medigraphic.com
ISSN 0301-696X (Impreso)
Órgano de difusión del Servicio de Sanidad Militar y del Colegio Nacional de Médicos Militares

2018, Número 2

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Rev Sanid Milit Mex 2018; 72 (2)


Trauma perineal: parto acuático versus parto convencional en Centro Hospitalario Nuevo Sanatorio Durango en la Ciudad de México

Tejeda-Romero C, Déctor-Palma CE, González-Aldeco PM, Rodríguez-Ayala C

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 36
Paginas: 125-132
Archivo PDF: 278.68 Kb.


RESUMEN

Introducción: La atención de parto acuático ha incrementado en popularidad en la Ciudad de México. El Centro Hospitalario Nuevo Sanatorio Durango ha sido pionero en ofrecer la atención de parto bajo el agua. Hasta la fecha, no se han realizado estudios sobre la conducta de los partos acuáticos en México. Objetivo: Este estudio intenta evaluar si el parto bajo el agua está asociado a mayor incremento en las tasas de trauma perineal comparándolo con un grupo control de pacientes atendidas por parto convencional. Material y métodos: Archivos clínicos de mujeres que se atendieron de parto acuático en el Centro Hospitalario Sanatorio Durango en la Ciudad de México en el periodo comprendido entre 2016 y 2017, revisados retrospectivamente. Los resultados de interés fueron estimar el trauma perineal (desgarros de tercer y cuarto grado) comparándolo con un grupo control de parto convencional. Resultados: Se registraron 120 pacientes que se atendieron de parto acuático. Hubo diferencia significativa en los resultados en trauma perineal en el grupo de parto acuático: mayores tasas de periné intacto en mujeres atendidas bajo el agua, por lo que se propone que el parto acuático es protector del trauma perineal. Conclusiones: El parto en agua en nuestro centro no parece estar asociado a incremento en los resultados adversos maternos (trauma perineal). Los resultados de este estudio establecen que el parto acuático es una alternativa aceptable para el nacimiento en mujeres de bajo riesgo obstétrico, siempre y cuando cuente con adecuada vigilancia y profesional capacitado.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Aasheim V, Nilsen AB, Lukasse M, Reinar LM. Perineal techniques during the second stage of labour for reducing perineal trauma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; 12: CD006672.

  2. Baghestan E, Irgens LM, Børdahl PE, Rasmussen S. Trends in risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injuries in Norway. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116 (1): 25-34.

  3. Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell D, Edozien L, Mahmood T, Adams E, Richmond D, et al. Third- and fourth-degree perineal tears among primiparous women in England between 2000 and 2012: time trends and risk factors. BJOG. 2013; 120 (12): 1516-1525.

  4. Hirayama F, Koyanagi A, Mori R, Zhang J, Souza J, Gulmezoglu A. Prevalence and risk factors for third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations during vaginal delivery: a multi-country study. BJOG. 2012; 119 (3): 340-347.

  5. Landy HJ, Laughon SK, Bailit JL, Kominiarek MA, Gonzalez-Quintero VH, Ramirez M et al. Characteristics associated with severe perineal and cervical lacerations during vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117 (3): 627-635.

  6. Harvey MA, Pierce M. Lésions obstétricales du sphincter anal (LOSA): Prévention, identification et reparation. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016; 38 (12S): S740-S761.

  7. Groutz A, Hasson J, Wengier A, Gold R, Skornick-Rapaport A, Lessing JB et al. Third- and fourth-degree perineal tears: prevalence and risk factors in the third millennium. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204 (4): 347.e1-4.

  8. Meister MR, Cahill AG, Conner SN, Woolfolk CL, Lowder JL. Predicting obstetric anal sphincter injuries in a modern obstetric population. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215 (3): 310-e1-7.

  9. Schmitz T, Alberti C, Andriss B, Moutafoff C, Oury JF, Sibony O. Identification of women at high risk for severe perineal lacerations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014; 182: 11-15.

  10. Pergialiotis V, Vlachos D, Protopapas A, Pappa K, Vlachos G. Risk factors for severe perineal lacerations during childbirth. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2014; 125 (1): 6-14.

  11. Boyles SH, Li H, Mori T, Osterweil P, Guise JM. Effect of mode of delivery on the incidence of urinary incontinence in primiparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113 (1): 134-141.

  12. Rådestad I, Olsson A, Nissen E, Rubertsson C. Tears in the vagina, perineum, sphincter ani, and rectum and first sexual intercourse after childbirth: a nationwide follow-up. Birth. 2008; 35 (2): 98-106.

  13. Macarthur AJ, Macarthur C. Incidence, severity, and determinants of perineal pain after vaginal delivery: a prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191 (4): 1199-1204.

  14. Andrews V, Sultan AH, Thakar R, Jones PW. Occult anal sphincter injuries-myth or reality? BJOG. 2006; 113 (2): 195-200.

  15. Williams A, Lavender T, Richmond DH, Tincello DG. Women’s experiences after a third-degree obstetric anal sphincter tear: a qualitative study. Birth. 2005; 32 (2): 129-136.

  16. Gossett DR, Deibel P, Lewicky‐Gaupp C. A case–control study of the relationship between a passive second stage of labor and obstetric anal sphincter injuries. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016; 132 (2): 188-190.

  17. Ismail SI. The management of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS): A national postal questionnaire survey in hospitals in the UK. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015; 35 (3): 229-234.

  18. The Royal College of Midwives. Evidence based guidelines for midwifery-led care in labour. Immersion in water for labour and birth; 2012. Published 2012. [Accessed of May 7 2015].

  19. Cortes E, Basra R, Kelleher CJ. Waterbirth and pelvic floor injury: a retrospective study and postal survey using ICIQ modular long form questionnaires. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011; 155 (1): 27-30.

  20. Otigbah CM, Dhanjal MK, Harmsworth G, Chard T. A retrospective comparison of water births and conventional vaginal deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2000; 91 (1): 15-20.

  21. Kiani K, Shahpourian F, Sedighian H, Hosseini F. Effect of water birth on labor pain during active phase of labor. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2011; 107 (S2): S93-S396.

  22. Lim KM, Tong PS, Chong YS. A comparative study between the pioneer cohort of waterbirths and conventional vaginal deliveries in an obstetrician-led unit in Singapore. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecology. 2016; 55 (3): 363-367.

  23. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of third and fourth degree perineal tears. Green Top Guideline No. 29. Available in: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg-29.pdf

  24. Mayerhofer K, Bodner-Adler B, Bodner K, Rabl M, Kaider A, Wagenbichler P et al. El cuidado tradicional del periné durante el parto: un estudio prospectivo, aleatorizado, multicéntrico de 1,076 mujeres. J Reprod Med. 2002; 47 (6): 477-482.

  25. Ampt AJ, De VroomeM, Ford JB. “Hands off/poised” or “hands on” at birth—a survey of midwifery practice among five hospitals in Northern Sydney Local Health District. Poster Presentations. A357. J Paediatr Child Health. 2015; 51 (Suppl. 1): 115.

  26. McPherson KC, Beggs AD, Sultan AH, Thakar R. Can the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIs) be predicted using a risk-scoring system? BMC Res Notes. 2014; 7 (1): 471.

  27. Samuelsson E, Ladfors L, Wennerholm UB, Gåreberg B, Nyberg K, Hagberg H. Anal sphincter tears: prospective study of obstetric risk factors. BJOG. 2000; 107 (7): 926-931.

  28. Cluett ER, Burns E. Immersion in water in labour and birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; 2: CD000111.

  29. Mollamahmutoğlu L, Moraloğlu O, Ozyer S, Su FA, Karayalçın R, Hançerlioğlu N et al. The effects of immersion in water on labor, birth and newborn and comparison with epidural analgesia and conventional vaginal delivery. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2012; 13 (1): 45-49.

  30. Geissbuehler V, Eberhard J. Waterbirths: a comparative study. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2000; 15 (5): 291-300.

  31. Geissbuehler V, Stein S, Eberhard J. Waterbirths compared with landbirths: an observational study of nine years. J Perinat Med. 2004; 32 (4): 308-314. doi: 10.1515/JPM.2004.057

  32. Menakaya U, Albayati S, Vella E, Fenwick J, Angstetra D. 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. 2013; 26 (2): 114-118.

  33. Dahlen HG, Dowling H, Tracy M, Schmied V, Tracy S. 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 (7): 759-764.

  34. Nutter, Elizabeth et al. Waterbirth: an integrative analysis of peer-reviewed literature. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014; 59 (3): 286-319.

  35. Poder TG, Larivière M. Advantages and disadvantages of water birth. A systematic review of the literature. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2014; 42 (10): 706-713.

  36. Committee on Obstetric Practice, and American Academy of Pediatrics. ACOG Committee Opinion no. 594: Immersion in water during labor and delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123 (4): 912-915.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com