Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 15, No. 5, 2000
Issue release date: September–October 2000
Fetal Diagn Ther 2000;15:291–300
(DOI:10.1159/000021024)

Waterbirths: A Comparative Study

A Prospective Study on More than 2,000 Waterbirths

Geissbühler V. · Eberhard J.
Clinic for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Thurgauisches Kantonsspital, Frauenfeld, Switzerland

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

Background: Waterbirths were introduced in 1991 as part of a new birth concept which consisted of careful monitoring and birth management, restrictive use of invasive methods and free choice of different birth methods. Methods: After the introduction of this new birth concept a prospective observational study was initiated. All parturients of the region give birth in our clinic without preselection, ours being the only birth clinic of the region. 2% of the parturients will be referred to a larger birth clinic (university clinic) mainly because of preterm births before the end of the 33rd week of pregnancy. Every one of the 7,508 births between November 1991, and May 21, 1997, was analyzed. In this article the birth parameters of mother and child in the most often chosen spontaneous birth methods will be compared to assess the safety of alternative birth methods in general and of waterbirths in particular. 2,014 of these 5,953 spontaneous births were waterbirths, 1,108 were Maia-birthing stool births and 2,362 bedbirths (vacuum extractions not included). Results: The parity and age of the mother as well as the newborn’s birth weight are comparable in all 3 groups: waterbirth, Maia-birthing stool, and bedbirths. An episiotomy was performed in only 12.8% of the births in water, in 27.7% of the births on the Maia-birthing stool and in 35.4% of the bedbirths. These differences are statistically significant. In spite of the highest episiotomy rates, the bedbirths also show the highest 3rd- and 4th-degree laceration rates (4.1%), thus the difference between the rates for bedbirths and alternative births methods for severe lacerations is significant. The mothers’ blood loss is the lowest in waterbirths. Fewer painkillers are used in waterbirths and the experience of birth itself is more satisfying after a birth in water. The average arterial blood pH of the umbilical cord as well as the Apgar scoring at 5 and 10 min are significantly higher after waterbirths. Infections of the neonate do not occur more often after waterbirths. No case of water aspiration or any other perinatal complication of the mother or child which might be water-related was reported. Conclusion: Waterbirths and other alternative forms of birthing such as Maia-birthing stool do not demonstrate higher birth risks for the mother or the child than bedbirths if the same medical criteria are used in the monitoring as well as in the management of birth.

Copyright © 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Eberhard J, Geissbühler V: Influence of alternative birth methods on traditional birth management. Fetal Diagn Ther 2000;15:281–288.

    External Resources

  2. Odent M: Birth under water. Lancet 1983;ii:1476–1477.
  3. Rosenthal MJ: Warm-water immersion in labor and birth. Female Patient 1991;16:35–47.
  4. Church LK: Water birth: One birthing center’s observations. J Nurse Midwifery 1989;4:165–170.
  5. Kamayani DC: Water birth: A European perspective. J Nurse Midwifery 1989;4:190–192.
  6. Eberhard J, Eldering G, Fasnacht B: Wassergeburt – eine sträfliche Modetorheit? Perinatalmedizin 1993;5:31–32.
  7. Dudenhausen JW: Unterwassergeburt. Perinatalmedizin 1992;4:57.
  8. Prinz W: Alternative Geburtshilfe: Sanfte Geburt – Hausgeburt – Unterwassergeburt. Perinatalmedizin 1993;5:20–29.
  9. Dudenhausen JW: Bericht des 1. Vorsitzenden, Mitgliederversammlung, ICCC Berlin, 1993. Perinatalmedizin 1994;6:2–6.
  10. Berg D: Entwicklungen und Wandlungen in der Geburtshilfe. Gynäkol Geburtsh 1991;2:95–101.
  11. Thumfart J: Verordnung des Landes Oberösterreich über die sanfte Geburt bzw. Unterwassergeburt, Oct 1991.
  12. Eberhard J, Geissbühler V: Konzept einer natürlichen sicheren Geburtshilfe. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1992;252(suppl):141.
  13. Walser B, Besek S, Geissbühler V, Eberhard J: Natürliche Geburt – Bett, Stuhl oder Wanne. Ein geburtshilfliches Konzept. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1992;252(suppl):141.
  14. Geissbühler V, Amati D, Fehr M, Eberhard J: Geburt auf dem Bett, auf dem Maia-Stuhl oder im Wasser. Ergebnisse einer prospektiven Studie. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1992;252(suppl):142.
  15. Geissbühler V, Eberhard J: Alternative Geburtsmedizin Frauenfeld. Hintergründe und erste Ergebnisse einer prospektiven Studie. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1995;257:161–162.
  16. Geissbühler V, Eberhard J: Alternative Gebärmethoden im Krankenhaus; in Vetter K (ed): Die Geburt. Stuttgart: Fischer, 1996.
  17. Eldering G, Gutke A: Entwickung der alternativen Geburtshilfe am Beispiel der Frauenklinik Bensberg; in Siebert W, Eldering G (eds): Alternativen der klinischen Geburtshilfe. München, Hans Marseille Verlag, 1995, pp 65–74.
  18. Eldering G, Selke K: Wassergeburt – eine mögliche Entbindungsform? Geburtsh Frauenheilk 1996;58:670–676.
  19. Steffen G: Ist der routinemässige, prophylaktische Dammschnitt gerechtfertigt? Überblick über neuere Forschungsarbeiten, ed 2. Frankfurt, Mabuse, 1992.
  20. Graham ID: Episiotomy. Challenging Obstetric Interventions. Oxford, Blackwell Science, 1997.
  21. Thacker SB, Banta HD: Benefits and risks of episiotomy: An interpretive review of the English language literature, 1860–1980. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1983;38:322–338.

    External Resources

  22. Thorp JM, Bowes WA: Episiotomy: Can its routine use be defended? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160:1027–1030.

    External Resources

  23. Klein M, Gauthier RJ, Jorgensen SH, et al: Does episiotomy prevent perineal trauma and pelvic floor relaxation? Online J Curr Clin Trials 1992, July 1; Doc 10 (Medline).
  24. McGuiness M, Norr K, Nacion K: Comparison between different perineal outcomes on tissue healing. J Nurse Midwifery 1991;36:192–198.
  25. Tchobroutsky C, Merlet C, Rey P: The driving reflex in rabbit, sheep and newborn lamb and its afferent pathways. Resp Physiol 1969;8:108–117.
  26. Gooden BA: Drowning and the diving reflex in man. Med J Aust 1972;2:583–587.

    External Resources

  27. Johnson P: Birth under water – To breathe or not to breathe. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;103:202–208.
  28. Katz VL, Bowes AB: Meconium aspiration syndrome: Reflections on a murky subject. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:171–183.
  29. Rawal J, Shah A, Stirk F, Mehtar S: Water birth and infection in babies. BMJ 1994;209:511.
  30. Hawkins S: Water vs. conventional births: Infection rates compared. Nurs Times 1995;91:38–40.
  31. Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, Renfrew M, Neilson J: Control of pain in labour; in Enkin M (ed): A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth, ed 2. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995.
  32. Chamberlain G, Wraigth A, Steer P (eds): Pain and Its Relief in Childbirth. The Results of a National Survey Conducted by the National Birthday Trust. New York, Churchill Livingstone, 1993.
  33. Hotz-Amati DM: Geburtserwartungen und Geburtserlebnis in der alternativen Geburtsmedizin; Dissertation, Zürich, 1994.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50