arrow
Return

Second-stage labor: consensus versus science

delete2020-02-01
delete18
PRE
AI
D
David B. Nelson *
D
Donald D. McIntire
K
Kenneth J. Leveno
DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2019.08.044delete
deleteOriginal
deleteOriginal request for help
deleteShare
deleteSave
Abstract

Abstract

En 中文
There has been a recent significant evolution in suggested practices for the management of labor because of the increased national cesarean delivery rate. One of the most significant changes was promulgated by the 2014 Obstetric Care Consensus entitled, Safe Prevention of Primary Cesarean Delivery, which recommended reconsideration of the upper limits of the length of labor in the second stage as well as the first stage. We previously published a 2016 Clinical Opinion challenging the second-stage practice change. Over the past 2 years, there have been at least 5 reports as well as 2 national organization statements supporting revised management of second-stage labor. We now revisit the second-stage issue because we believe that it is important to carefully clarify the current status resulting from consensus statements as well as the evolving current status of scientific evidence. We structured this Clinical Opinion using questions in an effort to chronicle the story of how obstetric precepts on second-stage labor in use for more than 50 years were being replaced. How did we get here? What is the current evidence? What can be learned from this experience? Should American obstetrics now fall back to pre-existing obstetric precepts for the management of second-stage labor after having sprung forward an additional hour-namely, lengthening the duration of acceptable second-stage labor to 4 hours as recommended by the Obstetric Care Consensus? We believe that the data published since our 2016 Clinical Opinion buttress our original position that prolongation of the second stage beyond historical precepts is unsafe.
Keywords:
cesarean delivery
delayed pushing
epidural
labor
neuraxial analgesia
second stage of labor
AI Summary

AI Summary

Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.

Journal

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology cover
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
IF:
8.4
Papers:
3.3W
Citations:
4.5W

Organization

U
university of texas system
Scholars:
18.5W
Papers: 15.6W
Citations: 210
Cited Papers

Cited Papers

New labor management guidelines and changes in cesarean delivery patterns
err2017-12-01
err59
errOAAI
errRosenbloom, Joshua I.; Stout, Molly J.; Tuuli, Methodius G.; Woolfolk, Candice L.; Lopez, Julia D.; Macones, George A.; Cahill, Alison G.
errShare
errSave
Too close for comfort Reply
err2016-09-01
err1
errOAAI
errGimovsky, Alexis C.; Berghella, Vincenzo
errShare
errSave
Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes With Increasing Duration of the Second Stage of Labor
err2009-06-01
err170
PREAI
errAllen, Victoria M.; Baskett, Thomas F.; O'Connell, Colleen M.; McKeen, Dolores; Allen, Alexander C.
errShare
errSave
Neonatal and Maternal Outcomes With Prolonged Second Stage of Labor
err2014-07-01
err196
errOAAI
errLaughon, S. Katherine; Berghella, Vincenzo; Reddy, Uma M.; Sundaram, Rajeshwari; Lu, Zhaohui; Hoffman, Matthew K.
errShare
errSave
Contemporary Patterns of Spontaneous Labor With Normal Neonatal Outcomes
err2010-12-01
err623
errOAAI
errZhang, Jun; Landy, Helain J.; Branch, D. Ware; Burkman, Ronald; Haberman, Shoshana; Gregory, Kimberly D.; Hatjis, Christos G.; Ramirez, Mildred M.; Bailit, Jennifer L.; Gonzalez-Quintero, Victor H.; Hibbard, Judith U.; Hoffman, Matthew K.; Kominiarek, Michelle; Learman, Lee A.; Van Veldhuisen, Paul; Troendle, James; Reddy, Uma M.
errShare
errSave
errShare
errSave
researcher View more