Upright position during the first stage of labor: a randomised controlled trial. Maternal position, labor, and comfort. Effect of maternal ambulation on labour with low-dose combined spinal-epidural analgesia. The effects of prolonged ambulation on labor with epidural analgesia. Effect of epidural analgesia with ambulation on labor duration. An assessment of radiotelemetry in the monitoring of labour. Epidural analgesia compared with combined spinal-epidural analgesia during labor in nulliparous women. Effects of sitting position on uterine activity during labor. Ambulatory epidural anesthesia and the duration of labor. A study of the benefits and acceptability of ambulation in spontaneous labour. Lack of effect of walking on labor and delivery. Upright posture and the efficiency of labour. Ambulation in labour.
Evaluation of the upright position during the first stage of labor on pain, patient satisfaction, obstetrical and perinatal outcomes in nullipara women.
                This prospective, randomised, controlled trial included a group of 54 women who were informed and encouraged to adopt the upright position, and a control group of 53 women who were not given this information. The difference between groups was evaluated using the chi2, Wilcoxon and Fisher's Exact tests. Significance was defined as p<0.05. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
                No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in baseline characteristics, obstetrical and perinatal outcomes; however, there was a preference among women in both groups for the upright position.
                The upright position during the first stage of labor did not contribute towards a shorter duration of labor; however, it proved to be a safe and well-accepted option for the women of this study. The purpose of this study was to determine if women who assumed upright positions during the phase of maximum slope would have a shorter phase of maximum slope in their labor and experience more comfort than women who assumed recumbent positions. Forty laboring women were randomly assigned to either an upright or recumbent position group. Subjects assumed the positions of their assigned group during the phase of maximum slope in their labor (cervical dilatation from 4 cm to 9 cm). Every hour during the phase of maximum slope, each subject was examined vaginally to determine her cervical dilatation and assessed for her level of comfort using the Maternal Comfort Assessment Tool. Women in the upright position group had a significantly shorter phase of maximum slope in labor, but did not significantly differ in comfort level from women in the recumbent group. Newborn Apgar scores were not significantly different between the two groups. Nurses need to be aware that the upright labor positions have the distinct advantages of facilitating efficient uterine contractions and reducing the duration of the phase of maximum slope in labor, with no increase in the discomfort experienced or adverse effect on newborn well-being. Two hundred and twenty-nine nulliparous women who requested regional analgesia during labour were given a combined spinal-epidural block. They were randomly allocated to stay in bed or spend at least 20 min of every hour out of bed. There was no significant difference in duration of labour, analgesia requirements, mode of delivery or condition of the baby between the groups. Ambulation appeared to be safe for the mother and baby. Maternal satisfaction with the low-dose combined spinal-epidural was high in both groups. Ambulation during labor is becoming more popular, although its impact on the progress of labor and on pain intensity remains unclear. We wondered whether prolonged ambulation with epidural analgesia had a possible effect on duration of labor and pain. In this prospective, randomized trial, 61 parturients with uncomplicated term pregnancies were allocated to be recumbent (n = 31) or to ambulate (n = 30). Epidural analgesia was provided with intermittent administrations of 0.08% bupivacaine-epinephrine plus 1 microg/mL of sufentanil. Of the 30 women assigned to the ambulatory group, 25 actually walked. Their ambulating time was 64 +/- 34 min (mean +/- SD), i.e., 29% +/- 16% of the first stage. There were no differences between the two groups in the length of labor and in pain visual analog scale scores. However, the ambulatory group received smaller doses of bupivacaine (6.4 +/- 2.2 mg/h versus 8.4 +/- 3.6 mg/h; P = 0.01) and of oxytocin (6.0 +/- 3.7 mUI/min versus 10.2 +/- 8.8 mUI/min; P < 0.05). A greater ability to void was also found in the ambulatory group (P < 0.01). Although the duration of labor and pain relief was unchanged, these findings support that ambulation during labor may be advantageous.
                This study compared the duration of labor and pain relief between parturients receiving epidural analgesia who were ambulated or were recumbent. Whereas walking had no impact on either duration of labor or pain relief, it was associated with a reduction in both bupivacaine and oxytocin requirements. Ambulatory epidural analgesia (AEA) is a popular choice for labor analgesia because ambulation reportedly increases maternal comfort, increases the intensity of uterine contractions, avoids inferior vena cava compression, facilitates fetal head descent, and relaxes the pelvic musculature, all of which can shorten labor. However, the preponderance of evidence suggests that ambulation during labor is not associated with these benefits. The purpose of this study is to determine whether ambulation with AEA decreases labor duration from the time of epidural insertion to complete cervical dilatation.
                In this prospective, randomized study, 160 nulliparous women with AFA were randomly assigned to one of two groups: AEA with ambulation and AEA without ambulation. AEA blocks were initiated with 15-20 ml ropivacaine (0.07%) plus 100 microg fentanyl, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.07% ropivacaine plus 2 microg/ml fentanyl at 15-20 ml/h. Maternal measured variables included ambulation time, time from epidural insertion to complete dilatation, stage II duration, pain Visual Analogue Scale scores, and mode of delivery. APGAR scores were recorded at 1 and 5 min. Results are expressed as mean +/- SD or median and analyzed using the t test, chi-square, or the Mann-Whitney test at P < or = 0.05.
                The ambulatory group walked 25.0 +/- 23.3 min, sat upright 40.3 +/- 29.7 min, or both. Time from epidural insertion to complete dilatation was 240.9 +/- 146.1 min in the ambulatory group and 211.9 +/- 133.9 min in the nonambulatory group (P = 0.206).
                Ambulatory epidural analgesia with walking or sitting does not shorten labor duration from the time of epidural insertion to complete cervical dilatation. Conventional and telemetric monitoring of labour were compared in a randomized study of 200 patients to assess the effect on the pattern of labour, outcome and attitude of the patients. All the telemetry patients had the option of mobility, but only 45% elected to get out of bed, and then often only for short periods. No clear physical benefits accrued from voluntary mobility. Ambulant patients who had spontaneous deliveries had a longer second stage and more of their babies were slow to establish regular respiration. Quantitative subjective assessments of pain, anxiety and comfort were made. Primigravidae with telemetric monitoring who chose to get out of bed had higher pain scores than primigravidae monitored conventionally, but anxiety scores were highest among primigravidae with telemetry who elected to stay in bed. There was a significant bias towards increased anxiety in the lower social classes. Primigravidae gained more reassurance from monitoring than did multigravidae, but there were no differences resulting from whether or not the recording apparatus was within the patients' view. Multigravidae who had experienced both forms of monitoring preferred telemetry because they felt less restricted and less anxious. Among nulliparous women, there appears to be an association between the use of epidural analgesia during labor and an increased risk of dystocia. We tested the hypothesis that combined spinal-epidural analgesia, which permits ambulation during labor, is associated with a lower incidence of dystocia than continuous lumbar epidural analgesia.
                Between July 1995 and September 1996, we randomly assigned 761 nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term who requested epidural analgesia to receive either continuous lumbar epidural analgesia or a combination of spinal and epidural analgesia. Among the women who received combined spinal-epidural analgesia, some were discouraged from walking and others were encouraged to walk. Maternal and neonatal outcomes, the incidence of dystocia necessitating cesarean section, and measures of patients' satisfaction were compared in the two groups.
                There were no significant differences in the overall rate of cesarean section, the incidence of dystocia, the frequency of maternal or fetal complications, the patients' or nursing staff's assessment of the adequacy of analgesia, or the degree of overall satisfaction between the two groups. Significantly more women receiving combined spinal-epidural analgesia had pruritus (P<0.001) and requested additional epidural bolus doses of local anesthetic (P=0.01). For all the women, dystocia necessitating cesarean section was significantly more likely when analgesia was administered with the fetal vertex at a negative station (odds ratio, 2.5; P<0.001) or at less than 4 cm of cervical dilatation (odds ratio, 2.2; P<0.001).
                As compared with continuous lumbar epidural analgesia, the combination of spinal and epidural analgesia is not associated with an overall decrease in the incidence of cesarean delivery. To determine which components of uterine activity are affected by different positions of labor, 116 intrauterine pressure records in the sitting and supine positions were analyzed in order to measure resting, contraction, and bearing down pressures. The resting pressure in the sitting position showed consistent elevation compared to the supine position, while the contraction pressure did not differ strikingly in the two positions. The bearing down pressure in the sitting position for nulliparas during the second stage and for multiparas at the time of the 8- to 10-cm dilation was significantly higher than that in the supine position. Also, the sitting position led to a significantly shorter duration of the second stage in nulliparas and the 5- to 10-cm dilation period in multiparas. These findings suggest that the maternal position does not affect uterine contractility, that the increased resting pressure in the sitting position is of some importance in supplementing the downward delivery force, and that the increased bearing down pressure in the sitting position could help to significantly shorten the duration of labor. Ambulatory epidural analgesia has become a common option for women in labor in France. We tested the hypothesis that a method of epidural analgesia that allowed women to walk had specific advantages regarding mode of delivery, consumption of local anesthetic, oxytocin requirement, and labor duration.
                Two hundred and twenty-one women with uncomplicated pregnancies who presented in spontaneous labor between 36 and 42 weeks of gestation or who were scheduled for induced labor were randomly divided into two groups, ambulatory and non-ambulatory. All were given intermittent epidural injections of 0.1% ropivacaine with 0.6 microg/ml sufentanil for analgesia during labor (P<0.05 was considered significant). None of the women had previous cesarean delivery.
                There were no significant differences between the two groups in mode of delivery, consumption of local anesthetic, or oxytocin requirement. However, a significant difference was noted in labor duration (173.4+/-109.9 min vs. 236.4+/-130.6 min; P=0.001).
                Walking with ambulatory labor analgesia shortens labor duration but has no other effect on the progress and outcome of labor. A prospective study of 300 consecutive deliveries has been made to assess the benefits and acceptability of ambulation during spontaneous labour. Ambulation during the first stage occurred in 48 patients with 55 non-ambulant patients acting as controls. No difference in the length of first or second stage, incidence of fetal distress or mode of delivery was observed. In spite of the lack of apparent advantage to the fetal condition, ambulation was acceptable to both patients and nursing staff and should not be discouraged. Walking during labor may reduce patients' discomfort and improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of walking during active labor to determine whether it altered the duration of labor or other maternal or fetal outcomes. Women with uncomplicated pregnancies between 36 and 41 weeks' gestation and in active labor were randomly assigned either to walking or to no walking (usual care). Pedometers were used to quantify walking, and the time spent walking was recorded.
                Of the 536 women assigned to the walking group, 380 actually walked. Their mean (+/-SD) walking time was 56+/-46 minutes. There were no significant differences between the women assigned to the walking group and the 531 women assigned to the usual-care group in the duration of the first stage of labor (6.1 hours in both groups, P=0.83), the need for labor augmentation with oxytocin (23 percent vs. 26 percent, P=0.25), and the use of analgesia (84 percent vs. 86 percent, P=0.59). Similarly, the percentages of women requiring delivery by forceps (4 percent vs. 3 percent, P=0.35) and cesarean section (4 percent vs. 6 percent, P=0.25) were not significantly different. These labor and delivery outcomes were unrelated to walking in both nulliparous and parous women. The infants' outcomes were also similar in the two study groups.
                Walking neither enhanced nor impaired active labor and was not harmful to the mothers or their infants. The claim that an upright maternal posture during labour improves the efficiency of the uterus to the benefit of both mother and fetus has been investigated in a randomised prospective study. 40 patients undergoing induction of labour were allocated to a recumbent group or an upright group. No differences were found between the groups in the length of labour, mode of delivery, requirements of oxytocic and analgesic drugs, or fetal and neonatal condition. Our data do not support calls to change conventional intrapartum nursing attitudes. In a randomised prospective study of 68 women in spontaneous labour half were allocated to an ambulant group and half to a recumbent group. The duration of labour was significantly shorter, the need for analgesia significantly less, and the incidence of fetal heart abnormalities significantly smaller in the ambulant group than in the recumbent group. Apgar scores at one and five minutes were also significantly greater in the ambulant group. More patients in the recumbent group required augmentations with oxytocic drugs. There was no statistically significant difference in the third stage loss in the two groups. Ambulation in labour should be encouraged: it may bring human benefits while allowing the advantages of hospital supervision.
There is evidence that walking and upright positions in the first stage of labour reduce the length of labour and do not seem to be associated with increased intervention or negative effects on mothers' and babies' wellbeing. Women should be encouraged to take up whatever position they find most comfortable in the first stage of labour.