DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20175276

A comparative study of the effects of programmed labour protocol and expectant management of labour

Anjuman Alam, Swapnil Goswami

Abstract


Background: Childbirth is one of the most wonderful and anticipated moments in a woman’s life. But the excruciating pain associated with labour makes it a really undesirable one. Objective of present study was to compare the effects of programmed labour protocol and expectant management of labour.

Methods: A clinical study was conducted on 120 low risk primigravida, 60 of them were managed with programmed labour protocol (group A) and the rest 60 (group B) were managed expectantly. Primary parameters were pain relief and changes in the mean duration of labour. Secondary parameters were changes in the amount of blood loss and APGAR score of delivered babies.

Results: Among group A, 25% had good pain relief, 60% had moderate pain relief, 15% had mild pain relief and 0% had no relief of pain. The mean duration of labour from active phase through third stage in group A was 234.27±50.38 minutes and 304.58±41.72 minutes in group B. The average blood loss during labour was 89.33±19.06 ml in group A and 142.15±32.27 ml in group B. In group A, 4 babies had APGAR score less than 7 at 1 minute, but had score more than 7 after 5 minutes following resuscitation. In group B, 9 babies had APGAR less than 7 at 1 minute. Of these, 6 babies had score more than 7 after 5 minutes following resuscitation. 3 babies had score less than 7 even after 5 minutes and were shifted to neonatal ICU.

Conclusions: Programmed labour protocol is an effective method to reduce the deleterious effects of labour on both mother and foetus.

 


Keywords


APGAR score, Management of labour, Programmed labour protocol, Pain relief

Full Text:

PDF

References


Rudra A. Pain relief in labour: review article. Update in Anaesthesia. 2004;18:6-11.

Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL. Williams Obstetrics, 23rd Ed. New York, Mc Graw Hill;2010:454.

American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. ACOG practice bulletin. Obstetric analgesia and anesthesia. Number 36, July 2002. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002 Sep;78(3):321-35.

Daftary SN, Desai SV, Thanawala U, Bhide A, Levi J, Patki A et al. Programmed labor indegenous protocol to optimize labor outcome. J South Asian Federation Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Apr 25;1(1):61-4.

World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for the prevention and treatment of postpartum haemorrhage. 2012. WHO: Geneva, Switzerland. Available at http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/75411/1/9789241548502_eng.pdf

Shaikh AF, Bhagat N, Bahagat K, Pandya M, Daftary S. Programmed labor for optimizing labour and delivery: a multicentric study. Indian J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;2(3):169-73.

Jyoti M, Singhal P, Choudhary D. Programmed labor. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2006;56:53.

Mir S, Aziz R. Programmed labour and its outcome. Hypertension. 2011 Jan;4:5.

Manoj A, Sivashanmugam T, Ghose S, Gowda M, Maurya DK. Maternal outcome in programmed labour: a randomized control trial. Indian Medical Gazette. 2012

Yuel VI, Kaur V, Kaur D. Programmed labor for optimizing labor and delivery. JK Sci. 2008;10(3).