第二产程中自然推产与 Valsalva 推产对产妇和新生儿结局的影响:系统回顾和元分析

Jaruwan Kownaklai, Titaree Phanwichatkul, Atchara Chaichan, Amanda Lee
{"title":"第二产程中自然推产与 Valsalva 推产对产妇和新生儿结局的影响:系统回顾和元分析","authors":"Jaruwan Kownaklai, Titaree Phanwichatkul, Atchara Chaichan, Amanda Lee","doi":"10.60099/prijnr.2024.264145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Vaginal birth is a natural process, but maternal pushing is an essential factor in the mechanism and process of delivery. This systematic review examined the evidence comparing the effectiveness of two methods of pushing techniques (spontaneous push­ing versus Valsalva pushing) on maternal and neonatal outcomes in the second stage of labor. A literature search of Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ThaiJo for articles published between 2012 and 2023 revealed 12 studies with a focus on maternal pushing during the second stage, but four with neonatal outcomes (APGAR scores) and maternal outcomes (fatigue and duration of labor). Meta-analysis of the four studies did not support the benefit of spontaneous pushing in reducing the duration of labor but did support spontaneous pushing in lessening maternal fatigue two hours postpartum. Spontaneous pushing did not directly benefit the neonatal APGAR scores at 1 or 5 minutes postpartum. The result that spontaneous pushing did not shorten labor was unexpected; this is contrary to other studies that have reported a shorter labor duration. The small number of studies makes it difficult to conclude the effectiveness of either pushing technique. Further evidence is necessary to include possible confounding variables postpartum, including women’s choice, advanced assessments of neonatal outcomes, and maternal recovery beyond the immediate postpartum period.","PeriodicalId":44649,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of Spontaneous Pushing versus Valsalva Pushing in the Second Stage of Labor on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Jaruwan Kownaklai, Titaree Phanwichatkul, Atchara Chaichan, Amanda Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.60099/prijnr.2024.264145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Vaginal birth is a natural process, but maternal pushing is an essential factor in the mechanism and process of delivery. This systematic review examined the evidence comparing the effectiveness of two methods of pushing techniques (spontaneous push­ing versus Valsalva pushing) on maternal and neonatal outcomes in the second stage of labor. A literature search of Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ThaiJo for articles published between 2012 and 2023 revealed 12 studies with a focus on maternal pushing during the second stage, but four with neonatal outcomes (APGAR scores) and maternal outcomes (fatigue and duration of labor). Meta-analysis of the four studies did not support the benefit of spontaneous pushing in reducing the duration of labor but did support spontaneous pushing in lessening maternal fatigue two hours postpartum. Spontaneous pushing did not directly benefit the neonatal APGAR scores at 1 or 5 minutes postpartum. The result that spontaneous pushing did not shorten labor was unexpected; this is contrary to other studies that have reported a shorter labor duration. The small number of studies makes it difficult to conclude the effectiveness of either pushing technique. Further evidence is necessary to include possible confounding variables postpartum, including women’s choice, advanced assessments of neonatal outcomes, and maternal recovery beyond the immediate postpartum period.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.60099/prijnr.2024.264145\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.60099/prijnr.2024.264145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

阴道分娩是一个自然过程,但产妇用力是分娩机制和过程中的一个重要因素。本系统性综述研究了两种助产方法(自然助产与 Valsalva 助产)对第二产程产妇和新生儿结局的有效性比较证据。在Scopus、PubMed、ScienceDirect、CINAHL、PsycINFO和ThaiJo上检索了2012年至2023年间发表的文献,结果发现有12项研究侧重于第二产程中产妇用力的情况,但有4项研究涉及新生儿结局(APGAR评分)和产妇结局(疲劳和产程持续时间)。对这四项研究进行的 Meta 分析并不支持自然用力可缩短产程,但支持自然用力可减轻产妇产后两小时的疲劳。自然用力对产后 1 分钟或 5 分钟的新生儿 APGAR 评分没有直接益处。自发用力没有缩短产程的结果出乎意料;这与其他研究报告产程缩短的结果相反。由于研究数量较少,因此很难对两种助产技术的有效性做出结论。有必要提供更多证据,以纳入产后可能存在的混杂变量,包括产妇的选择、新生儿预后的高级评估以及产后即刻之后产妇的恢复情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Effectiveness of Spontaneous Pushing versus Valsalva Pushing in the Second Stage of Labor on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Vaginal birth is a natural process, but maternal pushing is an essential factor in the mechanism and process of delivery. This systematic review examined the evidence comparing the effectiveness of two methods of pushing techniques (spontaneous push­ing versus Valsalva pushing) on maternal and neonatal outcomes in the second stage of labor. A literature search of Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ThaiJo for articles published between 2012 and 2023 revealed 12 studies with a focus on maternal pushing during the second stage, but four with neonatal outcomes (APGAR scores) and maternal outcomes (fatigue and duration of labor). Meta-analysis of the four studies did not support the benefit of spontaneous pushing in reducing the duration of labor but did support spontaneous pushing in lessening maternal fatigue two hours postpartum. Spontaneous pushing did not directly benefit the neonatal APGAR scores at 1 or 5 minutes postpartum. The result that spontaneous pushing did not shorten labor was unexpected; this is contrary to other studies that have reported a shorter labor duration. The small number of studies makes it difficult to conclude the effectiveness of either pushing technique. Further evidence is necessary to include possible confounding variables postpartum, including women’s choice, advanced assessments of neonatal outcomes, and maternal recovery beyond the immediate postpartum period.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
3
期刊最新文献
Challenges of Family-Centered Care in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit during the Visitation Restrictions After COVID-19 Pandemic Peak: A Qualitative Study of Parents’ and Nurses’ Perspectives Feasibility Study the Effectiveness of Self-care Promoting Program on Self-care Behavioral and Clinical Outcomes in People with Corneal Transplantation: A Quasi-experiment Study The Efficacy of Chemo-Cooling Gloves in Preventing Nail Toxicity among Thai Women Undergoing Chemotherapy: A Quasi-experimental Study Effects of an Early Breastfeeding Education and Proactive Telephone Support Program for Mothers of Preterm Infants: A Quasi-experimental Study Promoting Positive Thinking and Reducing Perceived Stress Using the Be Aware of Stress Smartphone Application among At-risk Adolescents: A Quasi-experimental Study.
×
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