Open AccessGentle fundal pressure to facilitate vaginal delivery: A randomized clinical trial
Author(s) -
Guo Qing,
Du Hui,
Feng Ying,
Jiao Ruifen,
Xie Xu,
Li Mingwei,
Coonrod Dean V.,
Zheng Thomas Q.
Publication year - 2025
Publication title -
acta obstetricia et gynecologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.401
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1600-0412
pISSN - 0001-6349
DOI - 10.1111/aogs.15130
Subject(s) - medicine , episiotomy , randomized controlled trial , randomization , obstetrics , confidence interval , vaginal delivery , pregnancy , relative risk , childbirth , surgery , genetics , biology
Abstract Introduction Fundal pressure during the second stage of labor is widely practiced but understudied. Violent fundal pressure can cause maternal and fetal injuries. Many providers believe the maneuver is effective. Administrative efforts to ban fundal pressure are unsuccessful and only drive the procedure to an underground practice. Material and Methods In this single‐center, open‐label, randomized trial, nulliparous women with term singleton cephalic pregnancy under epidural analgesia were assigned to receive gentle manual fundal pressure (GMFP) or routine labor care. The GMFP was designed not to exceed a maximum of 120 mmHg. Women were randomized after 30 min of pushing in the second stage of labor. The primary outcome was the time from randomization to delivery. Secondary outcomes were mode of delivery, episiotomy, perineal laceration, cord blood pH, and other maternal and fetal outcomes. Results Between July 2023 and January 2024, 164 women were randomized to GMFP ( n = 82) or to routine care ( n = 82). The time from randomization to vaginal delivery did not show statistical significance between the fundal pressure group and the control group (mean [SD], 46.3 [33.3] vs. 55.9 [45.8] min; p = 0.13). Significantly fewer women in the fundal pressure group had operative vaginal deliveries (4 of 82 [4.9%]) than women in the control group (13 of 82 [15.9%]; relative risk [RR] 0.308, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.105–0.904; p = 0.021). Similarly, mediolateral episiotomy was performed in fewer women in the fundal pressure group (6 of 82 [7.32%]) than in the control group (16 of 82 [19.51%], RR 0.375, 95% CI 0.154–0.910; p = 0.022). Other maternal and fetal outcomes were similar in the two groups. Conclusions GMFP resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in the second stage of labor and a significant reduction in operative vaginal delivery and episiotomy without an increase in adverse outcomes. Fundal pressure during the second stage of labor deserves further investigation.