Influence of the birth attendant on maternal and neonatal outcomes during normal vaginal delivery: A comparison between midwife and physician management
The purpose of this study was to compare the obstetric outcome of low-risk maternity patients attended by certified midwives with that of low-risk maternity patients attended by obstetricians.
Patients and methods
Obstetric outcome of 1352 midwife patients was compared with that of 1352 age- and parity-matched physician patients with normal spontaneous vaginal delivery at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University Hospital Vienna during the period from January 1997 to July 2002. Our analysis was restricted to a sample of low-risk pregnant women. Women with medical or obstetric risk factors were excluded.
A significant decrease in the use of oxytocin (p=0.0001) was observed in women who selected a midwife as their primary birth attendant compared with women in the physician group. In both groups most women gave birth in a supine position; however, significantly more alternative birth positions were used by midwife patients (p=0.0001). Concerning perineal trauma, a significantly lower rate of episiotomies (p=0.0001) and perineal tears of all degrees (p=0.006) were found in midwife patients. When analyzing severe postpartum hemorrhage and postpartum infections, there were no significant differences between the two groups (p>0.05). Concerning neonatal outcome, there were no significant differences in APGAR score < 7 at 5 minutes (p>0.05).
Our data clearly show the ability of certified midwives to successfully provide prenatal care and delivery to lowrisk maternity patients, with neonatal outcomes comparable to those of physician patients. The use of certified midwives supervised by obstetricians may provide the optimum model for perinatal care, particularly for those women who are low-risk maternity patients, leaving physicians free to attend to the high-risk elements of care.
Key wordsMidwifery-led care low-risk maternity patients perineal lacerations
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Renfrew MJ (1994) Midwive vs. medical/shared care. In: Enkin MW, Keirse MJNC, Renfrew MJ, et al (eds) Pregnancy and childbirth module. Chochrane database of sysrematic reviews. Review no 03295, Chochrane updates on disks, disk tissue 1. Update Software, Oxford 1994Google Scholar
- 3.Lachelin GCL (1996) Midwifery led care meeting: Newsletter of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. UCL Medical School, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 5.Chamliss LR, Daly C, Medearis AL, Ames M, Kayne M, Paul R (1992) The role of selection bias in comparing cesarean birth rates between physiaian and midwifery management. Obstet Gynecol 80: 161–165Google Scholar
- 10.United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness, Perinatal Research Branch (1996) The collaborative study on cerebral palsy, mental retardation and other neurological and sensory disorders of infancy and childhood: part III: manuals. Bethesda, Maryland, March 1966Google Scholar
- 11.Donnison J (1988) Midwives and medical men: a history of the struggle for the control of childbirth. Historical Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 14.Nikodem VC (1992) Upright vs recumbent position during the second stage of labour. In: Enkin MW, Keirse MJNC, Renfrew MJ, et al (eds) Pregnancy and childbirth module. Chochrane database of systematic reviews. Review No. 03335; 1 July 1992. Chochrane Updates on Disk. Oxford: Update Software, Disk Issue 2, 1994Google Scholar
- 19.Klein M, Lloyd I, Redman C, Bull M, Turnbull AC (1983) A comparison of low-risk maternity women booked booked for delivery in two systems of care: shared-care (consultant) and integrated general practice unit I. Obstetrical procedures and neonatal outcomes. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 90: 118–122PubMedGoogle Scholar