The effect of perineal control with hands-on and hand-poised methods on perineal trauma and delivery outcome

Azam Foroughipour, Farah Firuzeh, Ataolah Ghahiri, Vajihe Norbakhsh, Tayebeh Heidari, Azam Foroughipour, Farah Firuzeh, Ataolah Ghahiri, Vajihe Norbakhsh, Tayebeh Heidari

Abstract

Background: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of the two methods of delivery, "hands-on" vs. "hands poised", on perineal trauma and delivery outcome in primiparous women referred to Shariati Hospital of Isfahan during 2007-2008.

Methods: In a clinical trial study, 100 low risk primiparous pregnant women were randomly assigned to two hands-on and hand-poised (hands-off) groups. In the hands-on group, this method was used to control fetal head in the second stage of labor. It means that the fingers of one hand supported fetal occiput and the other hand applied slight pressure on the head to control the delivery of the head during the crowning process. In the hands-poised group, midwife observed the parturient woman and do not touch perineum during the second labor stage while fetal head was delivering. Then, the two groups were compared in terms of perineal trauma, as well as neonatal and delivery outcome.

Results: Demographic characteristics of all studied women were similar in two groups. The rate of episiotomy was higher in hands-on group (84% vs. 40%, p = 0.001). The rate of postpartum hemorrhage (4(th) stage) was higher in hands-on group (12% vs. 4%, p = 0.04). The rate of mild and moderate postpartum pain in hands-on group was higher than hands-off group (70% vs. 58% and 29% vs. 10%, p < 0.001) but sever pain was not different in two groups.

Conclusions: It seems that hands-poised method is associated with less perineal trauma, particularly regarding the lower need for episiotomy and postpartum hemorrhage.

Keywords: Delivery Outcome; Hand-poised Method; Hands-on Method; Perineal Trauma.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interests Authors have no conflict of interests.

References

    1. Eason E, Labrecque M, Wells G, Feldman P. Preventing perineal trauma during childbirth: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95(3):464–71.
    1. Geranmayeh M, Rezaei Habibabadi Z, Fallahkish B, Farahani MA, Khakbazan Z, Mehran A. Reducing perineal trauma through perineal massage with vaseline in second stage of labor. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011
    1. Meidan E, Walfisch A, Raz I, Levy A, Hallak M. Perineal massage during pregnancy: a prospective controlled trial. Isr Med Assoc J. 2008;10(7):499–502.
    1. Downe S, Gerrett D, Renfrew MJ. A prospective randomised trial on the effect of position in the passive second stage of labour on birth outcome in nulliparous women using epidural analgesia. Midwifery. 2004;20(2):157–68.
    1. Jnsson ER, Elfaghi I, Rydhstrm H, Herbst A. Modified Ritgen's maneuver for anal sphincter injury at delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(2 Pt 1):212–7.
    1. Mayerhofer K, Bodner-Adler B, Bodner K, Rabl M, Kaider A, Wagenbichler P, et al. Traditional care of the perineum during birth.A prospective, randomized, multicenter study of 1,076 women. J Reprod Med. 2002;47(6):477–82.
    1. Trochez R, Waterfield M, Freeman RM. Hands on or hands off the perineum: a survey of care of the perineum in labour (HOOPS) Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2011
    1. Gogarten W. [Postpartum hemorrhage - an update] Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2011;46(7-8):508–14.
    1. Fernandez E, Krusz JC, Hall S. Parsimonious collection of pain descriptors: classification and calibration by pain patients. J Pain. 2011;12(4):444–50.
    1. de Souza Caroci da Costa A, Gonzalez Riesco ML. A comparison of “hands off” versus “hands on” techniques for decreasing perineal lacerations during birth. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2006;51(2):106–11.
    1. Albers LL, Sedler KD, Bedrick EJ, Teaf D, Peralta P. Midwifery care measures in the second stage of labor and reduction of genital tract trauma at birth: a randomized trial. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2005;50(5):365–72.
    1. Albers LL, Anderson D, Cragin L, Daniels SM, Hunter C, Sedler KD, et al. Factors related to perineal trauma in childbirth. J Nurse Midwifery. 1996;41(4):269–76.
    1. van Dillen J, Spaans M, van Keijsteren W, van Dillen M, Vredevoogd C, van Huizen M, et al. A prospective multicenter audit of labor-room episiotomy and anal sphincter injury assessment in the Netherlands. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;108(2):97–100.
    1. Mous M, Muller SA, de Leeuw JW. Long-term effects of anal sphincter rupture during vaginal delivery: faecal incontinence and sexual complaints. BJOG. 2008;115(2):234–8.
    1. Andrews V, Sultan AH, Thakar R, Jones PW. Risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury: a prospective study. Birth. 2006;33(2):117–22.
    1. Chang SR, Chen KH, Lin HH, Chao YM, Lai YH. Comparison of the effects of episiotomy and no episiotomy on pain, urinary incontinence, and sexual function 3 months postpartum: a prospective follow-up study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011;48(4):409–18.
    1. Hamilton EF, Smith S, Yang L, Warrick P, Ciampi A. Third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations: defining highrisk clinical clusters. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(4):309.
    1. Garcia J. Policy of “hands poised” care by attendant in normal birth is not recommended. BMJ. 1999;319(7205):322.
    1. Revicky V, Nirmal D, Mukhopadhyay S, Morris EP, Nieto JJ. Could a mediolateral episiotomy prevent obstetric anal sphincter injury? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;150(2):142–6.
    1. McCandlish R, Bowler U, van Asten H, Berridge G, Winter C, Sames L, et al. A randomised controlled trial of care of the perineum during second stage of normal labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105(12):1262–72.
    1. de Souza Caroci da Costa A, Gonzalez Riesco ML. A comparison of “hands off” versus “hands on” techniques for decreasing perineal lacerations during birth. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2006;51(2):106–11.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj