Water birth, more than a trendy alternative: a prospective, observational study

Abstract

Objective

To prospectively assess the effect of water birth on maternal and fetal outcomes in a selected low-risk collective of a tertiary obstetrical unit.

Method

In this prospective observational study, 513 patients of a low-risk collective, who requested a water birth, were studied during the years 1998–2002. Primary outcome measurements included the maternal and fetal parameters. Secondary outcome measurements comprised data on the incidence of water births in an interested, low-risk population in an academic hospital.

Result

All groups were similar in terms of demographic and obstetric data. Significant differences were observed in maternal outcome parameters, which included the use of analgesia/anesthesia during labor, the duration of first and second stages of labor, perineal tears and episiotomy rate. No differences were seen in all observed fetal outcome parameters including APGAR scores, arterial and venous pH, admission rate to neonatal intensive care unit and infection rate.

Conclusion

Water birth is a valuable and promising alternative to traditional delivery methods. The maternal and fetal outcomes were similar to traditional land births. However, currently there still exist some deficits in the scientific evaluation of its safety. Therefore, the selection of a low-risk collective is essential to minimize the risks with the addition of strictly maintained guidelines and continuous intrapartum observation and fetal monitoring. Based on our results and the literature, water births are justifiable when certain criteria are met and risk factors are excluded.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Embry M (1805) Observations sur un accouchement termine dans le bain. Ann Soc Med Pract Montp 53:185–191

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Odent M (1983) Birth under water. Lancet 24:1476–1477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    House of Commons Health Committee (1992) Maternity service: second report (Winterton report). Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London

  4. 4.

    Dudenhausen JW, Eldering G, Grauel EL, Groneck P, Huch R, Husslein P, Moll W, Pohlandt F, Schneider KTM, Zimmerman R (2004) Stellungsnahme zur Wassergeburt. Leitlinien, Empfehlungen, Stellungsnahmen der deutschen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, September 2004

  5. 5.

    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Births in water. Available: http://www.rcog.org.uk/medical/birth.html

  6. 6.

    Woodward J, Kelly SM (2004) A pilot study for a randomized controlled trial of water birth versus land birth. BJOG 111:537–545

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Geissbuehler V, Stein S, Eberhard J (2004) Waterbirths compared with landbirths: an observational study of nine years. J Perinat Med 32:308–314

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bodner K, Bodner-Adler B, Wierrani F, Mayerhofer K, Fousek C, Niedermayr A, Grunberger W (2002) Effects of water birth on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Wien Klin Wochenschr 114:391–395

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Otigbah CM, Dhanjal MK, Harmsworth G, Chard T (2000) A retrospective comparison of water births and conventional vaginal deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 91:15–20

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Clinical effectiveness support unit (2001) The use of electronic fetal monitoring. The use of cardiotocography in intrapartum fetal surveillance. Evidence-based clinical guideline number 8. RCOG Press, London

  11. 11.

    Schorn M, McAlister J, Blanco J (1993) Water immersion and the effect on labor. J Nurse Midwifery 38:336–342

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Aird IA, Luckas MJ, Buckett WM, Bousfield P (1997) Effects of intrapartum hydrotherapy on labour related parameters. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 37:137–142

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Zimmermann R, Huch A, Huch R (1993) Water birth—is it safe? J Perinat Med 21:5–11

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mc Candlish R, Renfrew M (1993) Immersion in water during labour and birth: the need for evaluation. Birth 20:79–85

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Rawal J, Shah A, Stirk F, Mehtar S (1994) Water birth and infection in babies. BMJ 309:511

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Nguyen S, Kuschel C, Teele R, Spooner C (2002) Water birth: a near drowning experience. Pediatrics 110:411–413

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Bowden K, Kessler D, Pinette M, Wilson E (2003) Underwater birth: missing the evidence or missing the point? Pediatrics 112:972–973

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Cluett ER, Nikoderm VC, McCandlish RE, Burns EE (2004) Immersion in water in pregnancy, labour and birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, issue 1, art. no. CD000111.pub2. DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub2

  19. 19.

    Pinette MG, Wax J, Wilson E (2004) The risks of water birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:1211–1215

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Schröcksnadel H, Kunczicky V, Meier J, Brezinka C, Oberaigner W (2003) Gebären im Wasser—Erfahrungen einer Universitätsklinik und eines Bezirkskrankenhauses in Österreich. Gyn Geburtsh Rundsch 43:7–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Woodward J, Kelly SM (2004) A pilot study for a randomized controlled trial of water birth versus land birth. BJOG 111:537–545

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Geissbühler V, Eberhard J (2003) Erfahrunge mit der Unterwassergeburt. Eine prospektive longitudinale Studie über 9 Jahre mit fast 4000 Wassergeburten. Gyn Geburtsh Rundsch 43:12–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Ohlsson G, Buchhave P, Leandersson U, Nordstrom L, Rydhstrom H, Sjolin I (2001) Warm tub bathing during labour: maternal and neonatal effects. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80:311–314

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Rush J, Burlock S, Lambert K, Loosley Millman M, Hutchison B, Enkin M (1996) The effects of whirlpool baths in labor: a randomized controlled trial. Birth 23:136–143

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Eckert K, Turnbull D, MacLennan A (2001) Immersion in water in the first stage of labour: a randomized controlled trial. Birth 28:84–93

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Cammu H, Clasen K, Van Wetteren L, Derde M (1994) To bathe or not to bathe during first stage of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 73:468–472

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Cammu H, Clasen K, Van Wetteren L (1992) Is having a warm bath during labour useful? J Perinat Med 20:104

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Geissbuehler V, Eberhard J (2000) Waterbirths: a comparative study. A prospective study on more than 2000 waterbirths. Fetal Diagn Ther 15:291–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Barry CN (1995) Water births: could saline in the pool reduce the potential hazards? BMJ 310:1602

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Rawal J, Shah A, Stirk A, Mehtar S (1994) Water birth and infection in babies. BMJ 309:511

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The science fund of the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, provided financial support. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosanna Zanetti-Dällenbach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zanetti-Dällenbach, R., Lapaire, O., Maertens, A. et al. Water birth, more than a trendy alternative: a prospective, observational study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 274, 355 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-006-0208-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Water birth
  • Immersion
  • Delivery