Full
length
article
Peanut
ball
for
decreasing
length
of
labor:
A
systematic
review
and
meta-analysis
of
randomized
controlled
trials
Jessica
M.
Grenvik
a,
Emily
Rosenthal
a,
Gabriele
Saccone
b,
Luigi
Della
Corte
b,
Johanna
Quist-Nelson
a,
Richard
D.
Gerkin
d,
Alexis
C.
Gimovsky
c,
Mei
Kwan
e,
Rebecca
Mercier
a,
Vincenzo
Berghella
a,*
a
DivisionofMaternal-FetalMedicine,DepartmentofObstetricsandGynecology,SidneyKimmelMedicalCollegeofThomasJeffersonUniversity,Philadelphia, PA,USA
b
DepartmentofNeuroscience,ReproductiveSciencesandDentistry,SchoolofMedicine,UniversityofNaplesFedericoII,Naples,Italy
c
DivisionofMaternal-FetalMedicine,DepartmentofObstetricsandGynecology,TheGeorgeWashingtonUniversitySchoolofMedicineandHealthSciences, Washington,DC,USA
d
DepartmentofInternalMedicine,UniversityofArizonaCollegeofMedicinePhoenix,Phoenix,AZ,USA
eDepartmentofObstetricsandGynecology,KaiserPermanenteOrchardMedicalOffices,Downey,CA,USA
ARTICLE INFO
Articlehistory: Received31July2019
Receivedinrevisedform18September2019 Accepted19September2019 Keywords: Peanutball Lengthoflabor Vaginaldelivery Cesareansection Laboranddelivery
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Prolonged length of labor is associated with increased maternal and neonatal
complications.Therefore,greatattentionhasbeengiventointerventionsaimedatreducingthelength
oflabor.Onesuchinterventionisthepeanutball,alargeelongatedexerciseballplacedbetweena
woman’slegsduringlabor.
Objective:Theaimofthissystematicreviewandmeta-analysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials(RCTs)was
toassesstheeffectoftheuseofpeanutballinreducinglengthoflabor.
StudyDesign:Datasources:MEDLINE,EMBASE,WebofSciences,Scopus,ClinicalTrial.gov,OVIDand
CochraneLibraryweresearchedfrominceptionuntilJanuary2019.Selectioncriteria:Selectioncriteria
includedRCTsoflaboringwomenwithsingletongestationsincephalicpresentationatterm(37weeks)
whowererandomizedtoeitheruseofpeanutballorcontrolgroup(nopeanutball).DataCollectionand
Analysis:Fourtrialswith648nulliparousandmultiparouswomeninspontaneousorinducedlaborwere
identifiedandincluded.330womenwererandomizedtotheintervention(peanutballbetweenthe
kneesduringlabor)and318womentothecontrol.Summarymeasureswerereportedasmeandifference
(MD)with95%ofconfidenceinterval(CI)usingtherandomeffectsmodelofDerSimonianandLaird.The
primaryoutcomewastotallengthoflabor.PROSPERORegistrationNumber:CRD42018082438
Results:Totallengthoflaborwas79minshorterinthepeanutballgroup,butthiswasnotsignificant(MD
79.1min,95%CI 204.9,46.7).Peanutballuseshowedtrendstowardhigherincidenceofspontaneous
vaginaldeliveries(RR1.1,95%CI1.0, 1.2)andlowerincidenceofcesareandeliveries(RR0.8,95%CI0.6,1.0).
Conclusions:Peanutballusewasnotassociatedwithasignificantdecreaseintotallengthoflabor.Since
thereweretrendstowardreductionsinlengthoflabor,anincreasedincidenceinspontaneousvaginal
deliveries,andlowerincidenceofcesareandeliveries,moreresearchisneeded.
©2019ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.
Introduction
Prolongedlaborisassociatedwithincreasedmaternal compli-cationssuchaschorioamnionitis,perineallacerations,endometritis, postpartumhemorrhage,aswellasperinatalcomplicationssuchas
neonatalsepsis,lowerApgarscores,andincreasedadmissiontothe neonatalintensivecareunit(NICU)[1,2].
Prolonged labor and failure to progress are common
indications for cesarean delivery [3].Cesarean delivery may
subject the womanto a longer recovery timeand increased
risk of complications during the postpartum period and in
futurepregnancies.Therefore,greatattentionhasbeengiven tointerventionsaimedatreducingthelengthoflabor[4–15]. Midwivesandnursescommonlyusetraditionalbirthingballs (also knownas Swiss balls) to increase maternal comfort, and widenthepelvicoutlet[13–15].Analternativetothetraditional
* Correspondingauthorat:DivisionofMaternal-FetalMedicine,Departmentof ObstetricsandGynecology,ThomasJeffersonUniversity,833ChestnutStreet,First Floor,Philadelphia,PA,19107,USA.
E-mailaddress:vincenzo.berghella@jefferson.edu(V.Berghella).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.09.018
0301-2115/©2019ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
European
Journal
of
Obstetrics
&
Gynecology
and
Reproductive
Biology
birthingballisthepeanutball,alargeelongatedplasticballshaped likeapeanutshellthatisplacedbetweenawoman’slegsduring laborwhilesheislyinginthelateralrecumbentposition[16–19]. Thispositionisthoughttomimictheuprightpositionandfacilitate wideningof thepelvisandfetaldescent[17].However,thereis limitedresearchavailabledetailingitsefficacyasalaboringtool andprovidingguidelinesforitsuse.
Objective
Thus, theaimofthissystematicreviewandmeta-analysisof randomizedcontrolledtrialswastoassesstheeffectoftheuseof peanutballinreducinglengthoflabor.
Methods Searchstrategy
Thismeta-analysiswasperformedaccordingtotheCochrane protocolrecommended for systematic review [20]. The review protocolwas designed a prioridefining methods for collecting, extractingandanalyzingdata.Theresearchwasconductedusing
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Sciences, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov,
OVIDandCochraneLibraryaselectronicdatabases.Thetrialswere identified withthe use of a combination of the following text words:“peanut ball,”“peanutball”,“peanut laborball”, “peanut shapedball”fromtheinceptionofeachdatabasetoJanuary2019. Norestrictionsforlanguageorgeographiclocationwereapplied.In addition,thereferencelistsofallidentifiedarticleswereexamined toidentifystudiesnotcapturedbyelectronicsearches.
Studyselectionandriskofbias
Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials of laboringwomenwithsingletongestationswithcephalic presen-tationsatterm(>=37weeks)whowererandomizedtoeitheruse of peanut ball or control group (i.e. no peanut ball). Multiple gestationsandpretermbirthswereexcluded.
Theriskofbiasineachincludedstudywasassessedbyusingthe criteriaoutlinedintheCochraneHandbookforSystematicReviewsof Interventions [20]. Seven domains related to risk of bias were assessedineachincludedtrial,sincethereisevidencethatthese issuesareassociatedwithbiasedestimatesoftreatmenteffect:1)
random sequence generation; 2) allocation concealment; 3)
blindingof participantsand personnel; 4) blindingof outcome assessment;5)incompleteoutcomedata;6)selectivereporting; and7)otherbias.Reviewauthors’judgmentswerecategorizedas “lowrisk,”“highrisk”or“unclearrisk”ofbias.
Outcomes
Allanalysesweredoneusinganintention-to-treatapproach, evaluatingwomenaccordingtothetreatmentgrouptowhichthey wererandomlyallocatedintheoriginaltrials.
Theprimaryoutcomeofthismeta-analysiswasthetotallength oflabor.Secondary outcomeswerelengthofthefirststageand secondstageoflabor,modeofdelivery,andneonataloutcomes, includingbirthweightandApgarscore.Outcomeswereassessed insubgroupanalysesbyparity.
Dataanalysis
The dataanalysiswas completed usingReviewManager 5.3
(Copenhagen:The NordicCochraneCentre,Cochrane
Collabora-tion,2014).Between-studyheterogeneitywasexploredusingthe I2 statistic, which represents the percentage of between-study
variationthatisduetoheterogeneityratherthanchance.Avalueof 0%indicatesnoobservedheterogeneity,whereasI2valuesof50% indicateasubstantiallevelofheterogeneity.
Thesummarymeasureswerereportedassummaryrelativerisk (RR)orassummarymeandifference(MD)with95%ofconfidence interval(CI)usingtherandomeffectsmodelofDerSimonianand Laird.
All review stages were conducted independently by two
reviewers (JG, ER). The two authors independently assessed
electronicsearch,eligibilityofthestudies,inclusioncriteria,risk of bias, data extraction and data analysis. Disagreements were resolvedbydiscussionwithathirdreviewer(VB).
The meta-analysis was reported following the Preferred
Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
(PRISMA)statement[21].Fig.1showstheflowdiagram(PRISMA template)ofinformationthroughthedifferentphasesofreview.
The meta-analysis was registered with the PROSPERO
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. The registrationnumberisCRD42018082438.
Results
Studyselectionandstudycharacteristics
Fourtrialswereincludedinthemeta-analysis[16–19].Alltrials
included only women with singleton gestations with cephalic
presentationatorafter37weeksgestationwhochoseanepidural fortheirlaborpainmanagement.Atotalof648nulliparousand
multiparous women in spontaneous or induced labor were
included. Of the 648 women included, 330 (50.93%) were
randomized to the intervention group (peanut ball) and 318
(49.1%)wererandomizedtothecontrolgroup (nopeanut ball) (Table1).
The intervention group (peanut ball) involved the use of a peanutshapedexerciseballplacedbetweenthekneesusuallysoon after the epidural and until 10cm dilation. The control group receivedstandardcarewithnouseofthepeanutball(Table2).
Oxytocinuse was only reported in two of the four studies
[17,19].Inthestudiesthatreportedoxytocinuse, 115of150women (76.7%)inthepeanutballgroupreceivedoxytocinand108of137 women(78.8%)inthecontrolgroupreceivedoxytocin.Threeof fourstudiesreportedinductionoflabor[16,17,19].Inonestudy,all womeninbothgroupswereinduced[16].Intheothertwostudies, 54of150women(36%)inthepeanutballgroupwereinducedand
52 of 137 women (38.0%) in the control group were induced
(Table3).
Riskofbiasofincludedstudies
The quality of the RCTs included in our meta-analysis was
assessedbyusingthecriteriaoutlinedintheCochraneHandbook
forSystematicReviewsofInterventions.Alltheincludedstudies hadlow riskofbiasin“randomsequencegeneration”Adequate methods forallocationofwomenwereusedinalltheincluded studies(Fig.2).Testsforfunnelplotasymmetrywerecarriedout
only with an exploratory aim because the total number of
publicationsincludedforeachoutcomewaslessthanten. Synthesisofresults
Theprimaryoutcome,totallengthoflabor,wasonlyreported inoneoutofthefourtrials[16].Inthistrial,totallengthoflabor
was 79minshorter in the peanutball group compared tothe
controlgroup;however,thisdifferenceisnotsignificant(MD 79.1min,95%CI 204.9,46.7;1study;170participants;Fig.3). Whenanalyzedbyparity,therewasalsonosignificantdifference intotallengthoflaborbetweenpeanutballversusnopeanutball
groupsinnulliparouswomenonly(MD 94.6min,95%CI 298.5,
109.3;1study;62participants;Table6)ormultiparouswomen
only (MD 89.7 min, 95% CI 238.4, 59.0; 1 study; 108
participants;Table7).
Length of thefirst stage of laborwas 53minshorterin the peanut ballgroupversusthe controlgroup,and thisdifference
approached significance (MD 53.2min, 95% CI 110.8,4.3; 4
studies;648participants;I2=60%;Table4).Thisdatawasfurther
analyzedbasedonparity.Innulliparouswomen,lengthofthefirst stageof laborwas 48minshorterin thepeanut ballversusno peanut ball group;however, this differencewas not significant (MD 48.4min,95%CI 110.7,13.7;4studies;429participants; I2=49%;Table6).Similarly,formultiparouswomen,thelengthof
thefirststageoflaborwas65minshorterinthepeanutballgroup,
but the difference was not significant (MD 64.6 min, 95%
CI 132.2,2.9];2studies;198participants;I2=0%;Table7).
There was alsonosignificantdifference in thelengthofthe secondstageoflaborinthepeanutballgroupversusnopeanutball
Table1 StudyCharacteristics. Location Intervention group(n) Control group(n)
Parity Exclusioncriteria
Roth201616
USA 89 81 Nulliparous and multiparous
Initially,therewerenoexclusioncriteriaotherthanthoseimpliedbyinclusioncriteria. ResearcherslaterdecidedtoexcludefromanalysisallwomenwhorequiredC-section becausemostdidnotreach10cmdilation.
Tussey201517 USA 107 94 Nulliparous
and multiparous
Preeclampsiarequiringmagnesiumsulfate;intrauterineinfection;Category3fetalheart tracing
Evans201618
USA 91 100 Nulliparous Highriskpregnancies;musculoskeletaldisorders;pretermorpost-termgestation;diabetes; useofmagnesiumsulfate;plannedcesareandelivery
Mercier201819
USA 43 43 Nulliparous Multiparous,multiplegestation,under18yearsold,non-Englishspeakers,majorfetal congenitalanomalies
Table2
Interventionandcontrolgroups.
Howpeanutballwasused Whenenrolledinlabor Wheninlabor started
Wheninlabor ended
Controlgroup
Roth201616
Peanutballplacedbetweenknees.Additional lateralrotationofbodypositionevery30minutes.
Uponpresentingfor inductionoflabor
Within 30minutesof epidural.
At10cmdilation Nopeanutball,maximum onepillowbetween knees.
Tussey201517
Peanutballplacedbetweenknees.Additional changingofbodypositionevery1-2hoursafter epiduraladministration.
Afterreceivingepidural Immediately afterepidural.
At10cmdilation andafterpassive decentoffetus.
Nopeanutball
Evans201618
Peanutballplacedbetweenknees. Notreported Within 30minutesof epidural.
At10cmdilation Nopeanutball,receiving standardcareusing pillowsandwedges Mercier201819
Peanutballplacedbetweenkneesforatleast 15minutesperhouroflabor.
UponpresentingtoLabor andDeliveryforlaboror laborinduction
Uponreaching 6cmorgreater dilation
At10cmdilation Nopeanutball,maximum 2pillowsbetweenknees.
group (MD 11.7 min, 95% CI 33.6 to 10.2; 2 studies; 371 participants;I2=81%;Table4).Whenanalyzedbasedonparity, therewasnosignificantdifferencebetweengroupsinnulliparous women(MD 19.7,95%CI 45.7to6.4;2studies;152participants; I2=46%;Table6)orinmultiparouswomen(MD 5.5min,95% CI 11.6,0.7;2studies;198participants;I2=0%;Table7).
Use ofthe peanut ball versus no peanut ball resulted in
trendsfor higher incidence of spontaneous vaginal delivery
(RR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0, 1.2; 4 studies; 648 participants; I2=0%; Table4)andlowerincidenceofcesareandelivery(RR0.8,95% CI 0.6, 1.0; 4 studies; 648 participants; I2=0%; Table 4).
Subgroupanalysesoftheseoutcomesinnulliparous(Table6)
andmultiparouswomen(Table7)concurredwiththeoverall
analysis(Figs.4and5).
There was not a significant difference in rate of operative
vaginal delivery in peanut ball versus no peanut ball group
(Table4)overall,orinsubgroupanalysesofnulliparous(Table6) andmultiparouswomen(Table7).Therewasalsonosignificant differencefoundinneonataloutcomessuchasApgarscoreand birthweight(Table5).
Discussion Mainfindings
Thismeta-analysisincludedfourtrialswith648participants andaimedtoevaluatelengthof labor,and potentialharmsand benefits of peanuts ball in singleton gestations with cephalic
presentation at term with epidural anesthesia. This study
demonstratedthatuseofthepeanutballduringlaborresultsin a non-significant reduction intotal lengthoflaborbyoverone hour.Similarly,atrendtowardreductionoffirstandsecondstage oflaborwasalsofoundinthepeanutballgroupversusthecontrol group,thoughthistrendwasnotsignificant.Therewasalsoaslight increasedincidenceofspontaneousvaginaldeliveryanddecreased incidenceofcesareandelivery,andthesedataapproachedbutdid notreachstatisticalsignificance.Thesefindingssuggestthatwhile thereisnosignificantbenefit associatedwithuseofthepeanut ball,theremaybepossiblereductioninthelengthoflaborand possibleincreasedincidenceofspontaneousvaginaldelivery,with moreresearchanddataneeded.
Table3
Labormanagement.
Oxytocin Induction
Roth201616 Notreported Allwomenwereinduced
PB:78/78(100%)NoPB:71/71(100%) Tussey201517
PB:Oxytocinusedin85/107(79.3%)NoPB:Oxytocinusedin74/94(79.8%) PB:30/107(28.0%)wereinduced NoPB:29/94(31.5%)wereinduced Evans201618
Notreported Notreported
Mercier201819
PB:Oxytocinusedin30/43(70%)NoPB:Oxytocinusedin34/43(79%) PB:24/43(55%)NoPB:23/43(53%) PB,peanutball.
Fig.2. Assessmentofriskofbias.(A)Summaryofriskofbiasforeachtrial;Plussign:lowriskofbias;minussign:highriskofbias;questionmark:unclearriskofbias.(B)Risk ofbiasgraphabouteachriskofbiasitempresentedaspercentagesacrossallincludedstudies.
Strengths,limitations,andcomparisonwithexistingliterature Thismeta-analysishasseveralstrengths.All randomized con-trolledtrialspublishedonthistopicwereincludedinthisanalysis.To ourknowledge,thisisthefirstmeta-analysisexaminingwhetheruse ofthepeanutballreducesthelengthoflabor.
Limitationsofthisanalysisareinherenttothelimitationsofthe includedRCTs.Onlyfourtrialswereincluded,andonlyonestudy
reporteddataontheprimaryoutcome.Defininglengthoflaboris
challenging since it often depends onwhen a woman initially
presentsforlaboriflaborisspontaneous.Iflaborisinduced,itis stillchallengingbecausetechniquesusedforcervicalripeningcan varybetweenpatientsand providers.However,thefact thatall studiesinthisanalysisarerandomizedshouldmitigatesomeof this variability. Additionally, subgroup analyses in RCTs are consideredtobeprovisional;therefore,anysubgroupanalysisin
Fig.2.(Continued)
Fig.3. Forestplotfortotallengthoflabor.
Table4
Obstetricoutcomes.
Totallengthoflabor(min) 1st
stage(min) 2nd
stage(min) SVD OVD CD
Roth201616 423.8(353.6) vs502.9(469.0) 370.1(341.5)vs 449.3(456.1) 53.7(47.6)vs 53.6(54.0) 73/86(84.9%)vs 70/84(83.3%) 4/86(4.7%)vs4/ 84(4.8%) 9/86(10.5%)vs 10/84(11.9%) Tussey201517 Notreported 250.9(185.9)vs 343.0(214.3) 21.5(25.0)vs 43.8(52.1) 87/107(81.3%)vs 64/94(68.1%) 9/107(8.4%)vs 11/94(11.7%) 11/107(10.3%)vs 19/94(21.1%) Evans201618 Notreported 331.3(187.1)vs 322.7(174) Notreported 70/91(76.9%)vs 69/100(69.0%) 0/91vs0/100 21/91(23.1%)vs 31/100(31.0%) Mercier201819 Notreported 315(176)vs387 (227) Notreported 29/43(67.4%)vs 28/43(65.1%) 0/43vs0/43 14/43(32.6%)vs 15/43(34.9%) Total 424vs503 317vs376 38vs49 259/327(79.2%) vs231/321 (72.0%) 13/327(4.0%)vs 15/321(4.7%) 55/327(16.8%)vs 75/321(23.4%) I2 N/A 60% 81% 0% 0% 0% RRorMD (95%CI) 79.1[ 204.9 to46.7] 53.2[ 110.8to 4.3] 11.7[ 33.6to 10.2] 1.1[1.0to1.2] 0.8[0.4to1.6] 0.8[0.6to1.0]
Datapresentedasnumbers(percentage)orasmean(standarddeviation)intheintervention(peanutball)vscontrol(nopeanutball)group.
RR,relativerisk;MD,meandifference;CI,confidenceinterval;SVD,spontaneousvaginaldelivery;OVD,operativevaginaldelivery;CD,cesareandelivery.
Fig.5. Forestplotforcesareandeliveryinnulliparouswomen.
Table5
Neonataloutcomes.
Birthweight(grams) Apgarscoreat1min Apgarscoreat10min Roth201616
Notreported Notreported Notreported
Tussey201517 3,456(452)vs3393(609) 8.2(1.2)vs8.2(1.5) 8.8(1.2)vs8.8(1.0)
Evans201618 Notreported Notreported Notreported
Mercier201819
3,254(466)vs3281(509) Notreported Notreported
Total 3,355vs3,337 8.2vs8.2 8.8vs8.8
I2
0% Notapplicable Notapplicable
MD(95%CI) 28.8[ 98.4to156.0] 0.0[ 0.4to0.4] 0.0[ 0.3to0.3] Datapresentedasnumbers(percentage)orasmean(standarddeviation)intheintervention(peanutball)vscontrol(nopeanutball)group.
MD,meandifference;CI,confidenceinterval.
Table6
Obstetricsoutcomesinsubgroupanalysesofnulliparouswomen.
Totallengthoflabor(min) 1ststage(min) 2ndstage(min) SVD OVD CD
Roth201616 605.6(403.9)vs 700.2(410.6) 502.9(412.7)vs 596.7(408.5) 102.8(49.9)vs 103.5(69.7) 22/34(64.7%)vs 16/28(57.1%) 4/34 (11.8%)vs3/28 (10.7%) 8/34 (23.5%)vs9/28 (10.7%) Tussey201517 Notreported 303.8(230.7)vs
401.1(197.1) 33.7(27.5)vs62.7 (60.1) 36/51(70.6%)vs 29/55(44.6%) 4/51(7.8%)vs 8/55(14.5%) 11/51(21.6%)vs 18/55(32.7%) Evans201618 Notreported 331.3(187.1)vs 322.7(174) Notreported 70/91(76.9%)vs 69/100(69.0%) 0/91vs0/100 21/91(23.1%)vs 31/100(31.0%) Mercier201819 Notreported 315(176)vs387 (227) Notreported 29/43(67.4%)vs 28/43(65.1%) 0/43vs0/43 14/43(32.6%)vs 15/43(34.9%) Total 606vs700 363vs376 68vs83 157/219(71.7%) vs142/226 (62.8%) 8/219(3.7%)vs11/ 226(4.9%) 54/219(24.7%)vs 73/226(32.3%) I2 Notapplicable 49% 46% 0% 0% 0% RRorMD(95% CI) 94.6[ 298.5to109.3] 48.5[ 110.7to 13.7] 19.7[ 45.7to 6.4] 1.1[1.0to1.3] 0.7[0.3to1.7] 0.8[0.6to1.0]
Datapresentedasnumbers(percentage)orasmean(standarddeviation)intheintervention(peanutball)vscontrol(nopeanutball)group.
RR,relativerisk;MD,meandifference;CI,confidenceinterval;SVD,spontaneousvaginaldelivery;OVD,operativevaginaldelivery;CD,cesareandelivery.
Table7
Obstetricsoutcomesinsubgroupanalysesofmultiparouswomen. Totallengthoflabor(min) 1st
stage(min) 2nd
stage(min) SVD OVD CD
Roth201616 336.6(292.8)vs 426.3(471.5) 306.4(284.7)vs 392.1(464.7) 30.2(21.4)vs34.2 (29.7) 51/52(98.1%)vs 54/56(96.4%) 0/52vs1/56 (1.8%) 1/52(1.9%)vs1/ 56(1.8%) Tussey201517 Notreported 208.0(126.3)vs
267.1(214.8) 11.6(17.5)vs18.0 (20.0) 56/56(100.0%)vs 31/38(81.6%) 0/56(0.0%)vs3/ 38(7.9%) 0/56(0.0%)vs4/ 38(10.5%) Evans201618 * – – – – – – Mercier201819 * – – – – – – Total 336vs426 257vs330 21vs26 107/108(99.1%) vs85/94(90.4%) 0/108vs4/94 (4.3%) 1/108(0.9%)vs5/ 94(5.3%) I2 N/A 0% 0% 88% 0% 44% RRorMD(95%CI) 89.7[ 238.4to59.0] 64.6[ 132.2to 2.9] 5.5[ 11.6to 0.7] 1.1[0.9to1.4] 0.2[0.0to1.5] 0.3[0.0to4.3]
Datapresentedasnumbers(percentage)orasmean(standarddeviation)intheintervention(peanutball)vscontrol(nopeanutball)group.
RR,relativerisk;MD,meandifference;CI,confidenceinterval;SVD,spontaneousvaginaldelivery;OVD,operativevaginaldelivery;CD,cesareandelivery.
*
thismeta-analysiscannotbeconsideredasdefinitiveasanalysisof therandomizedgroup.
Conclusionsandimplications
Maternalpositioningduringlaborcanbemodifiedtofacilitate fetaldescentandprogressionoflabor.IntheUnitedStates,women mostcommonlylaborin ahorizontalpositionlikely duetothe popularity of epidural anesthesia for pain management [11]. Womenremaininbedafterplacementofepiduralanesthesiadue torisk of postural hypotensionand decreased lowerextremity mobility[11].However,thishorizontalpositionmaybe detrimen-taltotheprogressionoflabor.Thepressureofthebedcausesthe sacrumandcoccyxtobepushedanteriorly,hinderingthenatural wideningofthepelvicoutletand interferingwithfetaldescent [13].Therefore,laboringinanuprightpositionisfavoredinorder towiden the pelvic outlet and facilitate fetal descent. Upright positioning has also been associated with decreased operative vaginaldelivery,decreasedlengthoffirstandsecondstageoflabor, anddecreasedincidenceofperineallacerations[13].Someupright positionscommonlyused includestanding, squattingorsitting, includingsittingonabirthingball[11].
While ourresults arenot statisticallysignificant, use of the peanutballduringlabormayresultinareductionintotallengthof labor,firststageoflabor,andsecondstageoflabor,aswellastrends for higher rate of vaginal delivery and lower ratefor cesarean delivery.MoredatafromadditionalRCTsareneededtodetermine ifthesetrendsarevalid.
Disclosure
Theauthorsreportnoconflictofinterest. Financialsupport
Nofinancialsupportwasreceivedforthisstudy.
Theauthorsdeclarethefollowingfinancialinterests/personal
relationshipswhich may beconsidered as potential competing
interests:None
DeclarationofCompetingInterest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appearedtoinfluencetheworkreportedinthispaper. References
[1]LaughonSK,BerghellaV,ReddyUM,SundaramR,LuZ,HoffmanMK.Neonatal andmaternaloutcomeswithprolongedsecondstageoflabor.ObstetGynecol 2014;124(July1):57–67.
[2]ChengYW,ShafferBL,BryantAS,CaugheyAB.Lengthofthefirststageoflabor andassociatedperinataloutcomesinnulliparouswomen.ObstetGynecol 2010;116(November5):1127–35.
[3]GiffordDS,MortonSC,FiskeM,KeeseyJ,KeelerE,KahnKL.Lackofprogressin laborasareasonforcesarean.ObstetGynecol2000;95(April4):589–95. [4]AquinoCI,GuidaM,SacconeG,CruzY,VitaglianoA,ZulloF,etal.Perineal
massageduringlabor:asystematicreviewandmeta-analysisofrandomized controlledtrials.JMaternFetalNeonatalMed2018;19:1–13,doi:http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1512574Sep.
[5]RiegelM,Quist-NelsonJ,SacconeG,LocciM,ShrivastavaVK,SalimR,etal. Dextroseintravenousfluidtherapyinlaborreducesthelengthofthefirststage oflabor.EurJObstetGynecolReprodBiol2018;228:284–94,doi:http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.07.019SepEpub2018Jul17.Review..
[6]AquinoCI,SacconeG,TroisiJ,ZulloF,GuidaM,BerghellaV.Useoflubricant geltoshortenthesecondstageoflaborduringvaginaldelivery.JMaternFetal Neonatal Med 2018;27:1–8, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018. 1482271Jun.
[7]SchoenCN,SacconeG, BackleyS,SandbergEM, GuN,DelaneyS,etal. Increasedsingle-balloonFoleycathetervolumeforinductionoflaborandtime todelivery:asystematicreviewandmeta-analysis.ActaObstetGynecolScand 2018;97(September9)1051–60,doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13353Epub 2018Apr25.
[8]SacconeG, CiardulliA, BaxterJK, QuiñonesJN,DivenLC,PinarB, etal. Discontinuingoxytocininfusionintheactivephaseoflabor:asystematic reviewandmeta-analysis.ObstetGynecol2017;130(November5):1090–6, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.000000000000232.
[9]EhsanipoorRM,SacconeG,SeligmanNS,Pierce-WilliamsRAM,CiardulliA, BerghellaV.Intravenousfluidrateforreductionofcesareandeliveryrate innulliparouswomen:asystematicreviewandmeta-analysis.ActaObstet Gynecol Scand 2017;96(July 7):804–11, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs. 13121.
[10]CiardulliA,SacconeG,AnastasioH,BerghellaV.Less-restrictivefoodintake duringlaborinlow-risksingletonpregnancies:asystematicreviewand meta-analysis.ObstetGynecol2017;129(March3):473–80,doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001898.
[11]ShermerRH,RainesDA.Positioningduringthesecondstageoflabor:moving backtobasics.JObstetGynecolNeonatalNurs1997;26(November-December 6):727–34.
[12]CommentaryPaciornikM.Argumentsagainstepisiotomyandin favorof squattingforbirth.Birth1990;17(June2):104–5.
[13]ZwellingE.Overcomingthechallenges:maternalmovementandpositioning tofacilitatelaborprogress.MCNAmJMaternChildNurs2010;35(March-April 2):72–80.
[14]ZwellingE,JohnsonK,AllenJ.Howtoimplementcomplementarytherapiesfor laboringwomen.MCNAmJMaternChildNurs2006;31(November-December 6)36470.
[15]JohnsonJ.Birthballs.MidwiferyToday1997;43:59–67.
[16]RothC,DentSA,ParfittSE,HeringSL,BayRC.Randomizedcontrolledtrialof useofthepeanutballduringlabor.MCNAmJMaternChildNurs 2016;41(May-June3):140–6.
[17]TusseyCM,BotsiosE,GerkinRD,KellyLA,GamezJ,MensikJ.Reducinglength oflaborandcesareansurgeryrateusingapeanutballforwomenlaboringwith anepidural.JPerinatEduc2015;24(1):16–24.
[18]EvansSJ,CremeringM.Useofpeanutlaborballforpelvicpositioningfor nulliparous women following epidural anesthesia. JOGNN: Journal of Obstetric,Gynecologic&NeonatalNursing2016;45(SupplS3):S47. [19]MercierRJ,KwanM.Impactofpeanutballdeviceonthedurationofactive
labor:arandomizedcontroltrial.AmJPerinatol2018;35(10):1006–11. [20]HigginsJPT,GreenS,editors.Cochranehandbookforsystematicreviewsof
interventions, version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 (update March2011).
[21]MoherD, LiberatiA,TetzlaffJ,AltmanDG. Preferredreportingitemsfor systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol2009;62:1006–12.