approaches (e.g., TENS, hydrotherapy), and (4) technological innovations (e.g., programmed boluses, telemedicine). Neuraxial methods showed the highest analgesic efficacy and maternal satisfaction. Non-pharmacological interventions were associated with improved patient autonomy and minimal side effects. However, heterogeneity in study design and outcomes limited direct comparisons. : The evidence base exhibited variability in study quality, sample sizes, and reporting. The absence of standardized outcome measures, a lack of meta-analyses, and limited data on long-term outcomes limit the robustness and generalizability of the conclusions that can be drawn. : This review supports a multimodal, individualized approach to labor analgesia. Future research should prioritize large, well-designed trials using standardized tools such as the VAS, PQoL, and EPDS to validate innovative techniques and ensure equitable maternal care.
有效的分娩镇痛是产科护理的基石,影响着产妇满意度和分娩结局。本系统评价评估了自然阴道分娩的传统和新兴镇痛技术,强调多模式和以患者为中心的策略。
我们于2018年1月至2024年9月在PubMed、Scopus和Cochrane图书馆进行了系统检索,使用了“分娩麻醉”“自然分娩”“多模式镇痛”和“非药物疼痛管理”等医学主题词。纳入了随机对照试验、系统评价、荟萃分析和队列研究。专门关注剖宫产或非临床干预的研究被排除。使用Cochrane随机试验偏倚风险工具和观察性研究的ROBINS-I对偏倚风险进行了定性评估。然而,未进行逐篇详细报告。70项研究符合全面分析的纳入标准。
(1)神经轴技术(如硬膜外麻醉、腰麻-硬膜外联合麻醉),(2)鞘内和全身使用阿片类药物,(3)非药物方法(如经皮电刺激神经疗法、水疗),以及(4)技术创新(如程序化推注、远程医疗)。神经轴方法显示出最高的镇痛效果和产妇满意度。非药物干预与提高患者自主性和最小的副作用相关。然而,研究设计和结果的异质性限制了直接比较。
证据基础在研究质量、样本量和报告方面存在差异。缺乏标准化的结局指标、荟萃分析的缺乏以及长期结局数据有限,限制了可得出结论的稳健性和普遍性。
本综述支持采用多模式、个体化的分娩镇痛方法。未来的研究应优先进行大型、设计良好的试验,使用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)、产后生活质量量表(PQoL)和爱丁堡产后抑郁量表(EPDS)等标准化工具来验证创新技术,并确保公平的产妇护理。