روش های ارزیابی پیشرفت زایمان: یک مطالعه مروری

نوع مقاله: مروری

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری بهداشت باروی، کمیته تحقیقات دانشجویی، دانشکده پرستاری و مامایی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.

2 استادیار گروه مامایی، مرکز تحقیقات مراقبت‌های پرستاری و مامایی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.

3 دانشیار گروه زنان و مامایی، مرکز تحقیقات سلامت زنان، دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مشهد، مشهد، ایران.

چکیده

مقدمه: ارزیابی پیشرفت زایمان، یکی از مراقبت‌های اولیه و کلیدی حین زایمان است. روشی که برای ارزیابی پیشرفت زایمان مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرد، باید دارای کمترین آسیب وارده به مادر و جنین باشد. مطالعه مروری حاضر با هدف بررسی روش‌های ارزیابی پیشرفت زایمان انجام شد.
روش‌کار: در این مطالعه مروری، مقالات فارسی و انگلیسی نمایه شده در پایگاه‌های اطلاعاتی معتبر شامل: SID، Iranmedx، Irandoc، PubMed، Magiran و Google scholar با استفاده از کلید واژه‌های فارسی: پیشرفت زایمان، اتساع دهانه رحم، معاینه مهبلی، خط بنفش و کلید واژه‌های انگلیسی progress of labour، purple line، Cervical Dilatation و vaginal examinations در طی سال‌های 97-1378 مورد بررسی قرار گرفتند و مقالات دارای معیار ورود، وارد مطالعه شده و مورد آنالیز کیفی قرار گرفتند.
یافته‌ها: در مطالعه حاضر، 43 مقاله استخراج شده از 385 مطالعه در ارتباط با روش‌های ارزیابی پیشرفت زایمان مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. نتایج حاصل از مطالعات انجام شده در ارتباط با روش‌های ارزیابی پیشرفت زایمان در سه دسته کلی: تعیین اتساع دهانه رحم به‌وسیله معاینه مهبلی، روش‌های متشکل از چند شاخص شامل تغییرات فیزیولوژیکی و رفتاری مادر، و تغییر رنگ پوست ناحیه بین باسن‌ها (خط بنفش) تقسیم شده بود.
نتیجه‌گیری: معاینه مهبلی، تنها روش برای ارزیابی پیشرفت زایمان نیست. عاملین زایمان می‌توانند از مجموعه‌ای از علائم و نشانه‌ها شامل مشاهده خط بنفش و اندازه‌گیری آن، بررسی تغییرات تعداد تنفس، رفتارها، صداها، حرکات و وضعیت مادر در حین انقباضات به‌منظور کاهش تعداد معاینات مهبلی و در نتیجه بهبود وضعیت سلامت مادر و جنین در بالین بهره‌مند شوند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Methods of Assessing the Labor Progress: A Review Study

نویسندگان [English]

  • Morvarid Irani 1
  • Masoumeh Kordi 2
  • Marzieh Lotfalizadeh 3
1 PhD student in Reproductive Health, Student Research Committee, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Midwifery, Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
3 Associate professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women's Health Research Center, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Assessing the labor progress is one of the primary and important cares during childbirth. The methods used to evaluate the progress of labor should have the least damage to the mother and the fetus. This review study was performed with aim to assess the methods of labor progress.
Methods: In this review study, the Persian and English articles which were published during 1997 to 2018 and were indexed in databases of PubMed, Magiran, Google Scholar, Iranmedex, Irandoc and SID with keywords of progress of labour, vaginal examinations, cervical dilatation, and purple line were searched. The articles which had inclusion criteria entered to the study and were qualitatively analyzed. 
Results: A total of 43 studies which were extracted from 385 articles related to the assessing the progresses of labor were studied. The results of articles performed in this field were divided in three general categories including: determination of cervical dilation by vaginal examination, methods which consisted of several indicators such as maternal behavioral and physiologic changes, and discoloration of the skin between the buttocks (purple line).
Conclusion: Vaginal examination is not the only method to evaluate the progress of labor and midwifes can use a set of signs and symptoms including observation of the purple line and measuring it, assessing the changes in the number of respiration, behaviors, voices, movements and positions of the mother during labor in order to reduce the number of vaginal examinations and therefore improve the mother and fetus healthy in clinical practice.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • behavioral changes
  • Cervical Dilatation
  • Progress of labor
  • purple line
  • vaginal examinations
  1. Dixon L, Foureur M. The vaginal examination during labour: is it of benefit or harm? N Zeal Coll Midwives 2010; 42:21-6.
  2. Simkin P, Ancheta R. The labor progress handbook: early interventions to prevent and treat dystocia. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
  3. Myles TD, Santolaya J. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients with a prolonged second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102(1):52-8.
  4. Tuffnell DJ, Bryce F, Johnson N, Lilford RJ. Simulation of cervical changes in labour: reproducibility of expert assessment. Lancet 1989; 334(8671):1089-90.
  5. Enkin M, Keirse MJ, Chalmers I, Enkin E. A guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford Medical; 2000.
  6. Ghalustians F. Practice development in action: making a difference. Proceeding of the Nursing and Midwifery Graduates First Annual Research Conference, London; 2005.
  7. Lavender T, Tsekiri E, Baker L. Recording labour: a national survey of partogram use. Br J Midwifery 2008; 16(6):359-62.
  8. Downe S, Gyte GM, Dahlen HG, Singata M. Routine vaginal examinations for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term (Protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 9:1-17.
  9. Alijahan R, Kordi M, Pourjavad M, Ebrahimzadeh S. The diagnostic accuracy of clinical pelvimetry in identifying small pelvis in nulliparous women. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2011; 14(6):29-36. (Persian).
  10. Lavender T, Hart A. Effect of partogram use on outcomes for women in spontaneous labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; 7:CD005461.
  11. Duff M. A study of labour. [PhD Thesis]. Sydney: University of Technology; 2005.
  12. Rosser J. World Health Organisation Partograph in management of labour. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest 1994; 4(4):436-7.
  13. Robertson A. Teaching active birth. Sydney: ACE Graphics; 1988.
  14. Varney H, Burst HV, Kriebs JM, Gegor CL. Varney's midwifery. 4th ed. Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2004.
  15. Pugh LC, Milligan RA, Gray S, Strickland OL. First stage labor management: an examination of patterned breathing and fatigue. Birth 1998; 25(4):241-5.
  16. Burvill S. Midwifery diagnosis of labour onset. Br J Midwifery 2002; 10(10):600-5.
  17. Davis E. Heart and hands. 2nd ed. Berkeley: Celestial Arts; 1992.
  18. Walmsley K. Caring for women progress in labour. Br J Midwifery 2003; 8(7):449-57.
  19. Olds SB, London ML, Ladewig PA, Davidson MR. Maternal newborn nursing and women’s health care. 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2004.
  20. Leap N, Anderson T. The role of pain in normal birth and the empowerment. Normal childbirth e-book: evidence and debate. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2004. P. 25-39.
  21. Hobbs L. Assessing cervical dilatation without VEs. Pract Midwife 1998; 1(11):34-5.
  22. Wickham S. Midwifery: best practice. New York: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2008.
  23. Glick E, Trussell RR. The curve of labour used as a teaching device in Uganda. BJOG 1970; 77(11):1003-6.
  24. Studd J. Partograms and nomograms of cervical dilatation in management of primigravid labour. Br Med J 1973; 4(5890):451-5.
  25. Philpott RH, Castle WM. Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae: I. The alert line for detecting abnormal labour. BJOG 1972; 79(7):592-8.
  26. Philpott RH. Graphic records in labour. Br Med J 1972; 4(5833):163.
  27. Friedman EA. An objective approach to the diagnosis and management of abnormal labor. Bull N Y Acad Med 1972; 48(6):842-58.
  28. Friedman EA. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1954; 68(6):1568-75.
  29. Friedman E. Primigravid labor: a graphicostatistical analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1955; 6(6):567-89.
  30. Impey L, Hobson J, O'Herlihy C. Graphic analysis of actively managed labor: prospective computation of labor progress in 500 consecutive nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183(2):438-43.
  31. Buchmann EJ, Libhaber E. Accuracy of cervical assessment in the active phase of labour. BJOG 2007; 114(7):833-7.
  32. Huhn KA, Brost BC. Accuracy of simulated cervical dilation and effacement measurements among practitioners. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191(5):1797-9.
  33. Bergsjø P, Koss KS. Interindividual variation in vaginal examination findings during labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1982; 61(6):509-10.
  34. Tuffnell DJ, Bryce F, Johnson N, Lilford RJ. Simulation of cervical changes in labour: reproducibility of expert assessment. Lancet 1989; 334(8671):1089-90.
  35. Letic M. Inaccuracy in cervical dilatation assessment and the progress of labour monitoring. Med Hypotheses 2003; 60(2):199-201.
  36. Mold J, Stein H. The cascade effect in the clinical care of patients. N Engl J Med 1986; 314(8):512-4.
  37. Tracy SK, Sullivan E, Wang YA, Black D, Tracy M. Birth outcomes associated with interventions in labour amongst low risk women: a population-based study. Women Birth 2007; 20(2):41-8.
  38. Kiley MT. The supply of skilled labour and skill‐biased technological progress. The Economic Journal. 1999 Oct;109(458):708-24.
  39. Hundley VA, Cruickshank FM, Lang GD, Glazener CM, Milne JM, Turner M, Blyth D, Mollison J, Donaldson C. Midwife managed delivery unit: a randomised controlled comparison with consultant led care. BMJ 1994; 309(6966):1400-4.
  40. Lowe NK, Corwin EJ. Proposed biological linkages between obesity, stress, and inefficient uterine contractility during labor in humans. Medical hypotheses. 2011 May 1;76(5):755-60
  41. Seaward PG, Hannah ME, Myhr TL, Farine D, Ohlsson A, Wang EE, et al. International multicenter term PROM study: evaluation of predictors of neonatal infection in infants born to patients with premature rupture of membranes at term. Premature Rupture of the Membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179(3):635-9.
  42. Maharaj D. Puerperal pyrexia: a review. Part I. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2007; 62(6):393-9.
  43. Wong A, Rosh A. Pregnancy. Postpartum infections. eMedicine. Available at: URL: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/796892-overview; 2017.
  44. Neilson J. Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111(1):204-5.
  45. Emmons SL, Krohn M, Jacson J, Eschenbach DA. Development of wound infection among women undergoing cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1988; 72(4):559-64.
  46. Imseis HM, Trout WC, Gabbe SG. The microbiologic effect of digital cervical examination. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180(3):578-80.
  47. Santos R, Hernández-Ayup S, Galache P, Morales FG, Batiza VA, Montoya DI. Severe latex allergy after a vaginal examination during labor: a case report. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177(6):1543-4.
  48. Shingai Y, Nakagawa K, Kato T, Fujioka T, Matsumoto T, Kihana T, Noda K, Mori T. Severe allergy in a pregnant woman after vaginal examination with a latex glove. Gynecologic and obstetric investigation. 2002;54(3):183-4.
  49. Lewin D, Fearon B, Hemmings V, Johnson G. Women’s experiences of vaginal examinations in labour. Midwifery 2005; 21(3):267-77.
  50. Devane D. Sexuality and midwifery. Br J Midwifery 1996; 4(8):413-20.
  51. Parratt J. The impact of childbirth experiences on women's sense of self: a review of the literature. Aust J Midwifery 2002; 15(4):10-6.
  52. Menage J. Post-traumatic stress disorder following obstetric-gynecological procedures. Br J Midwifery 1996; 4(10):532-3.
  53. Enkin M, Keirse MJ, Chalmers I, Enkin E. A guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford Medical; 2000.
  54. Bryne D, Edmonds D. Clinical method for evaluating progress in first stage of labour. Lancet 1990; 335(8681):122.
  55. Shepherd A, Cheyne H, Kennedy S, McIntosh C, Styles M, Niven C. The purple line as a measure of labour progress: a longitudinal study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2010; 10(1):54.
  56. Narchi NZ, Camargo JD, Salim NR, Menezes MD, Bertolino MM. The use of the “purple line” as an auxiliary clinical method for evaluating the active phase of delivery. Rev Bras Saúde Matern Infant 2011; 11(3):313-22.
  57. Kordi M, Irani M, Esmaily H, Tara F. Relationship between length of purple line and cervical dilation in active phase of labor. Iran J Obstet Gynecol Infertil 2013; 15(37):6-13. (Persian).
  58. Kordi M, Irani M, Tara F, Esmaily H. The diagnostic accuracy of purple line in prediction of labor progress in Omolbanin Hospital, Iran. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2014; 16(11):e16183.
  59. Irani M, Kordi M, Esmaily H. Relationship between length and width of the purple line and foetal head descent in active phase of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol 2018; 38(1):10-5.