Modeling manual perineal protection during vaginal delivery
Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie, Anglie Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
- MeSH
- biologické modely * MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mechanický stres MeSH
- perineum fyziologie MeSH
- těhotenství MeSH
- vedení porodu metody MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- těhotenství MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We compared hands-on manual perineal protection (MPP) and hands-off delivery techniques using the basic principles of mechanics and assessed the tension of perineal structures using a novel biomechanical model of the perineum. We also measured the effect of the thumb and index finger of the accoucheur's dominant-posterior hand on perineal tissue tension when a modified Viennese method of MPP is performed. METHODS: Hands-off and two variations of hands-on manual perineal protection during vaginal delivery were simulated using a biomechanical model, with the main outcome measure being strain/tension throughout the perineal body during vaginal delivery. RESULTS: Stress distribution with the hands-on model shows that when using MPP, the value of highest stress was decreased by 39 % (model B) and by 30 % (model C) compared with the hands-off model A. On the cross section there is a significant decrease in areas of equal tension throughout the perineal body in both hands-on models. Simulation of the modified Viennese MPP significantly reduces the maximum tension on the inner surface of the perineum measured at intervals of 2 mm from the posterior fourchette. CONCLUSIONS: In a biomechanical assessment with a finite element model of vaginal delivery, appropriate application of the thumb and index finger of the accoucheur's dominant-posterior hand to the surface of the perineum during the second stage of delivery significantly reduces tissue tension throughout the entire thickness of the perineum; thus, this intervention might help reduce obstetric perineal trauma.
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009 Nov;20(11):1361-4 PubMed
BJOG. 2012 May;119(6):724-30 PubMed
Br J Nurs. 2012 Mar 8-21;21(5):S28, S30, S32-5 PubMed
J Midwifery Womens Health. 2005 Sep-Oct;50(5):365-72 PubMed
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Oct;119(1):76-80 PubMed
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012 May-Jun;18(3):165-7 PubMed
Neurourol Urodyn. 2011 Jan;30(1):113-6 PubMed
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct;116(4):901-908 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Apr;21(4):447-52 PubMed
BJOG. 2009 Nov;116(12):1657-62 PubMed
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Dec;105(12):1262-72 PubMed
J Res Med Sci. 2011 Aug;16(8):1040-6 PubMed
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Dec;42(4):820-35 PubMed
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Nov;199(5):445-54 PubMed
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011 Oct;115(1):26-30 PubMed
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jun;25(6):580-5 PubMed
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998 Nov;77(10):974-7 PubMed
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010 May;109(2):136-9 PubMed
Radiol Med. 2012 Aug;117(5):759-71 PubMed
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001 Mar;80(3):256-61 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Oct;22(10):1279-85 PubMed
Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Dec;100(6):1239-43 PubMed
Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Apr;111(4):914-20 PubMed
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Apr;113(4):873-880 PubMed
Neurourol Urodyn. 2013 Jan;32(1):37-42 PubMed
BMJ Open. 2012 Oct 17;2(5): PubMed
J Reprod Med. 2002 Jun;47(6):477-82 PubMed
Tech Coloproctol. 2008 Dec;12(4):323-9 PubMed
Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2009;11:163-76 PubMed
Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;111(5):1053-7 PubMed
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013 Jan;92(1):94-100 PubMed
BJOG. 2000 Jul;107(7):926-31 PubMed
Feasibility and safety of antepartum tactile imaging
Metrics of perineal support (MOPS) study
The effect of the first vaginal birth on pelvic floor anatomy and dysfunction
Fetal head size and effect of manual perineal protection
The role of thumb and index finger placement in manual perineal protection