分娩时产妇推压技术会影响产科或新生儿结局吗?

C. Barasinski , D. Lemery , F. Vendittelli
{"title":"分娩时产妇推压技术会影响产科或新生儿结局吗?","authors":"C. Barasinski ,&nbsp;D. Lemery ,&nbsp;F. Vendittelli","doi":"10.1016/j.gyobfe.2016.07.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To assess, through a literature review, the maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with the type of pushing used during the second stage of labour.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched the Cochrane Library and the Medline database for randomised controlled trials from 1980 to 2015, using the following keywords: “delivery”, “birth”, “birthing”, “bearing down, coached, uncoached, pushing”, “second and stage and labour”, “randomised controlled trials” and “meta-analysis”.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seven randomised controlled trials were found. Interventions varied between the studies. In the intervention groups, open-glottis pushing was spontaneous or coached. The groups did not differ for perineal injuries, episiotomies or type of birth. Impact on pelvic floor structure varied between the studies. Only one study found a better 5-minute Apgar score and a better umbilical artery pH in the “open glottis” group.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The low methodological quality of the studies and the differences between the protocols do not justify a recommendation of a particular pushing technique. Further studies appear necessary to study outcomes with each of these techniques.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55077,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertilite","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2016.07.004","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do maternal pushing techniques during labour affect obstetric or neonatal outcomes?\",\"authors\":\"C. Barasinski ,&nbsp;D. Lemery ,&nbsp;F. Vendittelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.gyobfe.2016.07.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To assess, through a literature review, the maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with the type of pushing used during the second stage of labour.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched the Cochrane Library and the Medline database for randomised controlled trials from 1980 to 2015, using the following keywords: “delivery”, “birth”, “birthing”, “bearing down, coached, uncoached, pushing”, “second and stage and labour”, “randomised controlled trials” and “meta-analysis”.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seven randomised controlled trials were found. Interventions varied between the studies. In the intervention groups, open-glottis pushing was spontaneous or coached. The groups did not differ for perineal injuries, episiotomies or type of birth. Impact on pelvic floor structure varied between the studies. Only one study found a better 5-minute Apgar score and a better umbilical artery pH in the “open glottis” group.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The low methodological quality of the studies and the differences between the protocols do not justify a recommendation of a particular pushing technique. Further studies appear necessary to study outcomes with each of these techniques.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertilite\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2016.07.004\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertilite\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1297958916301801\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecologie Obstetrique & Fertilite","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1297958916301801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

目的:通过文献回顾,评估产妇和新生儿在产程第二阶段使用的推压类型相关的发病率。方法检索Cochrane图书馆和Medline数据库1980 - 2015年的随机对照试验,检索关键词:“分娩”、“分娩”、“分娩”、“压下、辅导、未辅导、推动”、“第二阶段和产程”、“随机对照试验”和“荟萃分析”。结果共纳入7项随机对照试验。不同研究的干预措施各不相同。在干预组中,开放声门推动是自发的或经过训练的。两组在会阴损伤、外阴切开术或出生类型上没有差异。对盆底结构的影响在不同的研究中有所不同。只有一项研究发现,“打开声门”组的5分钟阿普加评分更高,脐动脉pH值也更高。结论:这些研究的方法学质量较低,且方案之间存在差异,不能证明推荐一种特定的推入技术是合理的。似乎需要进一步的研究来研究每种技术的效果。
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
Do maternal pushing techniques during labour affect obstetric or neonatal outcomes?

Objectives

To assess, through a literature review, the maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with the type of pushing used during the second stage of labour.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Library and the Medline database for randomised controlled trials from 1980 to 2015, using the following keywords: “delivery”, “birth”, “birthing”, “bearing down, coached, uncoached, pushing”, “second and stage and labour”, “randomised controlled trials” and “meta-analysis”.

Results

Seven randomised controlled trials were found. Interventions varied between the studies. In the intervention groups, open-glottis pushing was spontaneous or coached. The groups did not differ for perineal injuries, episiotomies or type of birth. Impact on pelvic floor structure varied between the studies. Only one study found a better 5-minute Apgar score and a better umbilical artery pH in the “open glottis” group.

Conclusion

The low methodological quality of the studies and the differences between the protocols do not justify a recommendation of a particular pushing technique. Further studies appear necessary to study outcomes with each of these techniques.

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
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊最新文献
[Hysterosonography]. Editorial Board Cancer du sein et diabète de type 2 : des interactions complexes [Does the use of deodorant cause breast cancer? It remains to be proved]. Tumors in recent Prehistory. Contributions from Cova des Pas (Menorca Island).
×
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