Impact of waterbirth on post-partum hemorrhage, genital trauma, retained placenta and shoulder dystocia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient high-quality evidence to either support or discourage water birth (WB). OBJECTIVES: To examine different maternal complications of WB compared to standard land birth (LB). The primary outcomes were postpartum hemorrhage and genital trauma. The secondary outcome included the risk of retained placenta and shoulder dystocia. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, EBSCO. In addition, we searched in Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov. The pooled results were used to evaluate the association between WB and obstetric outcomes. This systematic review (SR) was reported according to PRISMA statement 2020. Statistical meta-analyses were performed using Cochrane RevMan version 5.4 software (http://www.cochrane.org). RESULTS: This systematic review included 22 studies (20 observational studies and 2 RCT). The pooled results showed lower risk of major PPH compared to the LB group (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.89), no significant difference (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.50-1.78) in the incidence of minor PPH (500-1000 mL blood loss) between WB and LB, no significant difference in the rate of third- and fourth-degree lacerations (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.71-1.07) and in the incidence of retained placenta (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.50-3,35), fewer shoulder dystocia for WB (OR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.35-0.50). However, compared with the LB group, the rate of first-second-degree tears in the WB group increased by 45% (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.16-1.81). CONCLUSION: We support ACOG guidelines recommendation for further RCT to assess the impact of water immersion during delivery on maternal outcomes.

Amniotic fluid embolism: review.

Amniotic fluid embolism is a rare but dreadful syndrome in Obstetrics, which happens, in most of the cases, in the peripartum period. The actual "embolisation" of the pulmonary vessels does not explain the whole picture of the syndrome. An immune mechanism, similar to an anaphylactic reaction, is more convincingly the background of the event, but the pathogenesis is still ill-defined. Similarly the initial symptoms are difficult to interpret and distinguish from other acute and life-threatening emergencies (i.e. pulmonary embolism, placental abruption, septic shock, stroke, myocardial ischemia, etc.), therefore the diagnosis is one of exclusion, very often on postmortem report. Thus the prevalence of the disease is difficult to establish, most of the reports being postmortem cases or National Registries data. These data, based either on autopsy series or on registries, are non representative of the true prevalence of the event and obviously confusing for the correct understanding of the disease process. Risk factors are all those conditions or manouvres, which contemplate a breech in the maternal-fetal barrier. Again, given the rarity of the syndrome, no single event is clearly identifiable as a case-effect risk factor. Prognosis, which is obviously biased by the reporting system, is particularly grim both in terms of survival and morbidity. The symptoms being often elusive at the beginning, but rapidly and progressively catastrophic, a multidisciplinary team approach is warranted in order to provide the best chance of survival both for mother and baby. Immediate and aggressive resuscitation is, therefore, advised whenever a mother in labour or in the early postpartum period experiences a sudden collapse.