Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour

Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury in a Norwegian Region: A case-control study.

“…With the goal of reducing cesarean births through active management of labour, amniotomy has been widely and readily accepted to avoid labour for more than 12 hours (36). However, reducing length of labour might not be a benefit for all women, and a Cochrane review from 2013 concluded that there is no evidence to support routine amniotomy to shorten spontaneous labour or to avoid prolonged labour (37). The mechanism behind the association between amniotomy and OASI is unclear, but we speculate that amniotomy may disrupt the normal physiologic process of gradual adaptation of the birth canal and thereby a higher risk of trauma.…”

Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury in a Norwegian Region: A case-control study.

“…With the goal of reducing cesarean births through active management of labour, amniotomy has been widely and readily accepted to avoid labour for more than 12 hours (36). However, reducing length of labour might not be a benefit for all women, and a Cochrane review from 2013 concluded that there is no evidence to support routine amniotomy to shorten spontaneous labour or to avoid prolonged labour (37). The mechanism behind the association between amniotomy and OASI is unclear, but we speculate that amniotomy may disrupt the normal physiologic process of gradual adaptation of the birth canal and thereby a higher risk of trauma.…”

Systematic Review: Review of Frequently Performed Interventions During Labor with Evidence-based Practices

“…In systematic reviews conducted to identify the effectiveness of amniotomy practice aimed at reduction of the duration of spontaneous labor, no significant difference was observed between the group that underwent amniotomy and the control group in terms of the length of the first stage of labor (mean difference (MD) -20.43 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) -95.93 to 55.06), C-section (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.63), satisfaction of the mother about the labor (MD -1.10, 95% CI -7.15 to 4.95), and an Apgar score below seven on minute five (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.00). Combination use of amniotomy and oxytocin was reported to shorten the duration of labor (average mean difference (MD) -1.28 hours; 95% CI -1.97 to -0.59; eight trials; 4816 women) (23,24) .…”

“…In the study performed by Smyth et al (2013), no significant difference was seen between the group that received amniotomy and the control group in terms of the length of the first stage of labor, and C-section (23) . In the study carried out by Wei et al (2013), combination use of amniotomy and oxytocin was evaluated, and reported to have decreased the risk of C-section (24) .…”

Oxytocin Administration in Low-Risk Women, a Retrospective Analysis of Birth and Neonatal Outcomes

“…The overall rate of ARM in our study was 55.9%, whereas ARM among women who received oxytocin was 1.4% higher. This may point to a routine overuse of an unnecessary intervention for low-risk women, which contravenes national and international recommendations [5,11,[36][37][38]. Furthermore, routine use of this intervention has proven to be ineffective in preventing labor dystocia [12].…”

Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury in a Norwegian Region: A case-control study.

“…With the goal of reducing cesarean births through active management of labour, amniotomy has been widely and readily accepted to avoid labour for more than 12 hours (36). However, reducing length of labour might not be a benefit for all women, and a Cochrane review from 2013 concluded that there is no evidence to support routine amniotomy to shorten spontaneous labour or to avoid prolonged labour (37). The mechanism behind the association between amniotomy and OASI is unclear, but we speculate that amniotomy may disrupt the normal physiologic process of gradual adaptation of the birth canal and thereby a higher risk of trauma.…”

Systematic Review: Review of Frequently Performed Interventions During Labor with Evidence-based Practices

“…In systematic reviews conducted to identify the effectiveness of amniotomy practice aimed at reduction of the duration of spontaneous labor, no significant difference was observed between the group that underwent amniotomy and the control group in terms of the length of the first stage of labor (mean difference (MD) -20.43 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) -95.93 to 55.06), C-section (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.63), satisfaction of the mother about the labor (MD -1.10, 95% CI -7.15 to 4.95), and an Apgar score below seven on minute five (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.00). Combination use of amniotomy and oxytocin was reported to shorten the duration of labor (average mean difference (MD) -1.28 hours; 95% CI -1.97 to -0.59; eight trials; 4816 women) (23,24) .…”

“…In the study performed by Smyth et al (2013), no significant difference was seen between the group that received amniotomy and the control group in terms of the length of the first stage of labor, and C-section (23) . In the study carried out by Wei et al (2013), combination use of amniotomy and oxytocin was evaluated, and reported to have decreased the risk of C-section (24) .…”

Oxytocin Administration in Low-Risk Women, a Retrospective Analysis of Birth and Neonatal Outcomes

“…The overall rate of ARM in our study was 55.9%, whereas ARM among women who received oxytocin was 1.4% higher. This may point to a routine overuse of an unnecessary intervention for low-risk women, which contravenes national and international recommendations [5,11,[36][37][38]. Furthermore, routine use of this intervention has proven to be ineffective in preventing labor dystocia [12].…”

Modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury in a Norwegian Region: A case-control study.

“…With the goal of reducing cesarean births through active management of labour, amniotomy has been widely and readily accepted to avoid labour for more than 12 hours (36). However, reducing length of labour might not be a benefit for all women, and a Cochrane review from 2013 concluded that there is no evidence to support routine amniotomy to shorten spontaneous labour or to avoid prolonged labour (37). The mechanism behind the association between amniotomy and OASI is unclear, but we speculate that amniotomy may disrupt the normal physiologic process of gradual adaptation of the birth canal and thereby a higher risk of trauma.…”

Systematic Review: Review of Frequently Performed Interventions During Labor with Evidence-based Practices

“…In systematic reviews conducted to identify the effectiveness of amniotomy practice aimed at reduction of the duration of spontaneous labor, no significant difference was observed between the group that underwent amniotomy and the control group in terms of the length of the first stage of labor (mean difference (MD) -20.43 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) -95.93 to 55.06), C-section (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.63), satisfaction of the mother about the labor (MD -1.10, 95% CI -7.15 to 4.95), and an Apgar score below seven on minute five (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.00). Combination use of amniotomy and oxytocin was reported to shorten the duration of labor (average mean difference (MD) -1.28 hours; 95% CI -1.97 to -0.59; eight trials; 4816 women) (23,24) .…”

“…In the study performed by Smyth et al (2013), no significant difference was seen between the group that received amniotomy and the control group in terms of the length of the first stage of labor, and C-section (23) . In the study carried out by Wei et al (2013), combination use of amniotomy and oxytocin was evaluated, and reported to have decreased the risk of C-section (24) .…”

Oxytocin Administration in Low-Risk Women, a Retrospective Analysis of Birth and Neonatal Outcomes

“…The overall rate of ARM in our study was 55.9%, whereas ARM among women who received oxytocin was 1.4% higher. This may point to a routine overuse of an unnecessary intervention for low-risk women, which contravenes national and international recommendations [5,11,[36][37][38]. Furthermore, routine use of this intervention has proven to be ineffective in preventing labor dystocia [12].…”