Back Pain, Labour Pain
Conditions
Keywords
Sterile Water Injection, Midwifery
Brief summary
ABSTRACT Introduction: In addition to pain caused by uterine contractions in labour, in 33% of women, continuous and severe back pain is observed. In management of this pain, sterile water injection is considered to be an effective method. Aim of this study is assessment of effectiveness and satisfaction of this method among Turkish women in which analgesic methods are not extensively used in labour and rates of cesarean section exponentially increases. Material and Methods: 168 termed, healthy women who admitted to Istanbul Gaziosmanpaşa-Taksim Training and Research Hospital with labour pain and had severe back pain were randomized into 4x0.1 ml sterile water and 4xdry Injection groups. Injections were applied to Michaelis Rhomboid region in sacral region. Pain scores were assessed at 10th, 30th, 60th, 120th and 180th minutes with Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Additionally, need for epidural analgesia, APGAR score, mode of delivery, time of delivery, maternal satisfaction and breastfeeding scores were assessed.
Interventions
OTHERSterile Water
0.1 ml intracutaneous sterile water injections into the skin surrounding the Michaelis rhomboid over the sacral area.
OTHERDry Injections
dry injections into the skin surrounding the Michaelis rhomboid over the sacral area.
Sponsors
University of Beykent
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
18 Years to 35 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Aged between 18-35 * 37-42 weeks of gestation * Expecting vaginal delivery * Cephalic presentation * Single, healthy fetus * Spontaneous onset of labor * Active phase of first stage of labor (3-7 cm cervical dilatation) * Severe low back pain (VAS\>7cm) * Required pain relief
Exclusion criteria
* Gestation \<37 weeks * Multiple pregnancy * Malpresentation * Second stage labour * Pharmacological analgesia prior to SWI * Back pain assessed by VAS \<7 * Women whose labour would be considered high risk
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Pain scores-30 | at 30 mins after interventions | In pain scoring Visual Analog Scale was used |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Pain scores-60 | at 60 mins after interventions | In pain scoring Visual Analog Scale was used |
| Pain scores-90 | at 90 mins after interventions | In pain scoring Visual Analog Scale was used |
| Pain scores-120 | at 120 mins after interventions | In pain scoring Visual Analog Scale was used |
| Pain scores-180 | at 180 mins after interventions | In pain scoring Visual Analog Scale was used |
| Pain scores-10 | at 10 mins after interventions | In pain scoring Visual Analog Scale was used |
| Maternal satisfaction | at 1 hour after birth | Likelihood to use again with subsequent labour, Women satisfaction with analgesic effect, Likelihood to recommend to SWI to others |
| Rates of breastfeeding-1 | at 1 hour after birth | In breastfeed scoring The Infant Breastfeeding Assessment Tool was used |
| Rates of breastfeeding-24 | at 24.hours after birth | In breastfeed scoring The Infant Breastfeeding Assessment Tool was used |
| APGAR score of neonate | at 5 mins after birth | — |
Outcome results
None listed