Historical perspectives: forgotten past, unpredictable future.

Abstract

Intrapartum surveillance has in recent years become a matter of debate. Following its earlier development, first in auscultation and then 40 years ago in electronic monitoring, obstetricians accepted its use with great, perhaps too great, enthusiasm. Years later, attempts to evaluate the actual consequences of this use led to disappointment: although its benefit on perinatal mortality is acknowledged, two observations lead one to reconsider the legitimacy of its use. First the apparent lack of beneficial influence on neonatal long-term morbidity, and second the definite increase in the rate of caesarean section. Furthermore, recent comparative studies, despite some discrepancies, seem to indicate that clinical monitoring by auscultation leads to results as good as those from electronical monitoring, particularly with respect to fetal mortality and infant morbidity. These observations obviously merit careful consideration; some explanations may be put forward to explain these apparently surprising results. From a practical point of view, this discussion leads to two opposite choices for obstetric policy: either to 'go back' to auscultation or to try to identify indicators more specific to fetal asphyxia and increased risk of cerebral palsy, leading to more precise and fewer indications for caesarean section. This chapter on historical perspectives may be useful in pointing out what were the goals of the obstetric pioneers involved in electronic monitoring: definitely not to build theoretical considerations on the pathophysiology of fetal distress, but to gather continuous information about the fetal heart rate in the hope of detecting changes announcing fetal asphyxia before it becomes irremediable, and hence preventing fetal death. These promises have been fulfilled. It follows that continuous clinical monitoring, which provides the same kind of information, is quite likely to lead to similar clinical results. It also follows that this relatively cumbersome method has really nothing to do with the 'classical' clinical surveillance in use before the widespread acceptance of electronical monitoring. It may be beneficial to experiment with this specific type of clinical surveillance; it would be dangerous, however, to 'go back' to the type of monitoring practised 40 years ago.