Cargando…

Comparing the Outcomes of Physiologic Delivery with Non-Physiologic Delivery Group

BACKGROUND: The main purpose of physiologic delivery is to rely on mother's body for childbirth. In physiologic delivery method pregnant women attend delivery preparation classes and they learn how to overcome fear and pain. This study compares delivery outcomes among women who participated in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Soufizadeh, Nasrin, Zandvakili, Farnaz, Farhadifar, Fariba, Seyedoshohadaie, Fariba
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3733194/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23930174
_version_ 1782279341839745024
author Soufizadeh, Nasrin
Zandvakili, Farnaz
Farhadifar, Fariba
Seyedoshohadaie, Fariba
author_facet Soufizadeh, Nasrin
Zandvakili, Farnaz
Farhadifar, Fariba
Seyedoshohadaie, Fariba
author_sort Soufizadeh, Nasrin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The main purpose of physiologic delivery is to rely on mother's body for childbirth. In physiologic delivery method pregnant women attend delivery preparation classes and they learn how to overcome fear and pain. This study compares delivery outcomes among women who participated in physiologic delivery with those who had undergone non-physiologic delivery. METHODS: All patients referred for physiologic delivery were assessed. Exclusion criteria were lack of PROM, post date, cephalopelvic disproportion, multi-fetal pregnancy, Meconium stain, blood pressure above 90/140, placenta previa and previous record of cesarean. Data was entered in SPSS 16 software and Fisher and Chi-square tests were used to compare vaginal laceration, episiotomy and Apgar score between two groups. RESULTS: Twelve out of 73 pregnant women (16.4%) in physiologic delivery group and 27 out of 69 pregnant women (39.1%) in non-physiologic delivery group needed episiotomy (P = 0.002). Ten patients (13.7%) in physiologic delivery group and seven persons (10.1%) in the non-physiologic delivery group were suffering from vaginal laceration (P = 0.51). There was no significant statistical difference between newborns’ Apgar score in two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Physiologic delivery can reduce the need for episiotomy without any further complications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3733194
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37331942013-08-08 Comparing the Outcomes of Physiologic Delivery with Non-Physiologic Delivery Group Soufizadeh, Nasrin Zandvakili, Farnaz Farhadifar, Fariba Seyedoshohadaie, Fariba Int J Prev Med Brief Communication BACKGROUND: The main purpose of physiologic delivery is to rely on mother's body for childbirth. In physiologic delivery method pregnant women attend delivery preparation classes and they learn how to overcome fear and pain. This study compares delivery outcomes among women who participated in physiologic delivery with those who had undergone non-physiologic delivery. METHODS: All patients referred for physiologic delivery were assessed. Exclusion criteria were lack of PROM, post date, cephalopelvic disproportion, multi-fetal pregnancy, Meconium stain, blood pressure above 90/140, placenta previa and previous record of cesarean. Data was entered in SPSS 16 software and Fisher and Chi-square tests were used to compare vaginal laceration, episiotomy and Apgar score between two groups. RESULTS: Twelve out of 73 pregnant women (16.4%) in physiologic delivery group and 27 out of 69 pregnant women (39.1%) in non-physiologic delivery group needed episiotomy (P = 0.002). Ten patients (13.7%) in physiologic delivery group and seven persons (10.1%) in the non-physiologic delivery group were suffering from vaginal laceration (P = 0.51). There was no significant statistical difference between newborns’ Apgar score in two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Physiologic delivery can reduce the need for episiotomy without any further complications. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2013-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3733194/ /pubmed/23930174 Text en Copyright: © International Journal of Preventive Medicine http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Brief Communication
Soufizadeh, Nasrin
Zandvakili, Farnaz
Farhadifar, Fariba
Seyedoshohadaie, Fariba
Comparing the Outcomes of Physiologic Delivery with Non-Physiologic Delivery Group
title Comparing the Outcomes of Physiologic Delivery with Non-Physiologic Delivery Group
title_full Comparing the Outcomes of Physiologic Delivery with Non-Physiologic Delivery Group
title_fullStr Comparing the Outcomes of Physiologic Delivery with Non-Physiologic Delivery Group
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the Outcomes of Physiologic Delivery with Non-Physiologic Delivery Group
title_short Comparing the Outcomes of Physiologic Delivery with Non-Physiologic Delivery Group
title_sort comparing the outcomes of physiologic delivery with non-physiologic delivery group
topic Brief Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3733194/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23930174
work_keys_str_mv AT soufizadehnasrin comparingtheoutcomesofphysiologicdeliverywithnonphysiologicdeliverygroup
AT zandvakilifarnaz comparingtheoutcomesofphysiologicdeliverywithnonphysiologicdeliverygroup
AT farhadifarfariba comparingtheoutcomesofphysiologicdeliverywithnonphysiologicdeliverygroup
AT seyedoshohadaiefariba comparingtheoutcomesofphysiologicdeliverywithnonphysiologicdeliverygroup