Does the type of pushing at delivery influence pelvic floor function at 2 months postpartum? A pragmatic randomized trial-The EOLE study

Chloé Barasinski, Anne Debost-Legrand, Denis Savary, Pamela Bouchet, Sandra Curinier, Françoise Vendittelli, Chloé Barasinski, Anne Debost-Legrand, Denis Savary, Pamela Bouchet, Sandra Curinier, Françoise Vendittelli

Abstract

Introduction: Maternal pushing techniques during the second stage of labor may affect women's pelvic floor function. Our main objective was to assess the impact of the type of pushing used at delivery on the mother's medium-term pelvic floor function.

Material and methods: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02474745) that took place in four French hospitals from 2015 through 2017 (n = 250). Women in labor with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation at term who had undergone standardized training in both of these types of pushing were randomized after cervical dilation ≥7 cm. The exclusion criteria were a previous cesarean, a cesarean delivery in this pregnancy or a fetal heart rate anomaly. In the intervention group, open-glottis (OG) pushing was defined as a prolonged exhalation contracting the abdominal muscles to help move the fetus down the birth canal. Closed-glottis (CG) pushing was defined as Valsalva pushing. The principal outcome was the stage of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) assessed by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification 2 months after delivery. A secondary outcome was incidence of urinary incontinence (UI). The results of our multivariable, modified intention-to-treat analysis are reported as crude relative risks (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals.

Results: Our analysis included 207 women. Mode of birth was similar in both groups. The two groups did not differ for stage II POP: 10 of 104 (9.4%) in the OG group compared with 7 of 98 (7.1%) in the CG group, for a RR 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-3.33, and an adjusted RR of 1.22, 95% CI 0.42-3.6. Similarly, the incidence of UI did not differ: 26.7% in the OG group and 28.6% in the CG group (aRR 0.81, 95% CI 0.42-1.53). Subgroup analysis suggests that for secundiparous and multiparous women, OG pushing could have a protective effect on the occurrence of UI (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13-0.80).

Conclusions: The type of directed pushing used at delivery did not impact the occurrence of pelvic organ prolapse 2 months after delivery. OG pushing may have a protective effect against UI among secundiparous and multiparous women.

Keywords: Valsalva pushing, closed glottis pushing; delivery; directed pushing; open glottis pushing; pelvic floor; pelvic organ prolapse; urinary incontinence.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.

© 2022 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
EOLE trial profile. Study flow chart. aTwo deliveries were supervised by midwives who were not study investigators and two failed to comply with inclusion criteria. bRefusal after randomization and before intervention (pushing). cFetal heart rate abnormalities were associated with posterior positions in two cases and in one case with a fetus suspected of macrosomia.

References

    1. Abrams P, Smith AP, Cotterill N. The impact of urinary incontinence on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) in a real‐world population of women aged 45–60 years: results from a survey in France, Germany, the UK and the USA. BJU Int. 2015;115:143‐152.
    1. Wood LN, Anger JT. Urinary incontinence in women. BMJ. 2014;349:g4531.
    1. Subak LL, Brown JS, Kraus SR, et al. The “costs” of urinary incontinence for women. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:908‐916.
    1. Vrijens D, Berghmans B, Nieman F, van Os J, van Koeveringe G, Leue C. Prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms and their association with pelvic floor dysfunctions—a cross sectional cohort study at a pelvic care Centre. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36:1816‐1823.
    1. Leng B, Zhou Y, Du S, et al. Association between delivery mode and pelvic organ prolapse: a meta‐analysis of observational studies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;235:19‐25.
    1. Hallock JL, Handa VL. The epidemiology of pelvic floor disorders and childbirth: an update. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2016;43:1‐13.
    1. Gartland D, MacArthur C, Woolhouse H, McDonald E, Brown SJ. Frequency, severity and risk factors for urinary and faecal incontinence at 4 years postpartum: a prospective cohort. BJOG. 2016;123:1203‐1211.
    1. Wesnes SL, Hannestad Y, Rortveit G. Delivery parameters, neonatal parameters and incidence of urinary incontinence six months postpartum: a cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96:1214‐1222.
    1. Schaffer JI, Bloom SL, Casey BM, McIntire DD, Nihira MA, Leveno KJ. A randomized trial of the effects of coached vs uncoached maternal pushing during the second stage of labor on postpartum pelvic floor structure and function. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1692‐1696.
    1. Low LK, Miller JM, Guo Y, Ashton‐Miller JA, DeLancey JOL, Sampselle CM. Spontaneous pushing to prevent postpartum urinary incontinence: a randomized, controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;24:453‐460.
    1. Koyucu RG, Demirci N. Effects of pushing techniques during the second stage of labor: a randomized controlled trial. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;56:606‐612.
    1. Shafik A, El‐Sibai O, Shafik AA, Ahmed I. Effect of straining on perineal muscles and their role in perineal support: identification of the straining‐perineal reflex. J Surg Res. 2003;112:162‐167.
    1. Barasinski C, Vendittelli F. Effect of the type of maternal pushing during the second stage of labour on obstetric and neonatal outcome: a multicentre randomised trial—the EOLE study protocol. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e012290.
    1. Barasinski C, Debost‐Legrand A, Vendittelli F. Is directed open‐glottis pushing more effective than directed closed‐glottis pushing during the second stage of labor? A pragmatic randomized trial – the EOLE study. Midwifery. 2020;91:102843.
    1. Martin A. Rythme cardiaque foetal pendant le travail: définitions et interprétation [fetal heart rate during labour: definitions and interpretation] in French. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2008;37(Suppl 1):S34‐S45.
    1. Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ, Shaw C, Gotoh M, Abrams P. ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2004;23:322‐330.
    1. Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, et al. An international Urogynecological association (IUGA)/international continence society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35:137‐168.
    1. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10‐17.
    1. Klovning A, Avery K, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S. Comparison of two questionnaires for assessing the severity of urinary incontinence: the ICIQ‐UI SF vs the incontinence severity index. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28:411‐415.
    1. Deruelle P, Servan‐Schreiber E, Riviere O, Garabedian C, Vendittelli F. Does a body mass index greater than 25 kg/m2 increase maternal and neonatal morbidity? A French historical cohort study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017;46:601‐608.
    1. Reimers C, Stær‐Jensen J, Siafarikas F, Saltyte‐Benth J, Bø K, Ellström EM. Change in pelvic organ support during pregnancy and the first year postpartum: a longitudinal study. BJOG. 2016;123:821‐829.
    1. Bø K, Hilde G, Stær‐Jensen J, Siafarikas F, Tennfjord MK, Engh ME. Postpartum pelvic floor muscle training and pelvic organ prolapse—a randomized trial of primiparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:38.e1‐38.e7.
    1. Moossdorff‐Steinhauser HFA, Berghmans BCM, Spaanderman MEA, Bols EMJ. Prevalence, incidence and bothersomeness of urinary incontinence between 6 weeks and 1 year post‐partum: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32:1675‐1693.
    1. Gonzalez DC, Khorsandi S, Mathew M, Enemchukwu E, Syan R. A systematic review of racial/ethnic disparities in female pelvic floor disorders. Urology. 2022;163:8‐15.
    1. Siahkal SF, Iravani M, Mohaghegh Z, Sharifipour F, Zahedian M. Maternal, obstetrical and neonatal risk factors' impact on female urinary incontinence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31:2205‐2224.
    1. Bick D, Briley A, Brocklehurst P, et al. A multicentre, randomised controlled trial of position during the late stages of labour in nulliparous women with an epidural: clinical effectiveness and an economic evaluation (BUMPES). Health Technol Assess. 2017;21:1‐176.
    1. Rasmussen OB, Yding A, Andersen CS, Boris J, Lauszus FF. Which elements were significant in reducing obstetric anal sphincter injury? A prospective follow‐up study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21:781.
    1. Aasheim V, Nilsen ABV, Reinar LM, Lukasse M. Perineal techniques during the second stage of labour for reducing perineal trauma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(6):CD006672.
    1. Wuytack F, Moran P, Daly D, Begley C. Is there an association between parity and urinary incontinence in women during pregnancy and the first year postpartum?: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Neurourol Urodyn. 2022;41:54‐90.
    1. Lemos A, Amorim MMR, Dornelas de Andrade A, de Souza AI, Cabral Filho JE, Correia JB. Pushing/bearing down methods for the second stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(3):CD009124.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi