Suppr超能文献

皮内或皮下注射无菌水与盲法对照用于分娩疼痛管理的比较。

Intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injection compared with blinded controls for pain management in labour.

作者信息

Derry Sheena, Straube Sebastian, Moore R Andrew, Hancock Heather, Collins Sally L

机构信息

Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences (Nuffield Division of Anaesthetics), University of Oxford, Oxford,UK.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jan 18;1(1):CD009107. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009107.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Intracutaneous or subcutaneous injection of sterile water is rapidly gaining popularity as a method of pain relief in labour and it is therefore essential that it is properly evaluated. Adequate analgesia in labour is important to women worldwide. Sterile water injection is inexpensive, requires basic equipment, and appears to have few side effects. It is purported to work for labour pain.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of sterile water injections for relief of pain (both typical contraction pain and intractable back pain) during labour compared to placebo (isotonic saline injections) or non-pharmacological interventions, and to identify any relevant effects on mode and timing of delivery, or safety of both mother and baby.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2011), MEDLINE, and EMBASE (January 2010 to 30 May 2011), together with reference lists in retrieved studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double blind, controlled studies using intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injections for pain relief during labour. There were no restrictions on birth place, parity, risk, age, weight, gestation, or stage of labour. Potential comparators were placebo (saline) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. hypnosis or biofeedback).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials, and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements or uncertainties by discussion with a third review author. Primary outcome measures were at least 50% pain relief, or at least 30%, pain relief, patient global impression of change of at least 'good', mode of delivery, perinatal morbidity and mortality, maternal complications and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were women with any pain relief, use of rescue analgesia, and treatment group average pain relief. We made explicit judgements about potential biases in the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies, with 766 participants: four used intracutaneous injections, two subcutaneous, and one both. All reported on low back pain in labour only. Methodological quality was good, but four studies were at high risk of bias due to small size of treatment groups, incomplete outcome data, and performance bias.All studies reported treatment group mean or median scores, finding greater reduction in pain for sterile water. However, failure to demonstrate a normal distribution for pain intensity or relief, and use of different scales, meant meta-analysis was inappropriate. No study reported primary dichotomous efficacy outcomes. One reported the number self-scoring 4/10 cm or more reduction in pain; significantly more had this outcome with sterile water (50% to 60%) than with placebo (20% to 25%).There was no significant difference between sterile water and saline for rates of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 1.02), instrumental delivery (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.18), rescue analgesia (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.69), timing of delivery, or Apgar scores. Two studies reported that more women treated with sterile water would request the same analgesia in future.No study reported on women's satisfaction with pain relief, women's sense of control in labour, women's satisfaction with the childbirth experience, mother/baby interaction, rates of breastfeeding, maternal morbidity, infant long-term outcomes, or cost. No adverse events were reported other than transient pain with injection, which was worse with sterile water.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes reported severely limit conclusions for clinical practice. We found little robust evidence that sterile water is effective for low back or any other labour pain. Neither did we find any difference in delivery or other maternal or fetal outcomes. Further large, methodologically rigorous studies are required to determine the efficacy of sterile water to relieve pain in labour.

摘要

背景

皮内或皮下注射无菌水作为一种分娩镇痛方法正迅速受到欢迎,因此对其进行恰当评估至关重要。分娩时充分镇痛对全球女性都很重要。无菌水注射成本低廉,所需设备简单,且似乎副作用较少。据称其对分娩疼痛有效。

目的

确定与安慰剂(等渗盐水注射)或非药物干预相比,无菌水注射缓解分娩时疼痛(典型宫缩痛和顽固性背痛)的效果,并确定对分娩方式和时间、母婴安全的任何相关影响。

检索方法

我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2011年5月30日)、MEDLINE和EMBASE(2010年1月至2011年5月30日),以及检索到的研究和综述文章中的参考文献列表。

选择标准

我们纳入了使用皮内或皮下注射无菌水进行分娩镇痛的随机、双盲、对照研究。对分娩地点、产次、风险、年龄、体重、孕周或分娩阶段没有限制。潜在的对照物为安慰剂(盐水)和非药物干预(如催眠或生物反馈)。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立评估试验的合格性和质量,并提取数据。我们通过与第三位综述作者讨论解决了任何分歧或不确定性。主要结局指标为至少50%的疼痛缓解、或至少30%的疼痛缓解、患者对变化的总体印象至少为“良好”、分娩方式、围产期发病率和死亡率、产妇并发症和不良事件。次要结局为有任何疼痛缓解的女性、使用补救镇痛的情况以及治疗组的平均疼痛缓解程度。我们对研究中的潜在偏倚做出了明确判断。

主要结果

我们纳入了7项研究,共766名参与者:4项使用皮内注射,2项使用皮下注射,1项两者都用。所有研究仅报告了分娩时的下背部疼痛。方法学质量良好,但4项研究因治疗组规模小、结局数据不完整和实施偏倚而存在高偏倚风险。所有研究均报告了治疗组的平均或中位数评分,发现无菌水组疼痛减轻更明显。然而,未能证明疼痛强度或缓解程度呈正态分布,且使用了不同的量表,这意味着不适合进行荟萃分析。没有研究报告主要的二分法疗效结局。一项研究报告了自我评分疼痛减轻4/10厘米或更多的人数;无菌水组出现该结局的人数(50%至60%)明显多于安慰剂组(20%至25%)。无菌水组和盐水组在剖宫产率(风险比(RR)0.58,95%置信区间(CI)0.33至1.02)、器械助产率(RR 1.31,95%CI 0.79至2.18)、补救镇痛(RR 0.86,95%CI 0.44至1.69)、分娩时间或阿普加评分方面没有显著差异。两项研究报告称,接受无菌水治疗的女性中,更多人将来会要求相同的镇痛方法。没有研究报告女性对疼痛缓解的满意度、女性在分娩时的控制感、女性对分娩经历的满意度、母婴互动、母乳喂养率、产妇发病率、婴儿长期结局或成本。除了注射时的短暂疼痛外,没有报告其他不良事件,无菌水注射时的疼痛更严重。

作者结论

报告的结局严重限制了临床实践的结论。我们几乎没有找到有力证据表明无菌水对下背部或任何其他分娩疼痛有效。我们也没有发现分娩或其他母婴结局存在差异。需要进一步开展大规模、方法学严谨的研究来确定无菌水缓解分娩疼痛的效果。

相似文献

1
Intracutaneous or subcutaneous sterile water injection compared with blinded controls for pain management in labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jan 18;1(1):CD009107. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009107.pub2.
2
Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 May 19;2016(5):CD009356. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009356.pub3.
3
Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Mar 14;2012(3):CD009234. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009234.pub2.
4
Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 28;3(3):CD009514. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009514.pub2.
5
Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia for pain management in labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 May 21;5(5):CD000331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub4.
6
Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 13;4(4):CD011989. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011989.pub2.
7
Position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 24;2(2):CD008070. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008070.pub3.
8
Hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11:CD009356. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009356.pub2.
9
Parenteral opioids for maternal pain management in labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 5;6(6):CD007396. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007396.pub3.
10
Inhaled analgesia for pain management in labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12;2012(9):CD009351. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009351.pub2.

引用本文的文献

4
Vaginal Birth at Term - Part 1. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/083, December 2020).
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2022 Nov 3;82(11):1143-1193. doi: 10.1055/a-1904-6546. eCollection 2022 Nov.
8
Comparative Analgesic Effects of Intradermal and Subdermal Injection of Sterile Water on Active Labor Pain.
Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Apr 25;10(2):e99867. doi: 10.5812/aapm.99867. eCollection 2020 Apr.
9
Acupuncture or acupressure for pain management during labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Feb 7;2(2):CD009232. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009232.pub2.

本文引用的文献

1
Inhaled analgesia for pain management in labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12;2012(9):CD009351. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009351.pub2.
2
Non-opioid drugs for pain management in labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jul 11;2012(7):CD009223. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009223.pub2.
3
Local anaesthetic nerve block for pain management in labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Apr 18;2012(4):CD009200. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009200.pub2.
4
Pain management for women in labour: an overview of systematic reviews.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Mar 14;2012(3):CD009234. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009234.pub2.
5
Relaxation techniques for pain management in labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 7(12):CD009514. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009514.
6
Acupuncture or acupressure for pain management in labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 6(7):CD009232. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009232.
7
Aromatherapy for pain management in labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 6(7):CD009215. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009215.
8
Biofeedback for pain management during labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jun 15(6):CD006168. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006168.pub2.
10
Parenteral opioids for maternal pain relief in labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Sep 8(9):CD007396. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007396.pub2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验