Intradermal sterile water injections for the relief of low back pain in labour -- a systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE: To search literature published on the administration of intradermal sterile water injections to women in labour who experience severe low back pain, and to critically evaluate the evidence for therapeutic merit. METHOD: A systematic review of six randomised controlled trials from countries including Canada, Denmark, Iran, Sweden and Thailand was conducted. RESULTS: Statistically significant findings (p<0.0001) of relief of low back pain in labour lasting from 10 min to 2 h post-administration. CONCLUSION: Intradermal injections of sterile water possess powerful analgesic benefits for women experiencing low back pain in labour and their use in this therapeutic setting is justifiable.     

Sterile water injections for childbirth pain: An evidenced based guide to practice

Background

About 30% of women in labour suffer from lower back pain. Studies of sterile water injections for management of low back pain have consistently shown this approach to be effective. The objective of this evidence-based guide is to facilitate the clinical use of sterile water injections to relieve lower back pain in labouring women.

Cross sectional study of Australian midwives knowledge and use of sterile water injections for pain relief in labour

BackgroundThe effectiveness of sterile water injections (SWI) to relieve back pain in labour is supported by a number of randomised controlled trials. Although the procedure is available in a number of Australian maternity units, there is no information regarding the use of SWI by midwives, in terms of knowledge and availability, clinical application or technique used. Neither is there any data on midwives who do not use SWI nor the specific challengers and barriers encountered by midwives introducing SWI.MethodAn invitation to participate in an online survey was emailed to 4700 members of the Australian College of Midwives (ACM) and 484 members of CRANAplus (Remote Health Organisation). Nine hundred and seventy midwives completed the survey (19%).ResultsFour hundred and seven (42.5%) midwives currently used SWI in their practice and five hundred and fifty-one (57.5%) indicated they did not. Eighty-six percent (n = 478/548) indicated they would consider using SWI and 90% (n = 500/547) were interested in obtaining further information about SWI. The main reasons cited for not using SWI was the lack of a policy or guideline (n = 271, 57.5%) and being unable to access workshops or resource material (n = 68, 14.4%).ConclusionThis study indicates that SWI is not being used by the majority of midwives participating in the study, although there is a strong desire by midwives to learn about and explore its use. Greater access to information and workshops on SWI is highlighted. In response to the findings of this survey the authors are currently developing an online resource and training to support units to introduce SWI.     

Comparing compliance with commencement and use of two partograph designs for women in active labour: A randomised controlled trial

BackgroundDocumentation and assessment of progress in labour using a partograph is recommended by the World Health Organisation to assist in the timely recognition of labour dystocia. Recent studies have tested new designs of partographs that aim to account for more variable rates of labour progress. However, other studies have suggested that poor compliance in the completion of partographs affects utility. The objective of this study was to compare two types of partographs for compliance in documentation and use for managing labour.MethodsLow-risk nulliparous women in spontaneous labour (n = 228) were randomised to either an Action Line (control) (n = 114) or Dystocia Line partograph (intervention) (n = 114). Primary outcome was compliance with instructions for commencement of the partograph following a multifaceted training strategy. Secondary outcomes included compliance with the accompanying clinical management protocol for each partograph; and labour and birth outcomes.ResultsThe compliance rate for commencing the Action line partograph was 43.2% compared to 67.0% (p = 0.02) for the Dystocia line partograph. Other than a reduction in artificial rupture of membranes in the Dystocia Line group there were no other differences in labour management or birth outcomes. The use of centralised electronic display of labour progress may be a contributing factor.ConclusionsCompliance with the commencement and use of either partograph was low. There was little indication that the partograph was being utilized in the assessment and management of prolonged labour. Further studies are needed to explore the current utility of partographs in labour management and the effect of centralised monitoring of progress in high resource settings     

The use of non-surgical glue to repair perineal first-degree lacerations in normal birth: A non-inferiority randomised trial

Background and problemSurgical glue has been indicated for uncomplicated operatory wounds; however, it has a considerable cost. Non-surgical glue, a commercially available and cheaper product, has not been studied for repairing postpartum lacerations.AimTo compare non-surgical glue to traditional sutures on perineal first-degree lacerations after normal birth.MethodsIn a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, we selected childbearing women who were admitted for normal term births and in whom skin lacerations occurred. They were assigned to laceration repair using either non-surgical glue (ethyl 2-cyanoacrylate; Glue group) or catgut sutures (Suture group). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of dehiscence >3 mm. Secondary endpoints were procedure runtime, pain score, satisfaction level, and aspects of perineal repair by the REEDA score (hyperaemia, oedema, ecchymosis, exudation, and coaptation) immediately (T0), 24−48 h (T1), and 7–10 days (T2) after childbirth.FindingsWe included 126 women, 63 in each group, and found a non-inferiority dehiscence rate in the Glue Group compared to the Control group (T1 = 1.6% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.999 and P < 0.001 for non-inferiority; and T2 = 2.2% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.557). In the Glue Group, the procedure runtime was shorter, pain score was lower, and women’s satisfaction was greater. No women had any allergic reaction in the study.ConclusionsNon-surgical glue was not inferior to traditional sutures to repair postpartum first-degree lacerations. In addition, non-surgical glue was associated with less pain and greater satisfaction.Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-5Z8MKC).     

Perceptions of paternal involvement and labour pain management in Chinese couples during childbirth: A qualitative study

BackgroundLabour pain is an individual experience embedded in a socio-cultural context. In childbirth, the father’s involvement provides important support to the mother during labour. However, few published studies have evaluated couples’ experiences of paternal involvement and labour pain management in the Chinese context.AimThis study aimed to understand the experience of labour pain management and the father’s involvement in childbirth from the perspectives of women and their partners in Hong Kong.MethodsAn exploratory qualitative design was adopted. A purposive sample of 45 Chinese parents was recruited at the postnatal unit of a regional hospital. Data were collected through semi-structured face-to-face interviews within 1 month after birth. The data were subjected to content analysis.FindingsThe findings revealed six major themes: the mothers’ experience of labour pain, effectiveness of pain relief measures, mothers’ perceptions of support from their partners, mothers’ perceptions of support from healthcare professionals, fathers’ experience of involvement in childbirth and suggested improvements to maternity services.DiscussionChinese mothers experienced intense labour pain and used various pain relief measures. Both parents considered the involvement of fathers and support from healthcare professionals to be highly significant during childbirth.ConclusionsThis study highlights the need for a family-centred model of care during childbirth that involves both parents in the decision-making process. Chinese maternity services should implement individualised birth plans that acknowledge both parents’ expectations and preferences, thus promoting a positive childbirth experience for the parents.     

Documenting risk: A comparison of policy and information pamphlets for using epidural or water in labour

BackgroundApproximately 30% of Australian women use epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour, and its use is increasing. While epidural analgesia is considered a safe option from an anaesthetic point of view, its use transfers a labouring woman out of the category of ‘normal’ labour and increases her risk of intervention. Judicious use of epidural may be beneficial in particular situations, but its current common use needs to be assessed more closely. This has not yet been explored in the Australian context.AimTo examine personal, social, institutional and cultural influences on women in their decision to use epidural analgesia in labour. Examining this one event in depth illuminates other birth practices, which can also be analysed according to how they fit within prevailing cultural beliefs about birth.MethodsEthnography, underpinned by a critical medical anthropology methodology.ResultsThese findings describe the influence of risk culture on labour ward practice; specifically, the policies and practices surrounding the use of epidural analgesia are contrasted with those on the use of water. Engaging with current risk theory, we identify the role of power in conceptualisations of risk, which are commonly perpetuated by authority rather than evidence.ConclusionsAs we move towards a risk-driven society, it is vital to identify both the conception and the consequences of promulgations of risk. The construction of waterbirth as a ‘risky’ practice had the effect of limiting midwifery practice and women's choices, despite evidence that points to the epidural as the more ‘dangerous’ option.     

Admitting women in active labour: A randomised controlled trial about the effects of protocol use on childbirth method and interventions

AimTo determine the effects of protocol of admitting women in active labour on childbirth method and interventions during labour and childbirth.MethodsThis single-blind randomised clinical trial was conducted in a public hospital in Mazandaran province (Iran) in 2017. Two hundred nulliparous low-risk women were randomly assigned into intervention and control groups. The participant women were admitted in the intervention group using the admission protocol and to the group control by staff midwives and doctors. The admission criteria of the protocol were: the presence of regular, painful contractions, the cervix at least four cm dilated and at least one of the following cues: cervix effaced, and spontaneous rupture of membranes, or “show”. The primary outcome measure was childbirth method. Data were analyzed in SPSS-22 using Mann–Whitney and Chi–square tests. The level of statistical significance was set as p < 0.05.FindingThere were significant differences between the intervention and control groups in the number of caesarian section (CS) (p < 0.001). Two groups had a statistically significant difference in amniotomy (p = 0.003), augmentation by oxytocin (p < 0.001), number of vaginal examinations (p < 0.001) and fundal pressure (p < 0.001).ConclusionsUsing a protocol for admission of low risk nulliparous women in active labour contributed to reduction of the primary caesarean section rate and interventions during childbirth. A risk assessment and using evidence informed guidelines in admission can contribute to reduce unsafe and harmful practices and support normalisation of birth. This is essential for demedicalisation and a useful strategy for reducing primary CS.     

Getting the first birth right: A retrospective study of outcomes for low-risk primiparous women receiving standard care versus midwifery model of care in the same tertiary hospital

BackgroundThere is national and international concern for increasing obstetric intervention in childbirth and rising caesarean section rates. Repeat caesarean section is a major contributing factor, making primiparous women an important target for strategies to reduce unnecessary intervention and surgeries in childbirth.AimThe aim was to compare outcomes for a cohort of low risk primiparous women who accessed a midwifery continuity model of care with those who received standard public care in the same tertiary hospital.MethodsA retrospective comparative cohort study design was implemented drawing on data from two databases held by a tertiary hospital for the period 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011. Categorical data were analysed using the chi-squared statistic and Fisher's exact test. Continuous data were analysed using Student's t-test. Comparisons are presented using unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values with significance set at 0.05.ResultsData for 426 women experiencing continuity of midwifery care and 1220 experiencing standard public care were compared. The study found increased rates of normal vaginal birth (57.7% vs. 48.9% p = 0.002) and spontaneous vaginal birth (38% vs. 22.4% p = <0.001) and decreased rates of instrumental birth (23.5% vs. 28.5% p = 0.050) and caesarean sections (18.8% vs. 22.5% p = 0.115) in the midwifery continuity cohort. There were also fewer interventions in this group. No differences were found in neonatal outcomes.ConclusionStrategies for reducing caesarean section rates and interventions in childbirth should focus on primiparous women as a priority. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of continuity midwifery models, suggesting that this is an important strategy for improving outcomes in this population.     

Taking the reins: A grounded theory study of women's experiences of negotiating water immersion for labour and birth after a previous caesarean section

BackgroundWomen seeking a vaginal birth after a caesarean section (VBAC) frequently want to keep their subsequent labour and birth free from intervention. Water immersion (WI) during labour is potentially an effective tool for women having a VBAC for its natural pain-relieving properties. However, negotiating access to WI can be difficult, especially in the context of VBAC.AimTo explore women's experiences of negotiating WI for labour and birth in the context of VBAC.MethodologyThis Grounded Theory study followed Strauss and Corbin's framework and analytic process. Twenty-five women planning or using WI for their VBAC labour or birth were recruited from two midwifery practices and a social media group across Australia. Participants were interviewed during pregnancy and/or postnatally.Findings‘Taking the reins’, the core category explaining the women’s experiences of assuming authority over their birth, comprised five categories: ‘Robbed of my previous birth experience’; ‘My eyes were opened’; ‘Water is my tool for a successful VBAC’; ‘Actioning my choices and rights for WI’, and ‘Empowered to take back control’. ‘Wanting natural and normal’ was the driving force behind women’s desire to birth vaginally. Two mediating factors: Having someone in your corner and Rules for birth facilitated or hindered their birth choices, respectively.ConclusionThe women became active participants in their healthcare by seeking information and options to keep their birth experience natural and normal. Support from other women and advocacy in the form of continuity of midwifery care was crucial in successfully negotiating WI for their VBAC when navigating the complex health system.