A Retrospective Study of Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes Following Conventional and Water Birth in Ecuador

Sharon Rosales, Esteban Ortiz-Prado, Diego Alarcón, Dayana Rosales and Ana Iturralde

Global Journal of Health Science, 2017, vol. 9, issue 4, 42

Abstract: OBJECTIVES- Demonstrate maternal and neonatal complications reported in women giving birth in water birth compared to those conventional land births.METHODS- An observational retrospective analysis of the incidence of maternal and neonatal outcomes among 358 women who deliver their newborns throughout conventional vaginal delivery and 308 women giving birth in water during 2013 in Quito, Ecuador. Maternal Age, Educational attainment, Neonatal weight, height, APGAR scores, vaginal tearing and the need to resuscitate a newborn were the variables matched for both groups.RESULTS- Among 308 women who were scheduled to deliver their newborns in water, 73% successfully culminate in water vaginal births while 26 % required a C-section. Among the conventional birth group, only 47% ended their pregnancy vaginally as planned and 53% required a C-section.The use of oxytocin (RR- 12.9 CI 7.9 to 20.9 p<0.0001) and intentional episiotomy (RR- 13.9 CI 5.1 to 37.9 p<0.0001) are much higher among conventional birth, however, the risk to have a vaginal tearing during water labor is 3 times higher than conventional birth (RR- 2.9 CI 2.12 to 4.2 p<0.0001). In the conventional delivery cohort 3 neonatal deaths were reported while water birth no deaths reported, however, no causality of these deaths was explored due to the absence of information.CONCLUSIONS- We conclude that water birth is an effective method to deliver children as long as there is an adequate understanding of the risk and benefits of this procedure. Planning a water delivery seems to reduce the risk of using prophylactic uterotonic medication, prophylactic episiotomies and to perform unplanned C-sections. Due to higher incidence of vaginal tears, strict perianal protection during the third stage of labor is recommended.

Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/download/58713/33328 (application/pdf)
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/view/58713 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ibn:gjhsjl:v:9:y:2017:i:4:p:42

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Global Journal of Health Science from Canadian Center of Science and Education Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Canadian Center of Science and Education ().