Spontaneous delivery

  • Jennifer Sleep
Chapter
Part of the Midwifery Practice book series (MIPRA)

Abstract

Most mothers wish to achieve the safe and gentle delivery of their babies whilst retaining their own self esteem and the admiration and respect of their partners. This is especially true as delivery approaches when the pace of activity changes and excitement and anticipation mount. This is the time when a woman feels most vulnerable and dependent upon the influence of those privileged to share the experience. It is therefore the responsibility of professional attendants to safeguard her expectations of a spontaneous delivery by protecting the normal processes from unjustified intervention. In over 75 per cent of births in the UK this professional attendant will be the midwife (RCM 1987). It is she, therefore, who must accept this custodial role.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander S, Cantraine F, Schwers J 1985 Apgar score and cord pH in relation to length of second stage. In Rolfe P (ed) Fetal and neonatal physiological measurements: 59–64. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Avery M D, Burket B A 1986 Effect of perineal massage on the incidence of episiotomy and perineal laceration in a nurse midwifery service. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery 31: 128–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avery M D, Van Arsdale L 1987 Perineal massage: effect on the incidence of episiotomy and laceration in a nulliparous population. Journal of Nurse-Midwifery 32 (3): 181–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassell G M, Humayun S G, Marx G F 1980 Maternal bearing down efforts — another fetal risk? Obstetrics and Gynecology 56: 39–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brendsel J, Madsen H 1980 Intracutaneous suturing of episiotomy wounds. Ugeskr Laeger 142: 3120–22Google Scholar
  6. Buchan P C, Nicholls. J A J 1980 Pain after episiotomy — a comparison of two methods of repair. Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 30: 297–300PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Benyon C L 1957 The normal second stage of labour: a plea for reform in its conduct. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Empire 64: 815–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caldeyro-Barcia R 1979 The influence of maternal bearing down efforts during second stage on fetal well being. Birth and the Family Journal 6 (1): 17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coats P M, Chan K K, Wilkins M, Beard R J 1980 A comparison between midline and mediolateral episiotomies. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 87: 408–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cottrell B H, Shannahan M D 1986 Effect of the birth chair on duration of second stage labour and maternal outcome. Nursing Research 35: 364–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Flint C 1986 Sensitive Midwifery. Heinemann, London: 101–02Google Scholar
  12. Garcia J, Garforth S, Ayers S 1986 Midwives confined? Labour ward policies and routines: 74–80. Research and the Midwife Conference Proceedings, University of ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  13. Gaasemyr M, Hovland E, Bergsjo P 1977 Suturaterialets betydning for tilheling etter episiotomi — sammenlikning mellom cromcatgut og supramid. Fra Medisinske Publikasjoner 2: 1–5Google Scholar
  14. Grant A 1986 Repair of episiotomies and perineal tears. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 93: 417–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grant A 1989 The choice of suture materials and techniques for repair of perineal trauma: an overview of the evidence from controlled trials. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 96 (11): 1281–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen M K, Seines A, Simonsen E, Sorensen K M, Pederson G T 1975 Polyglycolic acid (Dexon) used as suture material for the repair of episiotomies. Ugeskr Laeger 137: 617–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Harrison R F, Brennan M, North P M, Reed J V, Wickham E A 1984 Is routine episiotomy necessary? British Medical Journal 288: 1971–75PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hillan E 1983 The birthing chair trial. Research and the Midwife Conference Proceedings, University of ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  19. Hemminki E, Virkkunen A, Makela A, Hannikainen J, Pulkkis E, Moilanen K, Pasanen M 1986 A trial of delivery in a birth chair. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 6: 162–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Humphrey M, Hounslow. D, Morgan S, Wood C 1973 The influence of maternal posture at birth on the fetus. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology British Commonwealth 80: 1075–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitzinger S 1981 Some women’s experiences of episiotomies. National Childbirth Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Knauth D G, Haloburdo E P 1986 Effect of pushing techniques in birthing chair on length of second stage labour. Nursing Research 35: 49–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kurz C S, Schneider H, Huch R, Huch A 1982 The influence of the maternal position on the fetal transcutaneous oxygen pressure (tcpO2). Journal of Perinatal Medicine 10 (Supplement 2): 74–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Isager-Sally L, Legarth J, Jacobson B, Bustofte E 1986 Episiotomy repair — immediate and long term sequelae. A prospective randomised study of three different methods of repair. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 93: 420–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Khan G, Lilford R J 1987 Wound pain may be reduced by prior infiltration of the episiotomy, site after delivery under epidural anaesthesia. British Journal of obstetrics and Gynaecologists 94: 341–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liddell H S, Fisher P R 1985 The birthing chair in the second stage of labour. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 25: 65–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mahomed K, Grant A, Ashburst H, James D 1989 The Southmead perineal suture study. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 96 (11): 1272–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maresh M, Choong K H, Beard R W 1983 Delayed pushing with lumbar epidural analgesia in labour. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 90: 623–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martindale 1989 Extra pharmacopoeia: 1205–27. Pharmaceutical Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Marttila M, Kajanoja P, Ylikorkala O 1983 Maternal half sitting position in the second stage of labour. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 11: 286–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McQueen J, Mylrea L 1977 Lumbar epidural analgesia in labour. British Medical Journal 1: 640–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moore D C 1983 Systemic toxicity of local anaesthetic drugs. Seminars in Anaesthesia (Regional Anesthesia) 2: 62–74Google Scholar
  33. Noble E 1983 Childbirth with insight: 88. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  34. Pritchard J A, MacDonald P C (eds) 1980 Williams Obstetrics, 16th ed. Appleton Century Crofts, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Roberts J E, Goldstein S A, Gruener J S, Maggio M, Mendez-Bauer C 1987 A descriptive analysis of involuntary bearing down efforts during the expulsive phase of labour. Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Neonatal Nursing 16: 48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roemer V M, Harms K, Buess H, Horvath T J 1976 Response of fetal acid-base balance to duration of second stage of labour. International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 14: 455–71Google Scholar
  37. Royal College of Midwives 1987 Towards a healthy nation. RCM policy document for the maternity services. RCM, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Russell J G 1982 The rationale of primitive delivery positions. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 89: 712–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sleep J M, Grant A, Garcia J, Elbourne D, Spencer J, Chalmers I 1984 West Berkshire perineal management trial. British Medical Journal 289: 587–90PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sleep J, Grant A 1987 West Berkshire perineal management trial: three year follow up. British Medical Journal 295: 749–51PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spencer J A D, Grant A, Elbourne D, Garcia J, Sleep J 1986 A randomised comparison of glycerol impregnated chromic catgut with untreated chromic catgut for the repair of perineal trauma. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 93: 426–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stewart P, Hillan E, Calder A A 1983 A randomised trial to evaluate the use of a birth chair for delivery. Lancet i: 1296–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Thacker S E, Banta H D 1983 Benefits and risks of episiotomy: and interpretative review of the English language literature, 1860–1980. Obstetrical and Gynaecological Survey 38: 322–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thorp J M, Bowes W A, Brame R G, Cefalo R 1987 Selected use of midline episiotomy: effect on perineal trauma. Obstetrics and Gynecology 70: 260–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Turner M J, Romney M L, Webb J B, Gordon H 1986 The birthing chair: an obstetric hazard? Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 6: 232–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wood C, Ng K H, Hounslow D, Benning H 1973 Time — an important variable in normal delivery. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British Commonwealth 80: 295–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suggested further reading

  1. Gardosi J, Sylvester S, Lynch C B 1989 Alternative positions in the second stage of labour: a randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 96 (11): 1290–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Grant A 1989 Repair of perineal trauma after childbirth. In Chalmers I, Erkin M, Kierse M (eds) Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth: 1129–44. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Sleep J. Roberts J, Chalmers I 1989 Care during the Second stage of labour. In Chalmers I, Enkin M, Kierse M (eds) Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth: 1129–44. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Jennifer Sleep 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Sleep

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations