A Retrospective Study of Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes Following Conventional and Water Birth in Ecuador

Rosales, S.; Ortíz-Prado, Esteban; Alarcón, Diego; Rosales, Dayana; Iturralde, Ana Lucia

doi:10.5539/gjhs.v9n4p42

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…None of the groups presented high levels of BMI (24.4±3.7 vs 23.07±3.5, p=0.001) (Table 1), coinciding with studies where the preference for water delivery was higher in women with BMI less than 30 due to complications that can occur in obese women. [35][36][37][38][39][40][41] Regarding neonatal data, the weight of babies at birth was higher in water delivery compared to conventional delivery (3067.4±359.9 vs 3059.7±435.2, p=0.02), in turn, the APGAR in minute 1 did not present significant difference between water and conventional calving (8.9±0.3 vs 9±3.4), unlike APGAR in minute 5 (9.62±0.4 vs 9.5±0.5, p=0.00), which was greater in water calving compared to conventional calving (Table 1); different from that reported, [42][43][44] who report similar APGAR values at minute 1 and 5, between water and conventional delivery.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 59%

Untitled

2022

OGIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Labor is a physiological process during which the fetus, the membranes, the umbilical cord and the placenta are expelled from the uterus and water delivery has become popular, although its prevalence is unknown, it is supported by healthy women with fullterm pregnancies, without complications; although there is insufficient evidence to support or discourage it.Objective: To identify obstetric and neonatal outcomes and complications in women who delivered in water and to compare them with traditional deliveries.Material and methods: It is a retrospective, observational and cross-sectional study, where 2486 women were included from a database of 4223 women assisted from 2004 to 2020 in private hospitals; Of the 2486 patients included, 1025 had a water delivery and 1461 had a conventional delivery, discarding 1737 women who underwent caesarean section from the study. The information obtained from the patients, their data obtained for this study were kept in the anonymity of the patients, where they were analyzed: non-parametric data reported in percentages using Chi square; Parametric, perinatal and neonatal data are reported as mean plus standard deviation (±SD) and analyzed using Student's T, using the SPSS version 25 statistical package.Results: A total of 2486 women were included in this study, the birth in 1025 was water delivery (24%) and 1461 was conventional delivery (35%), 1737 caesarean section (41%) were excluded from the study, no difference was observed maternal age; unlike weight, height, body mass index; they were higher in women with water birth compared to conventional. No difference was demonstrated between nulliparous (45.99%) and multiparous (53.86%) when comparing both birth in water and conventional; only increase in previous caesarean sections (9.36 vs 6.5%, p=0.008) and decrease in previous abortions (16.19 vs 20.94%, p=0.002) in water delivery with the conventional one; complications were not different: administration of oxytocin (3.2 vs 3.1) or postpartum hemorrhage (0.29 vs 0.13) in both deliveries; no differences in first degree perineal tears (21.4 vs 18.5%). Conclusion:Water birth reduces stress, pain sensation, second and third degree perineal lacerations and contributes to better newborn outcomes; the selection and inclusion of patients with low-risk pregnancies allows better perinatal results than conventional delivery; but, further studies are required to use it routinely.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 59%

Untitled

2022

OGIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…He advocated that there was no risk associated with water birth and that water immersion reduced the need for interventions and analgesia during labor (Lim et al, 2016 ). In this regard, 150,000 water deliveries were done between 1985 and 1999, according to Rosales et al ( 2017 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception and knowledge of Saudi women about water birth: A cross-sectional study

Bashaikh¹,

Mahboub²,

Orabi³

2022

Belitung Nurs J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Water birth has been considered an efficient non-pharmacological modality with numerous maternal and neonatal benefits as well as rare complications. Perception and knowledge about water birth can affect women’s decisions in the future. Few available studies addressed this area in Saudi Arabia. Thus, the current research fills this gap and contributes to further understanding this phenomenon. Objective: This study aimed to assess the perception and knowledge of Saudi women about water birth. Methods: A cross-sectional study was employed among 388 Saudi women conveniently enrolled for the study. An online questionnaire that included four sections: sociodemographic characteristics, obstetrical history, perception, and knowledge of water birth, was used for data collection. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations) and inferential statistics (Chi-Square, Fisher Exact, and t-tests) were used for data analysis. Results: The participants’ mean age was 34.91 ± 8.851, with 83.2% of them highly educated. The mean number of deliveries was 3.36 ± 2.167, with 60% having no history of abortion. Less than half of the participants (40.2%) preferred to have a water delivery. Of the total participants, 96.4% had a fair knowledge level, and 3.6% had a good knowledge of water delivery. A significant relationship was found between age, educational course, and the knowledge of the participants about water delivery (p <0.05). Conclusion: Most Saudi women had a fair knowledge of water birth; however, they wanted more information on it. It is recommended that midwives and nurses broaden their understanding of water birth and enhance its practice in order to educate and inspire women to make informed decisions about all available childbirth delivery methods, including water birth.

show abstract

Delivery in water, experiences in a population of Mexican women in Mexico City

Manuel¹,

Estuardo²,

Carlos³

et al. 2022

OGIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Labor is a physiological process during which the fetus, the membranes, the umbilical cord and the placenta are expelled from the uterus and water delivery has become popular, although its prevalence is unknown, it is supported by healthy women with full-term pregnancies, without complications; although there is insufficient evidence to support or discourage it. Objective: To identify obstetric and neonatal outcomes and complications in women who delivered in water and to compare them with traditional deliveries. Material and methods: It is a retrospective, observational and cross-sectional study, where 2486 women were included from a database of 4223 women assisted from 2004 to 2020 in private hospitals; Of the 2486 patients included, 1025 had a water delivery and 1461 had a conventional delivery, discarding 1737 women who underwent caesarean section from the study. The information obtained from the patients, their data obtained for this study were kept in the anonymity of the patients, where they were analyzed: non-parametric data reported in percentages using Chi square; Parametric, perinatal and neonatal data are reported as mean plus standard deviation (±SD) and analyzed using Student's T, using the SPSS version 25 statistical package. Results: A total of 2486 women were included in this study, the birth in 1025 was water delivery (24%) and 1461 was conventional delivery (35%), 1737 caesarean section (41%) were excluded from the study, no difference was observed maternal age; unlike weight, height, body mass index; they were higher in women with water birth compared to conventional. No difference was demonstrated between nulliparous (45.99%) and multiparous (53.86%) when comparing both birth in water and conventional; only increase in previous caesarean sections (9.36 vs 6.5%, p=0.008) and decrease in previous abortions (16.19 vs 20.94%, p=0.002) in water delivery with the conventional one; complications were not different: administration of oxytocin (3.2 vs 3.1) or postpartum hemorrhage (0.29 vs 0.13) in both deliveries; no differences in first degree perineal tears (21.4 vs 18.5%). Conclusion: Water birth reduces stress, pain sensation, second and third degree perineal lacerations and contributes to better newborn outcomes; the selection and inclusion of patients with low-risk pregnancies allows better perinatal results than conventional delivery; but, further studies are required to use it routinely.

show abstract

A Retrospective Study of Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes Following Conventional and Water Birth in Ecuador

Cited by 4 publications

References 28 publications

Untitled

Untitled

Perception and knowledge of Saudi women about water birth: A cross-sectional study

Delivery in water, experiences in a population of Mexican women in Mexico City

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About