Hands-on versus hands-off techniques for the prevention of perineal trauma during vaginal delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Author(s):  
Rebecca A. M. Pierce-Williams ◽  
Gabriele Saccone ◽  
Vincenzo Berghella
Author(s):  
Qiuyu Yang ◽  
Xiao Cao ◽  
Shasha Hu ◽  
Mingyao Sun ◽  
Honghao Lai ◽  
...  

Background Different techniques have been reported to prevent perineal lacerations, but the effects of the use of lubricant have been unclear and is still subject of debate. Objective To assess the effect of lubricants on reducing perineal trauma during vaginal delivery. Search strategy PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), WanFang databases, ClinicalTrials.gov in 25 June 2021. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials published in English or Chinese that compared the vaginal application of lubricant with standard care in women with cephalic presentation at vaginal delivery were included . Data collection and analysis Two independent reviewers selected eligible trials and extracted data on perineal trauma, duration of the second-stage labor, postpartum hemorrhage and Apgar score for meta-analysis. Main results Nineteen trials enrolling 5445 pregnant women were included. Compared with standard care, women using lubricants had a lower incidence of perineal trauma (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.76 to 0.93), second-degree perineal laceration (RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.64 to 0.82) and episiotomy (RR 0.77, 95%CI 0.62 to 0.96), had a shorter duration of the second-stage labor (MD -13.72 minutes, 95%CI -22.68 to -4.77). Subgroup analysis indicated that women with obstetric gel had a shorter duration of the second-stage (MD -16.9 minutes, 95%CI -27.03 to -6.78 vs MD -8.38 minutes, 95%CI -11.11 to -5.65; P interaction=0.02) when compared with liquid wax. Conclusions Compared with standard care, lubricants could reduce the incidence of perineal trauma, especially second-degree perineal laceration, and shorten the duration of the second-stage labor.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (9) ◽  
pp. 1735-1745
Author(s):  
Ahmed Mohamed Abdelhakim ◽  
Elsayed Eldesouky ◽  
Ibrahim Abo Elmagd ◽  
Attia Mohammed ◽  
Elsayed Aly Farag ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joao Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci

BackgroundHarmful alcohol use leads to a large burden of disease and disability which disportionately impacts LMICs. The World Health Organization and the Lancet have issued calls for this burden to be addressed, but issues remain, primarily due to gaps in information. While a variety of interventions have been shown to be effective at reducing alcohol use in HICs, their efficacy in LMICs have yet to be assessed. This systematic review describes the current published literature on alcohol interventions in LMICs and conducts a meta analysis of clinical trials evaluating interventions to reduce alcohol use and harms in LMICs.MethodsIn accordance with PRISMA guidelines we searched the electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus,Web of Science, Cochrane, and Psych Info. Articles were eligible if they evaluated an intervention targeting alcohol-related harm in LMICs. After a reference and citation analysis, we conducted a quality assessment per PRISMA protocol. A meta-analysis was performed on the 39 randomized controlled trials that evaluated an alcohol-related outcome.ResultsOf the 3,801 articles from the literature search, 87 articles from 25 LMICs fit the eligibility and inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 39 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Nine of these studies focused specifically on medication, while the others focused on brief motivational intervention, brain stimulation, AUDIT-based brief interventions, WHO ASSIST-based interventions, group based education, basic screening and interventions, brief psychological or counseling, dyadic relapse prevention, group counseling, CBT, motivational + PTSD based interview, and health promotion/awareness. Conclusion Issues in determining feasible options specific to LMICs arise from unstandardized interventions, unequal geographic distribution of intervention implementation, and uncertain effectiveness over time. Current research shows that brain stimulation, psychotherapy, and brief motivational interviews have the potential to be effective in LMIC settings, but further feasibility testing and efforts to standardize results are necessary to accurately assess their effectiveness.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document