Effect of amniotic membrane rupture on length of labor.

Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 4.37). 11/1987; 70(4):604-7.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Between January 1, 1979, and December 21, 1982, 2564 medically and obstetrically normal patients, admitted to the hospital with intact amniotic membranes during the latent phase of labor, were matched for spontaneous or artificial rupture of the membranes at similar cervical dilations. Spontaneous rupture of the membranes occurred earlier and was more likely in the latent phase of labor than was artificial rupture of membranes, which tended to occur nearer to or in the active phase of labor, and at lower pelvic stations. When matched by cervical dilation, spontaneous membrane rupture was associated with more rapid cervical dilation. Stepwise regression analysis confirmed that membrane rupture had a significant but small effect on labor length and rate of cervical dilation. Pelvic station and maternal parity had a smaller association with labor length than did membrane rupture. Cervical dilation at the time of membrane rupture appeared to be the most important factor associated with the length of labor.

  • Source
    • "4. Amniotomy is contraindicated because fetal heart abnormalities are more likely in the healthy, term fetus (Barrett et al., 1992; Fraser et al., 1993; Kariniemi, 1983) and it may cause umbilical cord prolapse (Levy et al., 1984). Amniotomy has little effect on labour length (Barrett et al., 1992; Rosen and Peisner, 1987; Seitchik et al., 1985) and it does not reduce the caesarian section rate (Barrett et al., 1992; Fraser et al., 1993). 5. Olsen (1997) carried out a meta-analysis of the relative safety of homebirth compared to hospital birth. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Within maternity hospitals midwives are expected to follow the protocol-driven culture and orders issued by senior staff. Simultaneously, midwives are expected to follow social policy documents and the Midwives Rules and Standards that advocate choice provision for childbearing women. Quality assurors and auditors of clinical practice need to be aware that these two directives sometimes clash. Allegiance to a hierarchical system driven by protocols and orders from the top down, at the same time as providing "woman-centred" care is often unattainable. In order for a midwife to action the woman's choice, resourceful thinking may be required. This paper aims to examine this issue. DESIGN/ METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A descriptive interview study set out to discover strategies which midwives use to resolve conflict produced from competing directives. An appraisal of 20 midwives' views were gained from semi-structured interviews conducted in seven maternity units in the UK. Taking a post-positivist approach, inductive thematic analysis was used to interpret the data. Three main categories represented resourceful ways of pleasing both authority and the childbearing woman. Midwives occasionally: are economical with the truth; circumvent face-to-face confrontation with senior staff; and persuade women to refuse what they perceive are unnecessary and invasive interventions. This paper offers unique insights into methods that midwives use to resolve conflicts in direction issued by management. It is important that auditors are aware that midwives sometimes struggle to support the preferences of healthy childbearing women. This reduces job satisfaction, delivery of care and consequently requires address.
    International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 02/2009; 22(1):55-66. DOI:10.1108/09526860910927952
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Specific interventional procedures have enjoyed widespread popularity in the United States in the routine management of low risk obstetric patients without the benefit of clinical studies attesting to their utility. A review of the literature was conducted to survey obstetric practice with regard to amniotomy, intravenous fluids, third stage administration of oxytocics, episiotomy and continuous fetal monitoring.
    International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 07/1991; 35(2):107-15. DOI:10.1016/0020-7292(91)90812-J · 1.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast stimulation to augment labor has been used for centuries in tribal societies and by midwives. In recent years it has been shown to be effective in ripening the cervix, inducing labor, and as an alternative to oxytocin for the contraction stress test. This study compared the effectiveness of breast stimulation with oxytocin infusion in augmenting labor. Women admitted to the labor ward were eligible for the study if they had inadequate labor with premature rupture of the membranes and met inclusion criteria. They were assigned to oxytocin augmentation or breast stimulation (manual or pump), and were switched to oxytocin in the event of method failure. Outcomes included time to delivery, intervention to delivery, proportion of spontaneous deliveries, and Apgar scores. One hundred participants were needed in each arm of the study to demonstrate a 2- to 3-hour difference in delivery time, with a power of 80 percent. Analysis was performed on 79 women, of whom 49 were in the breast stimulation group and 30 in the oxytocin group. Sixty-five percent of the participants failed breast stimulation and were switched to oxytocin infusion. Although augmentation start to delivery was shorter for the oxytocin group (p < 0.001), no differences in total labor time occurred between the groups. Nulliparas receiving breast stimulation had more spontaneous (relative risk 1.7, p = 0.04), and fewer instrumental deliveries than those receiving oxytocin (relative risk 0.2, p = 0.02). No significant differences in adverse fetal outcomes occurred between the study groups. The small number of participants and a variety of problems with the conduct of the study prevented the formulation of reliable conclusions from the results. However, the study provided important insights into the feasibility and problems of developing a high-quality randomized trial of augmentation by breast stimulation.
    Birth 06/1999; 26(2):115-22. · 2.05 Impact Factor
Show more