J Korean Soc Matern Child Health.  2019 Jul;23(3):147-154. 10.21896/jksmch.2019.23.3.147.

Outcomes of Maternal and Newborn in Waterbirth; A Review of 3-Year Medical Records in a Natural Birth Center

• Gang JH
• Park HR

• KMID: 2454964
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.21896/jksmch.2019.23.3.147

Abstract

PURPOSE
This study aims to investigate the effects of waterbirth on the maternal delivery process and its safety on the newborn babies.
METHODS
This study is a retrospective study, analyzing the medical records of pregnant women who gave birth at a natural birthing center in Seoul, Republic of Korea. The study compared and analyzed a total of 1,907 medical records of pregnant women, composed of 539 women who used a birthing pool and 1,160 women who did not use a birthing pool from 2015 to 2017. The collected data were analyzed by the chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher exact test using SPSS ver. 22.0. The results are shown in the table below.
RESULTS
The cesarean section rate was lower in the birthing pool use group, compared to the non-birthing pool use group (p=0.038), with the significantly lower cesarean section rate in birthing pool use group among primigravida women in particular (p=0.002). The birthing pool use group also used oxytocin less frequently than the non-birthing pool use group (p=0.001) And especially in primigravida women, the second stage of delivery in birthing pool use group was found to be shorter than that of the non-birthing pool use group (p=0.045). There were no significant differences in the neonatal Apgar score and the neonatal intensive care unit admission rate between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION
This study has its meaning as the first report in Korea that analyzes the effects of waterbirth on the maternal delivery process and its safety on the newborn babies.

Keyword

Waterbirth; Newborn; Safety; Retrospective study

MeSH Terms

Apgar Score
Birthing Centers*
Cesarean Section
Female
Humans
Infant, Newborn*
Intensive Care, Neonatal
Korea
Medical Records*
Oxytocin
Parturition*
Pregnancy
Pregnant Women
Republic of Korea
Retrospective Studies
Seoul
Oxytocin

Reference

Bovbjerg ML., Cheyney M., Everson C. Maternal and newborn outcomes following waterbirth: The Midwives Alliance of North America Statistics Project, 2004 to 2009 Cohort. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2016. 61:11–20.

Burns EE., Boulton MG., Cluett E., Cornelius VR., Smith LA. Characteristics, interventions, and outcomes of women who used a birthing pool: a prospective observational study. Birth. 2012. 39:192–202.

Davies R., Davis D., Pearce M., Wong N. The effect of waterbirth on neonatal mortality and morbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015. 13:180–231.

Demirel G., Moraloglu O., Celik IH., Erdeve O., Mollamahmutoglu L., Oguz SS, et al. The effects of water birth on neonatal outcomes: a five-year result of a referral tertiary centre. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2013. 17:1395–8.

Harper B. Waterbirth basics: from newborn breathing to hospital protocols. Midwifery Today Int Midwife. 2016. (117):32–5.

Kavosi Z., Keshtkaran A., Setoodehzadeh F., Kasraeian M., Khammarnia M., Eslahi M. A comparison of mothers' quality of life after normal vaginal, cesarean, and water birth deliveries. Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery. 2015. 3:198–204.

Lee EJ., Park YS. Meaning of 'natural childbirth' and experiences of women giving birth using midwifery: a feminist approach. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2012. 18:135–48.

Lee SH., Lee MY. Characteristics, motivation of choice and childbirth experience of women who selected delivery at midwifery clinic. Korean Parent-Child Health J. 2013. 16:1–10.

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 Gynecol. 2016. 55:363–7.

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. 26:114–8.

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. 13:45–9.

Nilvér H., Begley C., Berg M. Measuring women's childbirth experiences: a systematic review for identification and analysis of validated instruments. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017. 17:203.

Odent M. Birth under water. Lancet. 1983. 2:1476–7.

Park MI., Gu MG., Seong YM., Ho JG., Jang BY., Kang JG, et al. A clinic study on underwater 650 case. Korean J Obstet Gynecol. 2001. 87:179.

Peacock PJ., Zengeya ST., Cochrane L., Sleath M. Neonatal outcomes following delivery in water: evaluation of safety in a district general hospital. Cureus. 2018. 10:e2208.

Poder TG., Larivière M. Advantages and disadvantages of water birth. A systematic review of the literature. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2014. 42:706–13.

Taylor H., Kleine I., Bewley S., Loucaides E., Sutcliffe A. Neonatal outcomes of waterbirth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2016. 101:F357–65.

Thöni A., Mussner K., Ploner F. Water birthing: retrospective review of 2625 water births. Contamination of birth pool water and risk of microbial cross-infection. Minerva Ginecol. 2010. 62:203–11.

Ulfsdottir H., Saltvedt S., Georgsson S. Waterbirth in Sweden - a comparative study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018. 97:341–8.

Weaver MH. Water birth in the hospital setting. Nurs Womens Health. 2014. 18:365–9.