Upright Versus Recumbent Position in the Second Stage of Labor for Women With Epidural Analgesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Q3 Medicine Acta medica Iranica Pub Date : 2024-07-17 DOI:10.18502/acta.v61i11.16076
A. Shahriari, Masoomeh Nataj-Majd, Majid Akrami, M. Khooshideh, Mahsa Soleimani
{"title":"Upright Versus Recumbent Position in the Second Stage of Labor for Women With Epidural Analgesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial","authors":"A. Shahriari, Masoomeh Nataj-Majd, Majid Akrami, M. Khooshideh, Mahsa Soleimani","doi":"10.18502/acta.v61i11.16076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Epidural analgesia (EA) is an effective and common method of pain relief during labor. However, EA may also have some adverse effects like prolonged labor, increased risk of operative delivery, and some unwanted complications. It's unclear how maternal position affects the outcomes of natural birth with EA. This study aimed to compare mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal outcomes between recumbent and upright positions in nulliparous women with EA. This randomized clinical trial involved 540 women who received EA at cervical dilatation of 4 to 6 cm. During the second stage of labor, they were instructed to adopt upright or recumbent position. The main outcome was the mode of delivery. The secondary outcomes included duration of labor, pain intensity, the Apgar score, and other maternal and neonatal complications. Finally, 528 women were included in the final analysis. The upright group had a higher rate of cesarean section than the recumbent group. The duration of the labor stages did not differ between the groups. The pain intensity in the second stage was higher in the upright position. The Apgar score at 1 and 5 minutes was higher in the recumbent group. There was no difference in terms of other outcomes between the groups. Recumbent positions are beneficial in the case of rate of cesarean, mother’s pain, and Apgar score in women with EA. So, adopting a recumbent position during the second stage of labor may be preferable for women with EA.","PeriodicalId":6946,"journal":{"name":"Acta medica Iranica","volume":" 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta medica Iranica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/acta.v61i11.16076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Epidural analgesia (EA) is an effective and common method of pain relief during labor. However, EA may also have some adverse effects like prolonged labor, increased risk of operative delivery, and some unwanted complications. It's unclear how maternal position affects the outcomes of natural birth with EA. This study aimed to compare mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal outcomes between recumbent and upright positions in nulliparous women with EA. This randomized clinical trial involved 540 women who received EA at cervical dilatation of 4 to 6 cm. During the second stage of labor, they were instructed to adopt upright or recumbent position. The main outcome was the mode of delivery. The secondary outcomes included duration of labor, pain intensity, the Apgar score, and other maternal and neonatal complications. Finally, 528 women were included in the final analysis. The upright group had a higher rate of cesarean section than the recumbent group. The duration of the labor stages did not differ between the groups. The pain intensity in the second stage was higher in the upright position. The Apgar score at 1 and 5 minutes was higher in the recumbent group. There was no difference in terms of other outcomes between the groups. Recumbent positions are beneficial in the case of rate of cesarean, mother’s pain, and Apgar score in women with EA. So, adopting a recumbent position during the second stage of labor may be preferable for women with EA.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用硬膜外镇痛的产妇在第二产程中采取直立位还是仰卧位?随机临床试验
硬膜外镇痛(EA)是一种有效且常用的分娩镇痛方法。然而,硬膜外镇痛也可能带来一些不良影响,如产程延长、手术分娩风险增加以及一些不必要的并发症。目前还不清楚产妇体位如何影响使用 EA 自然分娩的结果。这项研究旨在比较 EA 非足月儿产妇的分娩方式、孕产妇和新生儿的预后。这项随机临床试验涉及 540 名产妇,她们在宫颈扩张 4 至 6 厘米时接受了 EA。在第二产程中,她们被指示采取直立或仰卧姿势。主要结果是分娩方式。次要结果包括产程、疼痛强度、Apgar 评分以及其他产妇和新生儿并发症。最后,528 名产妇被纳入最终分析。直立组的剖宫产率高于仰卧组。两组产妇的产程时间没有差异。直立姿势下第二产程的疼痛强度更高。仰卧组在 1 分钟和 5 分钟时的 Apgar 评分更高。两组在其他结果方面没有差异。就剖宫产率、母亲疼痛和阿普加评分而言,仰卧位对患有 EA 的产妇有益。因此,在第二产程中采用仰卧位可能更适合 EA 患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Acta medica Iranica
Acta medica Iranica Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: ACTA MEDICA IRANICA (p. ISSN 0044-6025; e. ISSN: 1735-9694) is the official journal of the Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences. The journal is the oldest scientific medical journal of the country, which has been published from 1960 onward in English language. Although it had been published quarterly in the past, the journal has been published bimonthly (6 issues per year) from the year 2004. Acta Medica Iranica it is an international journal with multidisciplinary scope which publishes original research papers, review articles, case reports, and letters to the editor from all over the world. The journal has a wide scope and allows scientists, clinicians, and academic members to publish their original works in this field.
期刊最新文献
Effect of Gestational Hypertension on Neonatal Hemoglobin Level A Review on Novel Methods of Pharmacology Teaching Concerning Iranian Academic Context Transcatheter Closure of a Huge Congenital Coronary-Cameral Fistula With Amplatzer Occluder Erythrocyte Antioxidants and Hexokinase Activity Alterations in CCl4-Induced Cirrhotic Rats Through Naltrexone Treatment Upright Versus Recumbent Position in the Second Stage of Labor for Women With Epidural Analgesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1