Impact of waterbirth on post-partum hemorrhage, genital trauma, retained placenta and shoulder dystocia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Taliento, Cristina; Tormen, Mara; Arianna, Sabattini; Scutiero, Gennaro; Cappadona, Rosaria; Greco, Pantaleo

doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.06.016

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are similar to the results of the studies by Gautham and Devi (2020) and Zhang and Yang (2022). Contrary to our study, two studies found that water immersion was effective in reducing postpartum haemorrhage (Burns et al, 2022; Cristina et al, 2022). That these results did not indicate that hydrotherapy had a negative effect on postpartum haemorrhage, considered a major cause of maternal death, implies that the practice can be used as a safe option in intrapartum care.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: The Effect Of Hydrotherapy On Maternal Health Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Unlike these findings, previous systematic reviews reported that the rate of episiomy was lower in the hydrotherapy group (Burns et al, 2022; Zhang & Yang, 2022). Cristina et al (2022) reported that there was no significant difference in the rate of third‐ and fourth‐degree lacerations between water and land birth groups while increasing the rate of first‐ and second‐degree tears. There are however various other studies with contrary reports (Dahlen et al, 2013; Gautham & Devi, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One recent systematic review and meta‐analysis focused only on neonatal outcomes of hydrotherapy (Vanderlaan et al, 2018), and another included very few studies on hydrotherapy (Domínguez‐Solís et al, 2021). Three other reviews focused on specific outcomes related to maternal and infant health (Burns et al, 2022; Cristina et al, 2022; Zhang & Yang, 2022). Unlike these systematic reviews, this study reports more comprehensive results specifically on the effects of hydrotherapy use in the first stage of labour on maternal and infant health.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The use of hydrotherapy in the first stage of labour: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Ergin,

Aşci,

Bal

et al. 2023

Int J of Nursing Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimTo explore the effect of hydrotherapy applied in the first stage of labour on the health of mother and newborn.MethodsThis systematic review and meta‐analysis was carried out by following PRISMA. The studies were obtained by scanning EBSCO, PubMed, Science Direct, Ovid, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases. Twenty studies published between 2013 and 2023 were included.ResultsThe total sample size of the studies was 8254 (hydrotherapy: 2953, control: 5301). Meta‐analyses showed that the perception of pain decreased, comfort level and vaginal birth rate were higher and assisted vaginal birth rate and APGAR scores in the first minute were lower in women who underwent hydrotherapy. There was no difference between groups in terms of the duration of the first and second stage of labour, episiotomy, perineal trauma, intrapartum and postpartum bleeding amounts, use of pain medication and labour augmentations, APGAR scores in the fifth minute, positive neonatal bacterial culture and neonatal intensive care unit need.ConclusionThis study revealed that the results that hydrotherapy decreased the perception of pain and assisted birth, increased the rate of vaginal birth and comfort level and did not adversely affect the health of the mother and baby during the birth process.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: The Effect Of Hydrotherapy On Maternal Health Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The use of hydrotherapy in the first stage of labour: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Ergin,

Aşci,

Bal

et al. 2023

Int J of Nursing Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First described in 1805, 1 the use of water during labor gathered momentum in the 1990s 2,3 and remains popular even today. 4 Water immersion during the first stage of labor has been extensively associated with benefits in terms of pain control and length of labor, [5][6][7][8][9][10] and societies generally accept it as safe for neonates and beneficial to mothers. 11,12 The same conclusions cannot be driven for water immersion during the second stage and delivery.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neonatal Outcomes of Water Delivery versus Land Delivery: A Retrospective Propensity Score Weighted Study

Uccella,

Manzoni,

Militello

et al. 2023

Am J Perinatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Recent evidence has shown that water delivery is safe for the mother, but high-quality evidence is not available for the newborn. Therefore, obstetric guidelines do not support it. This retrospective study aimed to contribute to the available evidence on maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with water delivery. Study Design Retrospective cohort study from prospectively collected birth registry data from 2015 to 2019. A total of 144 consecutive water deliveries and 265 land deliveries eligible for waterbirth were identified. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to address for confounders. Results We identified 144 women who delivered in water (water group) and 265 women who delivered on land (land group). One (0.7%) neonatal death was observed in the water delivery group. After IPTW adjustment, water delivery was significantly associated with a higher risk of maternal fever in puerperium (odds ratio [OR]: 4.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.86–17.02; p = 0.004), of neonatal cord avulsion (OR: 20.73; 95% CI: 2.63–2,674; p = 0.001), and of positive neonatal C-reactive protein (CRP > 5 mg/L; OR: 2.59; 95% CI: 1.05–7.24; p = 0.039); delivering in water was associated with lower maternal blood loss (mean difference: 110.40 mL; 95% CI: 191.01–29.78; p = 0.007), a lower risk of major (≥1,000 mL) postpartum hemorrhage (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.92–0.99; p = 0.016), lower risk of manual placenta delivery (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.03–0.67; p = 0.008) and curettage (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08–0.60; p = 0.002), lower use of episiotomy (OR: 0.02; 95% CI: 0–0.12; p < 0.001), and lower risk of neonatal ward admission (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.25–0.48; p < 0.001). Conclusion The present study showed that differences are present between water and land delivery, and among them is the risk of cord avulsion, a severe and potentially fatal event. In women choosing to deliver in water, a trained staffmust be present and immediate recognition of cord avulsion is key for a prompt management to avoid possible serious complications. Key Points

show abstract

Water birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal and neonatal outcomes

McKinney,

Vilchez,

Jowers

et al. 2024

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impact of waterbirth on post-partum hemorrhage, genital trauma, retained placenta and shoulder dystocia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 7 publications

References 42 publications

The use of hydrotherapy in the first stage of labour: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The use of hydrotherapy in the first stage of labour: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Neonatal Outcomes of Water Delivery versus Land Delivery: A Retrospective Propensity Score Weighted Study

Water birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal and neonatal outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About