Women should be encouraged to give birth in comfortable positions, which are usually upright.
In traditional cultures, women naturally give birth in upright positions like kneeling, standing or squatting. In Western societies, doctors have influenced women to give birth on their backs, sometimes with their legs up in stirrups. This review included 22 studies (involving 7280 women). The review of trials found the studies were not of good quality, but they showed that when women gave birth on their backs there was more chance for an assisted delivery, e.g. forceps, there was a higher chance of requiring cuts to the birth outlet, but there was less blood loss. More research is needed.
The findings of this review suggest several possible benefits for upright posture in women without epidural, but with the possibility of increased risk of blood loss greater than 500 mL. Until such time as the benefits and risks of various delivery positions are estimated with greater certainty, when methodologically stringent data from trials are available, women should be allowed to make choices about the birth positions in which they might wish to assume for birth of their babies.
For centuries, there has been controversy around whether being upright (sitting, birthing stools, chairs, squatting, kneeling) or lying down have advantages for women delivering their babies.
To assess the benefits and risks of the use of different positions during the second stage of labour (i.e. from full dilatation of the uterine cervix).
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (28 February 2012).
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of any upright or lateral position assumed by pregnant women during the second stage of labour compared with supine or lithotomy positions. Secondary comparisons include comparison of different upright positions and the lateral position.
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed trial quality. At least two review authors extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy.
Results should be interpreted with caution as the methodological quality of the 22 included trials (7280 women) was variable.
In all women studied (primigravid and multigravid) there was a non-significant reduction in duration of second stage in the upright group (mean difference (MD) -3.71 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -8.78 to 1.37 minutes; 10 trials, 3485 women; random-effects, I² = 94%), a significant reduction in assisted deliveries (risk ratio (RR) 0.78; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90; 19 trials, 6024 women, I² = 27%), a reduction in episiotomies (average RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.90, 12 trials, 4541 women; random-effects, I² = 7%), an increase in second degree perineal tears (RR 1.35; 95% CI 1.20 to 1.51, 14 trials, 5367 women), increased estimated blood loss greater than 500 ml (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.60; 13 trials, 5158 women, asymmetric funnel plot indicating publication bias), fewer abnormal fetal heart rate patterns (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.93; two trials, 617 women). In primigravid women the use of any upright compared with supine positions was associated with: non-significant reduction in duration of second stage of labour (nine trials: mean 3.24 minutes, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.95 minutes) - this reduction was largely due to women allocated to the use of the birth cushion.