Abstract
Introduction
The following quantitative observational study aimed to analyse the maternal and neonatal
outcomes of 90 low-risk pregnant women who gave birth in water at São Bernardo Hospital.
Methods
A form containing information on the obstetric history of the parturient, the type
of immersion, and the labour and birth follow-up was used by midwives to collect the
data.
Background
The Apgar score (at 1 min after birth) used in this study, called Aqua Apgar, was adapted by Cornelia Enning.
Results
The mean water immersion time was 1 h and 46 min and had an influence on the duration of labour (mean 5 h and 37 min), with a statistically significant difference (P = 0.004). There was a decreased cervical dilatation time and a shorter duration of the
expulsion phase. In the immersion scenario, 30% of the women did not undergo any examination
to assess the length of the cervix, and 57.8% presented intact perennial areas or
first-degree tears. As for neonatal outcomes, during maternal immersion, 97% maintained
normal fetal heart rates (between 110 and 160 beats per minute) and Aqua Apgar was
higher than 7, both in the first minute (mean of 9.4) and in the fifth minute of life
(mean of 9.9).
Conclusion
These safety outcomes, based on sound scientific evidence, should increasingly support
and inform clinical decisions and increase the number of waterbirths in health facilities.
The results of this study align with growing evidence that suggests waterbirth is
a safe delivery option and therefore should be offered to women.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Women and BirthAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Immersion in water in labour and birth.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; CD000111https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub3
- Waterbirth: an integrative analysis of peer-reviewed literature.J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014; 59: 286-319https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12194
- Gentle birth choices.Healing Arts Press, Rochester, Vermont2005
- O parto na água.Editora Manole Ltda, São Paulo2000
- Birth under water.Lancet. 1983; 2: 1476-1477
- Water babies.A & C Black Publishers Ltd., 1983 (ISBN 10: 0713623195 ISBN 13: 978071363192)
- A critical analysis of Australian policies and guidelines for water immersion during labour and birth.Women Birth. 2017; 30: 431-441https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2017.04.001
- Labouring women who used a birthing pool in obstetric units in Italy: prospective observational study.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; 14: 17https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-14-17
- Characteristics, interventions, and outcomes of women who used a birthing pool: a prospective observational study.Birth. 2012; 39: 192-202https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-536X.2012.00548.x
- A guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth.Oxford University Press, Oxford2000
- Immersion in water during labor and delivery (Committee Opinion No. 594).Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 912-915https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000445585.52522.14
- How valid are the common concerns raised against waterbirth? A focused review of the literature.Women Birth. 2013; 26: 105-109https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2012.10.006
RCOG & RCM, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists (RCOG) and Royal College of Midwives (RCM). Joint Statement no 1: Immersion in water during labour and birth. internet. London, RCOG. Guidelines. 2006. cited 2017 june 29. Available from: https://www.rcm.org.uk/sites/default/files/rcog_rcm_birth_in_water.pdf
- Revisiting waterbirth: an attitude to care.Palgrave Macmillan, 2011 (ISBN 10: 0230273572/ISBN 13: 978023273573)
- A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborns infant.Curr Res Anesth Analg. 1953; 32: 260-267
- The birthing pool test.Midwifery Today. 2015; 115: 9-11
Nice National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies. Clinical guideline. Published: 3 December 2014. Nice.org.uk/guidance/cg190.
- An economic evaluation of waterbirth: the cost-effectiveness of mother well-being.J Eval Clin Pract. 2010; 16: 916-919https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01220.x
- Waterbirth and pelvic floor injury: a retrospective study and postal survey using ICIQ modular long form questionnaires.EJOG. 2011; 155: 27-30https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.11.012
- Maternal and perinatal outcomes amongst low risk women giving birth in water compared to six birth positions on land. A descriptive cross sectional study in a birth centre over 12 years.Midwifery. 2013; 29: 759-764https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2012.07.002
- The use of the purple line as an auxiliary clinical method for evaluating the active phase of birth.Rev Bras Saúde Matern Infant Recife. 2011; 11 (jul./set.): 313-322https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-38292011000300012
- The effect of immersion baths on the length of childbirth labor.Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2006; 40: 57-63
- Warm tub bath during delivery.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987; 66: 709-712
- Water immersion and the effect on labor.J Nurse Midwifery. 1993; 38: 336-342
- Early or late bath during the first stage of labour: a randomized study of 200 women.Midwifery. 1997; 13: 146-148
- Maternal and newborn outcomes following waterbirth: the midwives alliance of North America Statistics Project, 2004 to 2009 cohort.J Midwifery Womens Health. 2016; 61: 11-20https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12394
- Advantages and disadvantages of waterbirth. A systematic review of the literature.Gynécol Obstét Fertil. 2014; 42: 706-713https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2014.05.018
- Maternal and neonatal infections and obstetrical outcome in waterbirth.Eur J Obstet Gyn R B. 2007; 134: 37-43https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.09.012
- A retrospective comparison of water birth and conventional vaginal birth among women deemed to be low risk in a secondary level hospital in Australia.Women Birth J Aust Coll Midwives. 2013; 26: 114-118
- Water VBAC: exploring a new frontier for women’s autonomy.Midwifery. 2014; 30: e20-e25
- The effects of immersion in water on labor, birth and newborn and comparison with epidural analgesia and conventional vaginal birth.J Turk German Gynecol Assoc. 2012; 13: 45-49https://doi.org/10.5152/jtgga.2012.03
- Perceptions and practice of waterbirth: a survey of Georgia.J Midwifery Womens Health. 2010; 55: 55-59https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2009.01.008
- Experience of waterbirth delivery in Iran.Arch Iran Med. 2009; 12: 468-471
- Birth, bath, and beyond: the science and safety of water immersion during labor and birth.J Perinat Educ. 2014; 23: 124-134https://doi.org/10.1891/1058-1243.23.3.124
- A comparative study between the pioneer cohort of waterbirths and conventional vaginal deliveries in na obstetrician led-unit in Singapore.Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 55: 363-367https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2016.04.012
Article info
Publication history
Published online: January 02, 2018
Accepted:
December 11,
2017
Received in revised form:
November 17,
2017
Received:
June 29,
2017
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
