Delivery in water, experiences in a population of Mexican women in Mexico City

Background: Labor is a physiological process during which the fetus, the membranes, the umbilical cord and the placenta are expelled from the uterus and water delivery has become popular, although its prevalence is unknown, it is supported by healthy women with full-term pregnancies, without complications; although there is insufficient evidence to support or discourage it. Objective: To identify obstetric and neonatal outcomes and complications in women who delivered in water and to compare them with traditional deliveries. Material and methods: It is a retrospective, observational and cross-sectional study, where 2486 women were included from a database of 4223 women assisted from 2004 to 2020 in private hospitals; Of the 2486 patients included, 1025 had a water delivery and 1461 had a conventional delivery, discarding 1737 women who underwent caesarean section from the study. The information obtained from the patients, their data obtained for this study were kept in the anonymity of the patients, where they were analyzed: non-parametric data reported in percentages using Chi square; Parametric, perinatal and neonatal data are reported as mean plus standard deviation (±SD) and analyzed using Student's T, using the SPSS version 25 statistical package. Results: A total of 2486 women were included in this study, the birth in 1025 was water delivery (24%) and 1461 was conventional delivery (35%), 1737 caesarean section (41%) were excluded from the study, no difference was observed maternal age; unlike weight, height, body mass index; they were higher in women with water birth compared to conventional. No difference was demonstrated between nulliparous (45.99%) and multiparous (53.86%) when comparing both birth in water and conventional; only increase in previous caesarean sections (9.36 vs 6.5%, p=0.008) and decrease in previous abortions (16.19 vs 20.94%, p=0.002) in water delivery with the conventional one; complications were not different: administration of oxytocin (3.2 vs 3.1) or postpartum hemorrhage (0.29 vs 0.13) in both deliveries; no differences in first degree perineal tears (21.4 vs 18.5%). Conclusion: Water birth reduces stress, pain sensation, second and third degree perineal lacerations and contributes to better newborn outcomes; the selection and inclusion of patients with low-risk pregnancies allows better perinatal results than conventional delivery; but, further studies are required to use it routinely.

In water or on land? Evaluation of perinatal and neonatal outcomes of water births in low-risk women

Objective: Evaluate perinatal and neonatal outcomes comparing a water birth to regular childbirth in low-risk women. File and methods: Retrospective analysis of a set of childbirths that took place over a given period of time in the hospital and health center of Havířov. We compared a set of low-risk women that had given a water birth to a selected control group of low-risk women that had given regular childbirth. We evaluated statistical comparability, as well as perinatal and neonatal outcomes in both sets. Results: From 1. 1. 2020 to 28. 2. 2021, 1,083 women gave birth in the delivery department of Havířov hospital; from this set 122 were water births (11.3%). In our study, we only included 101 water deliveries (we designed our study to monitor low-risk births in order to be able to statistically correlate our fi ndings; 21 water deliveries were excluded from our study due to perinatal risk factors – gestational diabetes and induced deliveries). We selected 60 low-risk women for our control group. Both sets of women were compared and we ruled out any statistically signifi cant diff erences in age, education, body mass index, number of births given, gestation week at time of labor, number of smokers, premature rupture of membranes, women with previous history of one cesarean section, becoming pregnant by in vitro fertilization, presence of streptokoka skupiny B, and fetal weight. Water birth does not aff ect the Apgar score, neonatal adaptation to extra-uterine life, umbilical blood pH decrease, complications of infection, need of intensive care, and neonatal mortality. In the water birth set, we found increased occurrence of non-infectious conjunctivitis, treatable by regular eye drops without antibio tics. We have not observed the eff ect of water birth on duration of the fi rst and second stage of labor, total amount of uterotonics used, blood loss determined by the obstetrician, and uterine hypotonia. In the water birth group, we observed a prolonged third stage of delivery, lesser need for pharmacological stimulation (augmentation) of labor, notably lower use of analgesics, lower occurrence of birth injuries, shorter in-patient time, and more frequent bonding. Conclusions: We discovered that water birth does not increase the risk for mother and neonate in low-risk women. Despite initial concerns, our outcomes and mother satisfaction have clearly shown that water births are not only a temporary whim, but probably a new integral part of our obstetric care. Key words: water birth – analgesia with water – childbirth – perinatal and neonatal outcomes

Feature Article—Continuing Education Module—International Water-Birth Practices With Recommendations During a Global Pandemic

The number of hospitals globally that offer water birth has increased exponentially during the past 10 years. This article examines some of the reasons for this increase as well as the objections to water birth by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, raised in their 2014 and 2016 opinion statements. The amount of research has also increased as more hospitals are keeping track of their data and publishing both prospective studies and retrospective analyses. The effects of water birth on the neonate are discussed through three meta-analyses from 2015, 2016, and 2018. The challenges and recommendations on continuing the use of water during labor and birth as a nonpharmacologic comfort measure even during a global pandemic are highlighted and supported by the best available evidence.