PubMed · 13608942
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
T R GOETHALS. 1958. Breech extraction.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003081-195812000-00005
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: For centuries, there has been controversy around whether being upright (sitting, birthing stools, chairs, squatting) or lying down have advantages for women delivering their babies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and risks of the use of different positions during the second stage of labour (i.e. from full dilatation of the cervix). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (16 April 2003). SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials that used randomised or quasi-randomised allocation and appropriate follow up and compared various positions assumed by pregnant women during the second stage of labour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted the data. MAIN RESULTS: Results should be interpreted with caution as the methodological quality of the 19 included trials (5764 participants) was variable. Use of any upright or lateral position, compared with supine or lithotomy positions, was associated with: reduced duration of second stage of labour (10 trials: mean 4.29 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.95 to 5.64 minutes) - this was largely due to a considerable reduction in women allocated to the use of the birth cushion; a small reduction in assisted deliveries (18 trials: relative risk (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98); a reduction in episiotomies (12 trials: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91); an increase in second degree perineal tears (11 trials: RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.39); increased estimated blood loss greater than 500 ml (11 trials: RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.15); reduced reporting of severe pain during second stage of labour (1 trial: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.90); fewer abnormal fetal heart rate patterns (1 trial: RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.98). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The tentative findings of this review suggest several possible benefits for upright posture, with the possibility of increased risk of blood loss greater than 500 ml. Women should be encouraged to give birth in the position they find most comfortable. Until such time as the benefits and risks of various delivery positions are estimated with greater certainty, when methodologically stringent trials' data are available, women should be allowed to make informed choices about the birth positions in which they might wish to assume for delivery of their babies.
Fecal incontinence affects between 1% and 16% of women, with prevalence increasing with age. The most common cause of fecal incontinence in otherwise healthy women is damage to the anal sphincter(s) during childbirth. As such, the most important tool in the "treatment" of fecal incontinence is its prevention, which should be the first research priority for gynecologists. Routine midline (median) episiotomy has no place in modern obstetrics; when episiotomy must be performed for obstetric indications, use of mediolateral episiotomy should result in fewer anal sphincter injuries than use of midline episiotomy. Additional research questions that gynecologists hope to address are as follows. (1) When anal sphincter injury occurs at delivery, what is the most effective method of repair? Even when repair is performed, women frequently have symptoms of altered bowel function ranging from fecal urgency to frank fecal incontinence. (2) Is it possible to improve the relatively poor results of a strictly surgical repair? Does pelvic muscle rehabilitation (performed either after vaginal delivery or after secondary repair remote from delivery) add significantly to the outcome of women after anal sphincteroplasty? (3) Another more general research priority is to understand the shared and independent factors in the pathophysiology of fecal and urinary incontinence so as to identify modifiable risk factors in women.
In 1946 the share of clinic deliveries in the Soviet occupation zone amounted to 27 %, 1970 the given share of clinic deliveries in the GDR come to 99 %. From the beginning of the seventies home deliveries were not listed any more in the official statistics. After that neither the home obstetrics nor the family orientated clinical obstetrics took a larger space in the scientific discussions in the specialist public of the GDR. The following will show the development of the extraclinical obstetrics on the territory of the GDR as well as describe and discuss its medical and social context from the end of the forties until 1989. Usually in the (critical) reflections of the revival of home resp. extraclinical obstetrics in the eighties and nineties only the development in the "old" Federal Republic is taken into consideration. A description of the medicohistorical development in the former GDR in order to complete the all-German way of looking at this phenomenon was still due until now.