OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate regular (4-hourly prior to each oral misoprostol dose with amniotomy when feasible) compared with restricted (only if indicated) vaginal assessments during labor induction with oral misoprostol in term nulliparous women MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized trial between November 2016 and September 2017 in a university hospital in Malaysia. Our oral misoprostol labor induction regimen comprised 50 μg of misoprostol administered 4 hourly for up to 3 doses in the first 24 hours. Participants assigned to regular assessment had vaginal examinations before each 4-hourly misoprostol dose with a view to amniotomy as soon as it was feasible. Participants in the restricted arm had vaginal examinations only if indicated. Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with the birth process (using an 11-point visual numerical rating scale), induction to vaginal delivery interval, and vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours.
RESULTS: Data from 204 participants (101 regular, 103 restricted) were analyzed. The patient satisfaction score with the birth process was as follows (median [interquartile range]): 7 [6-9] vs 8 [6-10], P = .15. The interval of induction to vaginal delivery (mean ± standard deviation) was 24.3 ± 12.8 vs 31.1 ± 15.0 hours (P = .013). The vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours was 27.7% vs 20.4%; (relative risk [RR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-2.3; P = .14) for the regular vs restricted arms, respectively. The cesarean delivery rate was 50% vs 43% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.5; P = .36). When assessed after delivery, participants' fidelity to their assigned vaginal examination schedule in a future labor induction was 45% vs 88% (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < .001), and they would recommend their assigned schedule to a friend (47% vs 87%; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.7; P < .001) in the regular compared with the restricted arms, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Despite a shorter induction to vaginal delivery interval with regular vaginal examination and a similar vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours and birth process satisfaction score, women expressed a higher preference for the restricted examination schedule and were more likely to recommend such a schedule to a friend.
STUDY DESIGN: A survey was conducted by electronic questionnaire to obstetricians across Wales and midwives across North Wales. The questionnaire was distributed to obstetricians using the Wales Information System. Midwives were surveyed using a health board wide distribution list. This was followed by a literature review using dictionaries, standard texts, professional bodies and websites. References were obtained for the UK, USA, India, Malaysia and West Indies.
RESULTS: There were 143 responses from 63 doctors and 80 midwives. 5% of doctors and 49 % of midwives did not include stillbirths after 24 completed weeks in their definition of parity. 84 % of all surveyed described having a previous twin delivery as Para 2. 23 references were obtained for a definition of parity. Parity was variability defined as the number of conceptions, pregnancies, births and babies. Only 12 sources offered a definition in reference to multiple pregnancy. Of these, 8 sources defined multiple births as a single parous event.
CONCLUSIONS: There are variations in definitions for the term parity from referenced sources and variation in understanding amongst staff surveyed. We recommend UK professional bodies take into consideration the findings of this study and provide a standard consensus definition of parity.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate if visual feedback focusing on the perineum reduced the length of the active second stage of labor in comparison with the control.
STUDY DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in the University Malaya Medical Centre from December 2021 to August 2022. Nulliparous women about to commence the active second stage, at term, with singleton gestation, reassuring fetal status, and no contraindication for vaginal delivery were randomized to live viewing of the maternal introitus (intervention) or maternal face (sham/placebo control) as visual biofeedback during their pushing. A video camera Bluetooth-linked to a tablet computer display screen was used; in the intervention arm, the camera was focused on the introitus, and in the control arm, on the maternal face. Participants were instructed to watch the display screen during their pushing. The primary outcomes were the intervention-to-delivery interval and maternal satisfaction with the pushing experience assessed using a 0-to-10 visual numerical rating scale. Secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, perineal injury, delivery blood loss, birthweight, umbilical cord arterial blood pH and base excess at birth, Apgar score at 1 and 5 minutes, and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Data were analyzed with the t test, Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square test, and Fisher exact test, as appropriate.
RESULTS: A total of 230 women were randomized (115 to intervention and 115 to control arm). The active second stage duration (intervention-to-delivery interval) was a median (interquartile range) of 16 (11-23) and 17 (12-31) minutes (P=.289), and maternal satisfaction with the pushing experience was 9 (8-10) and 7 (6-7) (P