"First do no harm": Fundal pressure during labor-How safe is it?

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
O Eliner, M Kovo, M Semo, D Yacobi, S Brodsky, T Biron, G Shechter Maor
{"title":"\"First do no harm\": Fundal pressure during labor-How safe is it?","authors":"O Eliner, M Kovo, M Semo, D Yacobi, S Brodsky, T Biron, G Shechter Maor","doi":"10.1002/ijgo.70218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Fundal pressure (FP), a controversial obstetric maneuver due to its potential benefits and risks, lacks robust evidence concerning its effects. This study aimed to evaluate the maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with the application of FP during the second stage of labor.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following our departmental protocol, FP is applied by obstetricians trained under the supervision of the head of the labor ward. Its implementation requires patient consent and documentation. This case-control study encompassed vaginal deliveries (VDs) involving FP (FP group) during the second stage of labor. The control group included subsequent deliveries matched 1:1 for gestational age, parity, and mode of delivery (vacuum extraction [VE] or VD). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared between the groups. Composite adverse outcomes included the presence of at least one of the following: grade 3-4 perineal tear, shoulder dystocia, postpartum hemorrhage, postpartum hospitalization exceeding 4 days, or postpartum use of analgesics exceeding five doses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 12 048 deliveries during the 3-year study period, 325 (2.7%) involved FP. There were no significant differences in maternal age, body mass index, or gestational age between the FP (n = 325) and control groups (n = 325). However, the FP group exhibited higher rates of labor induction (41.5% vs. 19.3%, P < 0.0001), oxytocin augmentation (52% vs. 23.6%, P < 0.0001), and prolonged duration of the second stage of labor (1.88 ± 1.2 vs. 1.57 ± 1.3 h, P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in the rate of postpartum hemorrhage, composite adverse maternal outcomes, or early neonatal outcomes between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Fundal pressure, when administered by trained obstetricians, was not associated with adverse obstetric, maternal, or neonatal outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":14164,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.70218","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Fundal pressure (FP), a controversial obstetric maneuver due to its potential benefits and risks, lacks robust evidence concerning its effects. This study aimed to evaluate the maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with the application of FP during the second stage of labor.

Methods: Following our departmental protocol, FP is applied by obstetricians trained under the supervision of the head of the labor ward. Its implementation requires patient consent and documentation. This case-control study encompassed vaginal deliveries (VDs) involving FP (FP group) during the second stage of labor. The control group included subsequent deliveries matched 1:1 for gestational age, parity, and mode of delivery (vacuum extraction [VE] or VD). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared between the groups. Composite adverse outcomes included the presence of at least one of the following: grade 3-4 perineal tear, shoulder dystocia, postpartum hemorrhage, postpartum hospitalization exceeding 4 days, or postpartum use of analgesics exceeding five doses.

Results: Among 12 048 deliveries during the 3-year study period, 325 (2.7%) involved FP. There were no significant differences in maternal age, body mass index, or gestational age between the FP (n = 325) and control groups (n = 325). However, the FP group exhibited higher rates of labor induction (41.5% vs. 19.3%, P < 0.0001), oxytocin augmentation (52% vs. 23.6%, P < 0.0001), and prolonged duration of the second stage of labor (1.88 ± 1.2 vs. 1.57 ± 1.3 h, P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in the rate of postpartum hemorrhage, composite adverse maternal outcomes, or early neonatal outcomes between the groups.

Conclusion: Fundal pressure, when administered by trained obstetricians, was not associated with adverse obstetric, maternal, or neonatal outcomes.

“第一不伤害”:分娩时基底部压力有多安全?
目的:由于其潜在的益处和风险,基底压力(FP)是一种有争议的产科操作,缺乏关于其效果的有力证据。本研究旨在评估在产程第二阶段应用FP对产妇和新生儿预后的影响。方法:按照我们的科室方案,计划生育是由产科医生在产房主任的监督下进行培训。它的实施需要患者的同意和文件。本病例对照研究包括阴道分娩(VDs)涉及生育计划(生育计划组)在第二阶段的劳动。对照组包括胎龄、胎次和分娩方式(真空抽吸[VE]或VD) 1:1匹配的后续分娩。比较两组产妇和新生儿的结局。复合不良结局包括至少存在以下一项:3-4级会阴撕裂、肩部难产、产后出血、产后住院超过4天,或产后使用止痛药超过5剂。结果:在3年研究期间的12048例分娩中,325例(2.7%)涉及FP。计划生育组(n = 325)与对照组(n = 325)的产妇年龄、体重指数或胎龄均无显著差异。然而,FP组表现出更高的引产率(41.5% vs. 19.3%)。结论:当由训练有素的产科医生管理时,子宫底压与不良的产科、产妇或新生儿结局无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
493
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics publishes articles on all aspects of basic and clinical research in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology and related subjects, with emphasis on matters of worldwide interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信