PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 17175486

Are routine interventions necessary in normal birth?

Abstract

Routine interventions during labor and birth, such as perineal shaving and enemas before vaginal delivery, continuous intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring (EFM), and episiotomy are prevalent in Taiwan, but they may not always be necessary. Numerous studies investigating these interventions have failed to find absolute benefits for women with uncomplicated and low-risk pregnancies. No evidence-based benefits support routine perineal shaving or enemas during labor for reducing the risk of perineal wound infection or neonatal infection. The use of EFM is associated with an increased rate of operative interventions (vacuum, forceps, cesarean delivery) but does not result in a significant decrease in the incidence of perinatal death or cerebral palsy. Routine episiotomy does not have demonstrable advantages over restrictive episiotomy in the frequency or severity of perineal damage or pelvic relaxation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Chen-Yu Chen, Kuo-Gon Wang. 2006. Are routine interventions necessary in normal birth?. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1028-4559(09)60247-3

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effects of teamwork training on adverse outcomes and process of care in labor and delivery: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of teamwork training on the occurrence of adverse outcomes and process of care in labor and delivery. METHODS: A cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted at seven intervention and eight control hospitals. The intervention was a standardized teamwork training curriculum based on crew resource management that emphasized communication and team structure. The primary outcome was the proportion of deliveries at 20 weeks or more of gestation in which one or more adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes or both occurred (Adverse Outcome Index). Additional outcomes included 11 clinical process measures. RESULTS: A total of 1,307 personnel were trained and 28,536 deliveries analyzed. At baseline, there were no differences in demographic or delivery characteristics between the groups. The mean Adverse Outcome Index prevalence was similar in the control and intervention groups, both at baseline and after implementation of teamwork training (9.4% versus 9.0% and 7.2% versus 8.3%, respectively). The intracluster correlation coefficient was 0.015, with a resultant wide confidence interval for the difference in mean Adverse Outcome Index between groups (-5.6% to 3.2%). One process measure, the time from the decision to perform an immediate cesarean delivery to the incision, differed significantly after team training (33.3 minutes versus 21.2 minutes, P=.03). CONCLUSION: Training, as was conducted and implemented, did not transfer to a detectable impact in this study. The Adverse Outcome Index could be an important tool for comparing obstetric outcomes within and between institutions to help guide quality improvement. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), NCT00381056 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Delivery, Obstetric↗