The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility

The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility

Comparison of mean Length of Labor Stages in Nulliparous Women in two groups of Physiological and Traditional labor: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Fahimeh Sehhati Shafaei 1
Samiyeh Kazemi 2
Morteza Ghoujazadeh 3
1 Instructor of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
2 M.Sc. of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
3 Assistant professor, Department of Physiology, Women's Health Research Center, School of Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
10.22038/ijogi.2015.4265
Abstract
Introduction: Long labor stages lead to harmful outcomes of labor. this study was performed with aim to compare mean length of labor stages in two groups of physiological and traditional delivery.
Methods: This one blind clinical trial study was performed on 370 nulliparous mothers in Talesh Shahid Nooraani hospital in 2011. The subjects were randomly placed in two groups of A (physiological delivery) and B (traditional delivery). Methods of pain relief were performed in physiological delivery group and the interventions were done in both groups based on Partograph. Data collection tool was a checklist including the characteristics of the subjects, Partograph form and assessment of first, second & third stages of labor. Data was analyzed using SPSS software (version 13) and t-test and chi -square test. P < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: Length of first and second stages of labor between two groups had statistically significant difference (P<0.001). Length of first and second stages of labor  was longer in physiological delivery group than traditional group, but length of third stage of labor was not statistically significant between two groups (P<0.72).
Conclusion: The results showed that the method of physiological delivery can increase the length of labor.
Keywords
labor
Labor stages
Nulliparous women
Physiologic
Traditional
  1. Pascali-Bonaro D, Kroeger M. Continuous Female companionship duringchildbirth. J Midwifery Womens Health 2004; 49(1): 19-27.
  2. Trueba G, Contreras C. Alternative strategy to decrease cesarean section: support by doulas during labor. J Perinat Educ 2000; 9(2): 8-13.
  3. BonicaJJ.The pain of child birth. 2th ed. New Jersy: Appleton and Lang; 2013.
  4. Simkin P, Bolding A. Update onnonpharmacologic approaches to relieve labor pain and prevent suffering. J Midwifery Womens Health  2004; 49(6): 489-504.
  5. Saisto T, Salmela-Aro K, KononenT,Nurmi JE, Halmesmaki E. A controlled trial of intervention in fear of childbirth.ObstetGyneco 2001;98(5): 820-6.
  6. CNM Data Group.Midwiferymanagement of pain in labor. J Nurs Midwifery1996; 43(2):77-82.
  7. Simkin PT, klein MC. Nonphamacologic approaches to management of labor pain. Biomedical journal 2009; 310:1387-90.
  8. Kojic Z, Arsenijevic L, ScepanovicN. Labor pain physiologal basis and regulatory mechanisms.Srp Arh Celok Lek  2007; 135 (3-4): 235-9.
  9. Tietze KW, Horbach L, Muller D, Heidenreich J, Schmitt W. Data condensation in demonstration of the relationship between labor painand fetal heart rate changes during labor. Klin wochenschr 1971; 49 (1):50-1.
  10. Brown ST, Douglas C, Plaster L. Women’s evaluation of intrapartum non pharmacological pain relief methods used during labor. J Prenat Educ 2001; 10(3): 1-8.
  11. Stark MA, Rudell B, HausG. Observing position and movements in hydrotherapy:A pilot study. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2008; 37(1): 116-22.
  12. Waldenstrom U, Hildingsson I, RydingEL. Antenatal fear of child birth and its association with subsequent caesarean section and experience of child birth. BJOG 2006; 113(6): 638-46.
  13. Kennel J, Klaus M, McGrath S, Robertson S, Hinkley C. Continuous emotional support during labor in a US hospital: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1991;2665 (17): 2197-2201.
  14. Gentz BA. Alternative therapies for the management of pain in labor and delivery. Clin Obstet Gyneco 2010; 44(4): 704-32.
  15. SimkinP,O’Hara M. Nonpharmacologic relief of pain during labor: Systematic reviews of five methods. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186 (5 Suppl Nature): S131–59.
  16. Gupta J, Hofmeyr G. Position for women during second stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 5:CD002006.
  17. Smith CA, Collins CT, Cyna AM, CrowtherCA.Complementary and alternative therapies for pain management in labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Published by john Wiley & Sons, Ltd.2012.
  18. Danel I, Berg C, Johnson CH, Atrash H. Magnitude of maternal morbidity during labor and delivery USA 1993-1997. Am J Public Health 2003; 93(4): 631-4.
  19. Smith CA. Complementary and alternative therapies for pain management in labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; (4): CD003521.
  20. Chang CY,Gau M . Develope and test of birth ball exercise during laboring phase [Master thesis]. Available from: URL: http://www.ntcn.edu.tw/dep/HelpBirth/English/dissertation-e/article95-e.htm.Accessed April 5, 2010.
  21. Robertson E, Johansson SE. Use of complementary, non-Pharmacologic pain reduction methods during childbirth amongForeign – born and Swedish – born Women. Midwifery 2010; 26(4):442-9
  22.  Gemund N, HardemanA, Scherjon S, Kanhai H. Intervention rates after elective induction of labor compared to labor with a spontaneous onset. A matched cohort study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2011;56(3):133-8.
  23. Tournaire M,Theau-Yonneau A. Complementary and alternative approaches to pain relief. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2007;4(4): 409-17