Immersion in water in the first stage of labour

[miro_onreturn]

Sin acritud Par, sin acritud por favor, pero tienes que aprender a leer research. Si lees solamente la conclusion no te enteras de nada.

A tu pregunta de conoce alguien la estadística de cuantos partos en el agua se efectúan precisamente en ese medio?

The number of women actually using water during labour is not well reported. A survey between April 1994 and March 1996 identified 0.6% of births in England and Wales occurring in water,9% of which were home births. 140 There would appear to be a wide variation in the use of water during birth, with one birth centre reporting up to 80% of women using water during birth and up to 79% giving birth there.

¿Conoce alguien la estadística sobre la incidencia de episiotomías con este tipo de parto?
There was no evidence of differences on perineal trauma with immersion in water during labour: episiotomy (OR 0.89, [95% CI 0.68 to 1.15]), second degree tears (OR 0.90 [95% CI 0.66 to 1.23]) and third/fourth degree tears (OR 1.38 [95% CI 0.85 to 2.24]).

¿Que resultados se esperan en el trabajo de parto en el agua?

Women’s outcomes
Meta-analysis of findings from 4 trials showed that the use of water in the first stage of labour reduces the use of epidural/spinal analgesia/anaesthesia (OR 0.84 [95% CI 0.71 to 0.99]). One trial reported significantly reduced reported pain for those women who laboured in water compared with those not labouring in water (OR 0.23, [95% CI 0.08 to 0.63]).
Meta-analysis of 4 trials showed no evidence of differences on duration of the first and second stages of labour. Six trials reported on instrumental delivery rates. Overall there was no evidence of any difference; instrumental vaginal delivery rate (OR for use of water 0.83, [95% CI 0.66 to 1.05]) and caesarean section rate (OR for use of water 1.33, [95% CI 0.92 to 1.91]). 142 [EL 1+] National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health Page 263 of 675 Intrapartum care final draft for consultation
There was no evidence of differences on perineal trauma with immersion in water during labour: episiotomy (OR 0.89, [95% CI 0.68 to 1.15]), second degree tears (OR 0.90 [95% CI 0.66 to 1.23]) and third/fourth degree tears (OR 1.38 [95% CI 0.85 to 2.24]).
Newborn outcomes
5 trials reported on APGAR scores at 5 minutes and there was no difference in the number of infants with a score of less than 7 at 5 minutes (OR 1.59 [95% CI 0.63 to 4.01]). 2 trials reported admissions to the neonatal unit and found no evidence of difference (OR 1.05 [95% CI 0.68 to 1.61]). Infection rates were reported in 4 trials and were found to be very low (6/629 versus 3/633; OR 2.01 [95% CI 0.50 to 8.07]).

¿Existe en alguna parte información sobre fracaso en los resultados esperados de un parto en agua? Yo creo que esta pregunta depende de expectativas.

Augmentation vs. use of water
One trial compared augmentation versus immersion in water during the first stage of labour. 143 [EL 1-] It showed that use of water reduced rate of National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health Page 264 of 675 Intrapartum care final draft for consultation
augmentation (RR 0.74, p=0.001) and increased some aspects of satisfaction (freedom of movement MD 1.46, p=0.001; privacy MD 1.18, p=0.03, satisfaction with the care MD 1.07, p=0.49). There were more infants admitted to neonatal units with use of water (admission to neonatal unit 6/49(water), 0/50(air), p=0.01), but there is no evidence of a difference on cord arterial pH and infection rate (Cord arterial pH 7.26(water), 7.25(air), p=0.97; infection 8/49(water), 9/50(air), p=0.7