Water birth and infection in babies

Rawal, Jeewan; Shah, Anuradha Kunal; Stirk, F; Mehtar, S

doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6953.511

Cited by 60 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to expectations and contrary to the small amount of literature that exists on the subject [29,30], infections of the neonate after waterbirths were not more frequent than in other birth methods. A strong dilution of the micro-organism is obtained by the large quantity of water contained in our tubs (560 liters) and by continual water renewal.…”

Section: Watercontrasting

confidence: 42%

Waterbirths: A Comparative Study

Geissbühler

Eberhard²

2000

Fetal Diagn Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Waterbirths were introduced in 1991 as part of a new birth concept which consisted of careful monitoring and birth management, restrictive use of invasive methods and free choice of different birth methods. Methods: After the introduction of this new birth concept a prospective observational study was initiated. All parturients of the region give birth in our clinic without preselection, ours being the only birth clinic of the region. 2% of the parturients will be referred to a larger birth clinic (university clinic) mainly because of preterm births before the end of the 33rd week of pregnancy. Every one of the 7,508 births between November 1991, and May 21, 1997, was analyzed. In this article the birth parameters of mother and child in the most often chosen spontaneous birth methods will be compared to assess the safety of alternative birth methods in general and of waterbirths in particular. 2,014 of these 5,953 spontaneous births were waterbirths, 1,108 were Maia-birthing stool births and 2,362 bedbirths (vacuum extractions not included). Results: The parity and age of the mother as well as the newborn’s birth weight are comparable in all 3 groups: waterbirth, Maia-birthing stool, and bedbirths. An episiotomy was performed in only 12.8% of the births in water, in 27.7% of the births on the Maia-birthing stool and in 35.4% of the bedbirths. These differences are statistically significant. In spite of the highest episiotomy rates, the bedbirths also show the highest 3rd- and 4th-degree laceration rates (4.1%), thus the difference between the rates for bedbirths and alternative births methods for severe lacerations is significant. The mothers’ blood loss is the lowest in waterbirths. Fewer painkillers are used in waterbirths and the experience of birth itself is more satisfying after a birth in water. The average arterial blood pH of the umbilical cord as well as the Apgar scoring at 5 and 10 min are significantly higher after waterbirths. Infections of the neonate do not occur more often after waterbirths. No case of water aspiration or any other perinatal complication of the mother or child which might be water-related was reported. Conclusion: Waterbirths and other alternative forms of birthing such as Maia-birthing stool do not demonstrate higher birth risks for the mother or the child than bedbirths if the same medical criteria are used in the monitoring as well as in the management of birth.

show abstract

Section: Watercontrasting

confidence: 42%

Waterbirths: A Comparative Study

Geissbühler

Eberhard²

2000

Fetal Diagn Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The advantages of immersion in water during labour and/or birth include reduced pain, increased functional diameter of the true pelvis, increased quality of contractions, increased release of endorphins, decreased need for opiates, increased movement for the mother as well as improved positioning in different stages of labour (6). There are also studies that have reported the disadvantages associated with water birth which include maternal and neonatal infections, as well as the possibility of respiratory problems for the newborn (7,8). Cluett and Burns in a review of 11 trials concluded that water immersion during the first stage of labour reduced the use of epidural/spinal analgesia, but there was limited data for other outcomes related to water use during the first and second stages of labour (9).…”

Section: Abstract öZetmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of immersion in water on labor, birth and newborn and comparison with epidural analgesia and conventional vaginal delivery

Mollamahmutoğlu¹,

Moraloğlu²,

Özyer³

et al. 2012

J Turkish German Gynecol Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To document the practice of labour in water, to assess the effects of water immersion during labor and/or birth (labour stages 1, 2 and 3) on maternal, fetal and neonatal wellbeing and to compare the outcomes and safety with conventional vaginal deliveries and deliveries with epidural analgesia. Material and Methods:Two-hundred and seven women electing for waterbirth (n=207) were compared with women having conventional vaginal deliveries (n=204) and vaginal deliveries with epidural analgesia (n=191). Demographic data, length of 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd stage of labor, induction and episiotomy requirements, perineal trauma, apgar scores, NICU requirements and VAS scores were noted. Results:The 1 st stage of labor was shorter in waterbirths compared with vaginal delivery with epidural analgesia but the 2 nd and 3 rd stage of labor were shortest in patients having waterbirth compared with conventional vaginal delivery and vaginal delivery with epidural analgesia. Patients having waterbirth had less requirement for induction and episiotomy but had more perineal laceration. All women having waterbirths had reduced analgesia requirements and had lower scores on VAS. There was no difference in terms of NICU admission between the groups. Apgar scores were comparable in both groups. There were no neonatal deaths or neonatal infections during the study. Conclusion:The study demonstrates the advantages of labor in water in terms of reduction in 2 nd and 3 rd stage of labor, reduction in pain and obstetric intervention such as induction or amniotomy. (J Turkish-German Gynecol Assoc 2012; 13: 45-9) Key words: Water birth, analgesia, neonatal outcome Received: 15 September, 2011 Accepted: 22 November, 2011 Amaç: Suda doğum pratiğinin dökümentasyonu ve doğum travayı ve/veya doğum eylemi (doğumun birinci, ikinci ve üçüncü evresi) sırasında maternal, fetal ve yenidoğan iyilik hali üzerine etkilerini değerlendirerek, sonuçları ve güvenirlilik açısından epidural analjezi ile vajinal doğum ve konvansiyonel vajinal doğum sonuçları ile kıyas-lanması. Gereç ve Yöntemler:Suda doğum yapan ikiyüzyedi (n=207) kadın, konvansiyonel vajinal doğum yapan (n=204) ve epidural analjezi ile vajinal doğum yapan (n=191) kadınlarla kıyaslandı. Hastaların demografik verileri, doğum eyleminin 1., 2. ve 3. evresinin uzunluğu, indüksiyon ve epizyotomi ihtiyacı, perine travması, yenidoğanın apgar skorlaması, yoğun bakım ihtiyacı ve VAS skorları değerlendirildi. Bulgular:Konvansiyonel vajinal doğum ve epidural analjezi ile vajinal doğum yapanlarla kıyaslandığında suda doğuranlarda, doğumun 1. evresi kısalmakla birlikte özellikle 2. ve 3. evrelerin çok kısalmış olduğu görüldü. Suda doğum yapan hastalarda oksitosin ihtiyacı belirgin olarak daha azdı, epizyotomi oranı da daha düşüktü fakat daha fazla perineal laserasyon saptandı. Suda doğum yapan kadınların hepsinde analjezi ihtiyacı azalmıştı ve VAS skorları düşüktü. Gruplar arasında yenidoğan yoğun bakım ihtiyacı açısından fark yoktu. Apgar skorları benzerdi. Çalışma dönemi boyunca hiç yenidoğ...

show abstract

“…Im mer wie der wird kri tisch auf eine er höh-te In fek ti ons ge fahr bei der Was ser ge burt v. a. für das Neu ge bo re ne hin ge wie sen [22,23]. Un strit tig und je dem Ge burts helfer aus ei ge ner An schau ung be kannt ist, dass vor al lem im Rah men der Press pe riode häu fig Stuhl von der Ent bin den den abge setzt wird, der in der Fol ge na tür lich das Was ser ver un rei nigt.…”

Section: In Fek Ti Ons Ge Fahrunclassified