#MATEXP IS A POWERFUL SOCIAL CAMPAIGN INVOLVING PEOPLE FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE FROM ALL ACROSS THE UK AND BEYOND
It aims to:
- Encourage and empower users of maternity services to join conversations about their experiences of maternity care, and what really makes a difference to that experience.
- Get health care professionals (in and beyond the NHS) and local communities to listen and work in partnership with women and families to improve maternity experiences.
- To enable anyone to take action to improve maternity experience, however big or small, whoever you are: user, partner, community group or NHS staff
Maternal mobility in labour
How often do you end up shouting at the telly when ‘One born every minute’ is on, and a labour is slow to progress or baby is not coping well and a woman is lying down? Try getting her up!
There’s a large body of research evidence that movement in labour improves outcomes so why do so few women feel able to change position in labour, especially in the second stage?
In 2015 in the UK, fewer women gave birth in a bed than in 2007 and more women chose a water birth or birthing pool (but still <10%)
But approx. 50% of women in 2015 having an unassisted vaginal birth gave birth lying down or lying down with legs in stirrups. The most common position for women to be in when they gave birth was lying down with legs in stirrups (35%), which is a 3% increase from 2013. It should be noted that 15% of women had an assisted vaginal delivery, which would normally require stirrups.
What affects choice of birthing position?
Barriers to maternal movement in labour have been suggested to include: (1) lack of space, (2) inadequate support, (3) use of unwarranted debilitating technology, and (4) movement restricting pain relief.
The link below shows how it is possible to achieve mobility with an induced multiple birth:
The advice given by midwives was the most important factor in this study influencing the choice of birthing positions.
In one study where women were randomised to use a birthing stool or usual care, despite being randomised (rather than freely choosing), women who gave birth on the seat were statistically significantly more likely to report that they participated in decision-making and that they took the opportunity to choose their preferred birth position. They also reported statistically significantly more often than non-adherers that they felt powerful, protected and self-confident.
Midwives should be conscious of the potential impact that birth positions have on women’s birth experiences and on maternal outcomes.. An upright birth position may lead to greater childbirth satisfaction. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871519213000723
What about Dad’s and birth partners?
If a woman gives birth upright, the father is more likely to see the birth as positive, says a study from Sweden… http://fb.me/7BlBeD9fR
What about malposition?
Many women start labour low risk but experience a cascade of intervention, although there are a number of factors that cause this, I believe the (often) unrecognised missing cause in the majority of emergency caesareans, assisted deliveries and interventions causing long term morbidity to low risk women and their babies worldwide is malposition.
Malposition’s are positions where a baby is head down but is presenting in a way that increases the diameter that needs to pass through the pelvis and birth canal. This can be ‘back to back’ (or occiput posterior known as OP) where a baby has its spine against the mothers spine. Babies in this position are usually ‘deflexed’ (chin not tucked to the chest) and this can cause more pain and delays going into labour or in the first and second stage. Although most babies rotate into an easier position to be born, the longer this takes, the more likely it is that women will have interventions like induction, augmentation, systemic pain relief. Women whose babies stay OP (known as persistent OP) are much more likely to need assisted delivery, episiotomy and caesarean section. They also have a higher chance of perineal tearing, post-partum haemorrhage (blood loss) and postpartum infection. Babies are also more likely to show distress in labour, meconium in the amniotic fluid, lower Apgar scores and need time in NICU.
As well as OP other factors that can result in malposition are asyncliticism (a tilt to a baby’s head in late labour) and compound arms (up above the head)
Recent research indicates there is no ‘ideal’ birth position. But OA babies (with their backs to a mother’s front) are more often flexed (head tucked) which presents a symmetrical and smaller circumference onto the cervix. This leads to less prolonged labour and riper cervix.
Whether a malposition is a problem will depend on many factors-
- Pelvis shape/size
- Uterine ligaments
- Baby size
- Baby position (this can also encompass flexion (chin tucking) and arms above the head
- Mothers health in pregnancy (diet and exercise)
- Mothers mobility in labour
- Mothers pain relief in labour
Can we do anything about malposition in labour?
I addressed this in my latest post here:
There is a body of evidence that maternal mobility in labour improves outcomes and may aid rotation. More research is needed that can adequately measure maternal mobility in labour and interventions that match the multifaceted practices that midwives and doulas use to support women with prolonged labour or suspected malposition.
Women may want to mobilise in labour but feel restricted by social/cultural expectations (for example the use of the bed in the maternity room)or restricted by the technology being used (CFM, drip).
Comments on facebook about the topic have so far included:
“I think we should change the language. Maternal mobility is not important to women. It is essential to the process of birth. Birth is not able to process as well. We don’t say ‘mobility is important to men when having sex’ or ‘mobility is important to people emptying their bowels’. Saying it is important to women means it can be overridden by welfare of the baby. Suggest Margaret Garrett ‘dynamic positions’ book to anyone who thinks it is nice but optional.”
“Restricting mobility is a dangerous, and unproven, intervention. Spontaneous positioning is the NICE standard of care for ‘normal’ births & should be for all births. It is a human right. Great topic! Emerging evidence for upright breech birth | The midwife, the mother and the breech
SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR TWITTER DISCUSSION
- Should midwives tell women the position they believe their baby to be in antenatally?
- Can antenatal maternal posturing effect fetal position and outcomes?
- Can maternal posturing in labour effect fetal position and outcomes
- How can midwives and birth partners best support women with malpositioned labours for comfort and to improve outcomes?
- Do midwives and doctors facilitate or hinder movement in labour?
- How can we support high risk women to be mobile in labour? What about telmemetry and pool use/VBAC
- Should pool use be promoted to increase mobility?
- How does birth room environment design effect mobility?
- Does malposition make it harder for women to move in labour due to pain? How can we support them?
I will post a second blog post to summarise the twitter discussion after Friday.
Reply to Catie Mehl of Columbus Birth & Parenting and Angela Horn from Tuscon doulas recently published blog posts about malposition.
Prevalence of OP prior to labour
Up to approx. 30% of babies are OP before labour begins.
Some studies have found that fetal position before labour does not affect birth outcome but others have found the opposite, in one study occipital position was found to be a factor in predicting successful induction with cervical length being longer in OP positions prior to induction.
Around 80% of babies that are OP before labour begins, will rotate in labour
But the longer a baby stays OP in labour, the more likely they are to stay that way.
The deflexion associated with OP may be more important than the fetal position.
Malposition effects labour progress
Persistent OP is associated with prolonged first and second stages of labor and augmentation [5-7]
Malpositioned labours significantly more often cross the partogram action line
Malposition effects maternal and fetal outcomes
The incidence of persistent occiput posterior position was associated with significantly higher incidences of induction of labor, oxytocin augmentation of labor, epidural use, and prolonged labor
Maternal movement in labour improves birth outcomes
Can maternal position changes in labour effect rotation from OP to OA?
Most intervention studies using maternal position to try to rotate babies from OP to OA have been unsuccessful[9 11] although studies have tended to be for short durations (-10 minutes), and include participants that have an epidural (approx. 90%)
One study has been successful in effecting rotation from OP to OA using maternal movement. The authors conducted an observational cohort study of women in Padua, Italy having their first baby. They grouped women into Group-A when they spent more than 50% of their labour in recumbent position (supine or lateral) and in Group-B when they preferred an alternative position (upright, squatting, sitting on the ball, or “on all fours” position) the OP rate at the start of labour was comparable in two groups with 40.6% in Group-A and 36.5% in Group-B.
A strong significant difference was found in terms of delivery outcome.
CS was necessary in 27 patients: 46.4% in Group-A compared to the 12.3% in Group-B.
Significant differences in terms of OP persistence at delivery were also found in those delivering vaginally: in Group-A patients, OP persisted till birth in 39.6% of the cases while in Group-B only in 28% of the cases
Other evidence for benefits of maternal movement in the first stage
Upright positions increase contraction strength. Women labouring in upright, non-recumbent positions have fewer POP deliveries, shorter labours and lower rates of assisted deliveries and CS
Sims’ posture on the same side as the fetal spine has been recommended to enhance rotation from posterior to anterior
Prince of Songkla University Cat (leaning over back of bed at 60 degree angle on knees)and upright positions together with music reduced the duration of active phase of labour and labour pain in primiparous women compared to oxytocin
Cochrane review: Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour-“Walking and upright positions in the first stage of labour reduces the duration of labour, the risk of caesarean birth, the need for epidural, and does not seem to be associated with increased intervention or negative effects on mothers’ and babies’ wellbeing.”
Other evidence for benefits of maternal movement in the Second stage
Any upright or lateral birth positions compared with supine or lithotomy positions have been associated with reduced duration of second stage of labour, reduction in operative delivery, reduction in episiotomies, reduced reporting of severe pain in the second stage, fewer abnormal fetal heart patterns
“Use of the supine position is associated with negative maternal, fetal, and neonatal hemodynamic outcomes. Despite the persistence of the use of recumbent positions for birth, the evidence supports the merit of upright positions. “
Kneeling squat position significantly increases the bony transverse and anteroposterior dimension in the mid pelvic plane and the pelvic outlet
In a study using MR obstetric pelvimetry an upright birthing position significantly expands female pelvic bony dimensions, suggesting facilitation of labor and delivery
Women with epidurals that change position (every half hour from hands and knees, sitting etc in the passive part of second stage (giving time for the head to come down) and push in a lateral position with the upper hip abducted had greatly reduced assisted delivery rates (19.8% vs 42.1%) higher rates of intact perineum ( (40.3% vs 12.2%), lower episiotomy rate (s (21.0% in vs 51.4%) and time actively pushing, without incurring any other adverse maternal or fetal outcomes. Peanut balls have also been found to improve outcomes for women with an epidural. 
Women prefer freedom to move in labour
Freedom to change positions in labour has been identified as integral to a feeling of control and the management of pain in labour, due to the physical and psychological benefits
Women have described being in more control over their pushing in the second stage when they were in an upright position compared to a supine position
Is operative birth necessary?
In a review of >225 thousand birth records in the United states (2002-08) half of Caesarean Deliveries for dystocia in induced labor were performed before 6 cm of cervical dilation. Among intrapartum CDs, approximately half were performed for ‘failure to progress’ or ‘cephalopelvic disproportion’.
It has been reported that most cases of reported cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) result from malposition of the fetal head within the pelvis (asynclitism) or from ineffective uterine contractions. True disproportion is an unlikely diagnosis because two thirds or more of women undergoing cesarean delivery for this reason subsequently deliver even larger newborns vaginally
Could we reduce intervention for dystocia and malposition with more time?
A review of the evidence relating to dystocia found that current understandings rest on outdated definitions of active first stage of labour, its progress and on treatments without a strong evidence base. These include the cervical dilatation threshold for active first stage, uncertainty over whether a reduced rate of dilatation and reduced strength of uterine contractions always represent pathology and the effectiveness of amniotomy/oxytocin for treating dystocia
It has been suggested that one of the ways to safely prevent primary caesarean deliveries is to increase the active phase of labour start to 6cm and the safe duration of the second stage to at least 2 hours for women having a second or subsequent baby and 3 hours for women having their first baby. or longer with an epidural although the safety of this is contested by some. 
Obstructed labour mostly caused by malposition (and often labelled as CPD) is common in lower income countries and has a high rate or maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity. More needs to be done to prevent and resolve malposition in situations where safe obstetric intervention may not be feasible to save mothers and babies lives and futures
Women in Low and middle income countries (LMIC) are described as having three delay to obstetric care. (1) deciding to seek appropriate medical help for an obstetric emergency; (2) reaching an appropriate obstetric facility; and (3) receiving adequate care when a facility is reached
Maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality is often due to this delayed treatment.
Prolonged obstructed labor can result in fistulas. Because obstetric fistulas are caused by tissue compression, the time interval from obstruction to delivery is critical. Women may not deliver in health care facilities if they do not meet their needs. (this includes the need to move around in labour and use upright positions to birth in, which may be discouraged in the hospital setting) There may be transport and cost implications or Beliefs that problems in labor arise from disturbances in the social environment (and may be caused by actions of the mother) rather than as simple problems of obstetrical mechanics 
Even after arrival at a health facility mean waiting time for women admitted with complications was as much as 24 h before treatment.
Barriers and facilitators maternal movement in labour
Barriers to maternal movement in labour include: (1) lack of space, (2) inadequate support, (3) use of unwarranted debilitating technology, and (4) movement restricting pain relief
Difficulty in conducting research relating to maternal movement in labour, which is often dynamic and needs to be directed by the woman, means that amassing strong evidence of the efficacy of maternal movement to resolve malposition is complicated. Cultural influences and provider influences also effect choice of maternal position. [36 37]
Fathers with a partner having an upright birth position were more likely to have had a positive birth experience, to have felt comfortable and powerful compared to spontaneous vaginal births where women adopting a horizontal birth position
Malposition’s are the root cause for much of the morbidity and mortality and unexpected intervention in labours worldwide. There is a body of evidence that maternal mobility in labour improves outcomes and may aid rotation. More research is needed that can adequately measure maternal mobility in labour and interventions that match the multifaceted practices that midwives and doulas use to support women with prolonged labour or suspected malposition.
Women may want to mobilise in labour but feel restricted by social/cultural expectations (for example the use of the bed in the maternity room) or restricted by the technology being used (CFM, drip).
Doulas and midwives can help to facilitate women’s choices by:
- Antenatal education that provide women and their partners practical experience of maternal positions that can facilitate labour and birth
- Discussing the barriers and enablers of maternal movement
- Practical support in labour if technology is needed (suggesting mobile telemetry as a possibility if available, holding monitors in place while women use birth balls or change position with CFM)
- Suggesting movement changes in labour that might aid women’s comfort or rotation
- Suggesting the use of a peanut ball if women have an epidural or need to rest in a recumbent position
- Suggesting position changes in the second stage (particularly if there is a delay or little change in descent)
- Rebozo can be a useful tool when women have difficulty moving (due to exhaustion, pain, pain relief or technology that restricts movement)42]
- Verhoeven CJ, Mulders LG, Oei SG, et al. Does ultrasonographic foetal head position prior to induction of labour predict the outcome of delivery? European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2012;164(2):133-37
- Ahmad A, Webb S, Early B, et al. Association between fetal position at onset of labor and mode of delivery: a prospective cohort study. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2014;43(2):176-82
- Ashour ASA, ABDELLA RM, GHAREEB HO, et al. Preinduction ultrasonographic measurements as a predictor of successful induction of labor in prolonged pregnancy in primigravidas. 2013
- Vitner D, Paltieli Y, Haberman S, et al. Prospective multicenter study of ultrasound‐based measurements of fetal head station and position throughout labor. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology 2015;46(5):611-15
- Fitzpatrick M, McQuillan K, O’Herlihy C. Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2001;98(6):1027-31
- Ponkey SE, Cohen AP, Heffner LJ, et al. Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: obstetric outcomes. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2003;101(5, Part 1):915-20
- Senécal J, Xiong X, Fraser WD, et al. Effect of fetal position on second-stage duration and labor outcome. Obstetrics & gynecology 2005;105(4):763-72
- Mathisen M, Olsen RV, Andreasen S, et al. Is it possible to detect malposition of the vertex at an early stage in labour? A case-control study. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare 2014;5(4):185-87
- Desbriere R, Blanc J, Le Dû R, et al. Is maternal posturing during labor efficient in preventing persistent occiput posterior position? A randomized controlled trial. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2013;208(1):60. e1-60. e8
- Gardberg M, Leonova Y, Laakkonen E. Malpresentations–impact on mode of delivery. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 2011;90(5):540-42
- Guittier M, Othenin‐Girard V, Gasquet B, et al. Maternal positioning to correct occiput posterior fetal position during the first stage of labour: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2016
- Gizzo S, Di Gangi S, Noventa M, et al. Women’s choice of positions during labour: return to the past or a modern way to give birth? A cohort study in Italy. BioMed research international 2014;2014
- Ridley RT. Diagnosis and intervention for occiput posterior malposition. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing 2007;36(2):135-43
- Phumdoung S, Youngwanichsetha S, Mahattanan S, et al. Prince of Songkla University Cat and upright positions together with music reduces the duration of active phase of labour and labour pain in primiparous women compared to oxytocin. Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies 2014;19(2):70-77
- Lawrence A, Lewis L, Hofmeyr GJ, et al. Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;8:Cd003934
- Gupta JK, Hofmeyr GJ, Shehmar M. Position in the second stage of labour for women without epidural anaesthesia. The Cochrane Library 2012
- Reitter A, Daviss B-A, Bisits A, et al. Does pregnancy and/or shifting positions create more room in a woman’s pelvis? American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2014;211(6):662. e1-62. e9
- Michel SC, Rake A, Treiber K, et al. MR obstetric pelvimetry: effect of birthing position on pelvic bony dimensions. American Journal of Roentgenology 2002;179(4):1063-67
- Lape LA. The relationship between the incidence of occiput posterior fetal position at birth to maternal labor positions in patients with epidurals: Northern Kentucky University, 2011.
- Walker C, Rodríguez T, Herranz A, et al. Alternative model of birth to reduce the risk of assisted vaginal delivery and perineal trauma. International urogynecology journal 2012;23(9):1249-56
- Tussey CM, Botsios E, Gerkin RD, et al. Reducing length of labor and cesarean surgery rate using a peanut ball for women laboring with an epidural. The Journal of Perinatal Education 2015;24(1):16-24
- Ahmed MA-GS, Youssef M. Comparison between squatting versus supine (lithotomy) positions during the passive second stage of labor without epidural anesthesia in nulliparous women: a prospective cohort study. Journal of Evidence-Based Women’s Health Journal Society 2015;5(3):140-42
- Dani A, Badhwar V, Sawant G, et al. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SQUATTING POSITION VS DORSAL RECUMBENT POSITION DURING SECOND STAGE OF LABOUR.
- Johansson M, Thies-Lagergren L. Swedish fathers’ experiences of childbirth in relation to maternal birth position: a mixed method study. Women and Birth 2015;28(4):e140-e47
- De Jonge A, Lagro-Janssen A. Birthing positions. A qualitative study into the views of women about various birthing positions. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004;25(1):47-55
- Epidemiology of cesarean delivery: the scope of the problem. Seminars in perinatology; 2012. Elsevier.
- Horsager R, Roberts S, Rogers V, et al. Williams Obstetrics, Study Guide: McGraw Hill Professional, 2014.
- Karaçam Z, Walsh D, Bugg GJ. Evolving understanding and treatment of labour dystocia. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2014;182:123-27
- Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise J-M, et al. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2014;210(3):179-93
- Leveno KJ, Nelson DB, McIntire DD. Second-stage labor: how long is too long? American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2015
- Higashi H, Barendregt J, Kassebaum N, et al. Surgically avertable burden of obstetric conditions in low‐and middle‐income regions: a modelled analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2015;122(2):228-36
- Barnes-Josiah D, Myntti C, Augustin A. The “three delays” as a framework for examining maternal mortality in Haiti. Social science & medicine 1998;46(8):981-93
- Wall LL. Overcoming phase 1 delays: the critical component of obstetric fistula prevention programs in resource-poor countries. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 2012;12(1):68
- Cavallaro FL, Marchant TJ. Responsiveness of emergency obstetric care systems in low‐and middle‐income countries: a critical review of the “third delay”. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 2013;92(5):496-507
- Hollins Martin CJ, Martin CR. A narrative review of maternal physical activity during labour and its effects upon length of first stage. Complementary therapies in clinical practice 2013;19(1):44-49
- Martin CJH, Kenney L, Pratt T, et al. The Development and Validation of An Activity Monitoring System for Use in Measurement of Posture of Childbearing Women During First Stage of Labor. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health 2015;60(2):182-86
- Nieuwenhuijze MJ, Low LK, Korstjens I, et al. The Role of Maternity Care Providers in Promoting Shared Decision Making Regarding Birthing Positions During the Second Stage of Labor. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health 2014;59(3):277-85
- Hall E. The use of water immersion in the facilitation of ‘normal labour’. Diffusion-The UCLan Journal of Undergraduate Research 2014;7(1)
- Jackson R. The use of water during the first stage of labour: Is this a safe choice for women undergoing VBAC? British Journal of Midwifery 2013;21(6)
- Hasman K, Kjaergaard H, Esbensen BA. Fathers’ experience of childbirth when non-progressive labour occurs and augmentation is established. A qualitative study. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare 2014;5(2):69-73
- Townsend B, Fenwick J, Thomson V, et al. The birth bed: A qualitative study on the views of midwives regarding the use of the bed in the birth space. Women and Birth 2015
- Cohen SR, Thomas CR. Rebozo technique for fetal malposition in labor. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health 2015;60(4):445-51