Peanut ball for decreasing length of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Full

length

article

Peanut

ball

for

decreasing

length

of

labor:

A

systematic

review

and

meta-analysis

of

randomized

controlled

trials

Jessica

M.

Grenvik

,

Emily

Rosenthal

,

Gabriele

Saccone

,

Luigi

Della

Corte

,

Johanna

Quist-Nelson

,

Richard

D.

Gerkin

,

Alexis

C.

Gimovsky

,

Mei

Kwan

,

Rebecca

Mercier

,

Vincenzo

Berghella

*

a

DivisionofMaternal-FetalMedicine,DepartmentofObstetricsandGynecology,SidneyKimmelMedicalCollegeofThomasJeffersonUniversity,Philadelphia, PA,USA

b

DepartmentofNeuroscience,ReproductiveSciencesandDentistry,SchoolofMedicine,UniversityofNaplesFedericoII,Naples,Italy c

DivisionofMaternal-FetalMedicine,DepartmentofObstetricsandGynecology,TheGeorgeWashingtonUniversitySchoolofMedicineandHealthSciences, Washington,DC,USA

d

DepartmentofInternalMedicine,UniversityofArizonaCollegeofMedicinePhoenix,Phoenix,AZ,USA e_{DepartmentofObstetricsandGynecology,KaiserPermanenteOrchardMedicalOffices,Downey,CA,USA}

ARTICLE INFO

Articlehistory:

Received31July2019

Receivedinrevisedform18September2019 Accepted19September2019 Keywords: Peanutball Lengthoflabor Vaginaldelivery Cesareansection Laboranddelivery

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Prolonged length of labor is associated with increased maternal and neonatal complications.Therefore,greatattentionhasbeengiventointerventionsaimedatreducingthelength oflabor.Onesuchinterventionisthepeanutball,alargeelongatedexerciseballplacedbetweena woman’slegsduringlabor.

Objective:Theaimofthissystematicreviewandmeta-analysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials(RCTs)was toassesstheeffectoftheuseofpeanutballinreducinglengthoflabor.

StudyDesign:Datasources:MEDLINE,EMBASE,WebofSciences,Scopus,ClinicalTrial.gov,OVIDand CochraneLibraryweresearchedfrominceptionuntilJanuary2019.Selectioncriteria:Selectioncriteria includedRCTsoflaboringwomenwithsingletongestationsincephalicpresentationatterm(37weeks) whowererandomizedtoeitheruseofpeanutballorcontrolgroup(nopeanutball).DataCollectionand Analysis:Fourtrialswith648nulliparousandmultiparouswomeninspontaneousorinducedlaborwere identifiedandincluded.330womenwererandomizedtotheintervention(peanutballbetweenthe kneesduringlabor)and318womentothecontrol.Summarymeasureswerereportedasmeandifference (MD)with95%ofconfidenceinterval(CI)usingtherandomeffectsmodelofDerSimonianandLaird.The primaryoutcomewastotallengthoflabor.PROSPERORegistrationNumber:CRD42018082438

Results:Totallengthoflaborwas79minshorterinthepeanutballgroup,butthiswasnotsignificant(MD 79.1min,95%CI 204.9,46.7).Peanutballuseshowedtrendstowardhigherincidenceofspontaneous vaginaldeliveries(RR1.1,95%CI1.0, 1.2)andlowerincidenceofcesareandeliveries(RR0.8,95%CI0.6,1.0).

Conclusions:Peanutballusewasnotassociatedwithasignificantdecreaseintotallengthoflabor.Since thereweretrendstowardreductionsinlengthoflabor,anincreasedincidenceinspontaneousvaginal deliveries,andlowerincidenceofcesareandeliveries,moreresearchisneeded.

©2019ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.

Introduction

Prolongedlaborisassociatedwithincreasedmaternal compli-cationssuchaschorioamnionitis,perineallacerations,endometritis, postpartumhemorrhage,aswellasperinatalcomplicationssuchas

neonatalsepsis,lowerApgarscores,andincreasedadmissiontothe neonatalintensivecareunit(NICU)[1,2].

Prolonged labor and failure to progress are common indications for cesarean delivery [3].Cesarean delivery may subject the womanto a longer recovery timeand increased risk of complications during the postpartum period and in futurepregnancies.Therefore,greatattentionhasbeengiven tointerventionsaimedatreducingthelengthoflabor[4–15]. Midwivesandnursescommonlyusetraditionalbirthingballs (also knownas Swiss balls) to increase maternal comfort, and widenthepelvicoutlet[13–15].Analternativetothetraditional

* Correspondingauthorat:DivisionofMaternal-FetalMedicine,Departmentof ObstetricsandGynecology,ThomasJeffersonUniversity,833ChestnutStreet,First Floor,Philadelphia,PA,19107,USA.

E-mailaddress:[email protected](V.Berghella).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.09.018

0301-2115/©2019ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved.

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

European

Journal

of

Obstetrics

&

Gynecology

and

Reproductive

Biology

birthingballisthepeanutball,alargeelongatedplasticballshaped likeapeanutshellthatisplacedbetweenawoman’slegsduring laborwhilesheislyinginthelateralrecumbentposition[16–19]. Thispositionisthoughttomimictheuprightpositionandfacilitate wideningof thepelvisandfetaldescent[17].However,thereis limitedresearchavailabledetailingitsefficacyasalaboringtool andprovidingguidelinesforitsuse.

Objective

Thus, theaimofthissystematicreviewandmeta-analysisof randomizedcontrolledtrialswastoassesstheeffectoftheuseof peanutballinreducinglengthoflabor.

Methods

Searchstrategy

Thismeta-analysiswasperformedaccordingtotheCochrane protocolrecommended for systematic review [20]. The review protocolwas designed a prioridefiningmethods for collecting, extractingandanalyzingdata.Theresearchwasconductedusing MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Sciences, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov, OVIDandCochraneLibraryaselectronicdatabases.Thetrialswere identified withthe use of a combination of the following text words:“peanut ball,”“peanutball”,“peanutlaborball”, “peanut shapedball”fromtheinceptionofeachdatabasetoJanuary2019. Norestrictionsforlanguageorgeographiclocationwereapplied.In addition,thereferencelistsofallidentifiedarticleswereexamined toidentifystudiesnotcapturedbyelectronicsearches.

Studyselectionandriskofbias

Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials of laboringwomenwithsingletongestationswithcephalic presen-tationsatterm(>=37weeks)whowererandomizedtoeitheruse of peanut ball or control group (i.e. no peanut ball). Multiple gestationsandpretermbirthswereexcluded.

Theriskofbiasineachincludedstudywasassessedbyusingthe criteriaoutlinedintheCochraneHandbookforSystematicReviewsof Interventions [20]. Seven domains related to risk of bias were assessedineachincludedtrial,sincethereisevidencethatthese issuesareassociatedwithbiasedestimatesoftreatmenteffect:1) random sequence generation; 2) allocation concealment; 3) blindingof participantsand personnel; 4) blindingof outcome assessment;5)incompleteoutcomedata;6)selectivereporting; and7)otherbias.Reviewauthors’judgmentswerecategorizedas “lowrisk,”“highrisk”or“unclearrisk”ofbias.

Outcomes

Allanalysesweredoneusinganintention-to-treatapproach, evaluatingwomenaccordingtothetreatmentgrouptowhichthey wererandomlyallocatedintheoriginaltrials.

Theprimaryoutcomeofthismeta-analysiswasthetotallength oflabor.Secondary outcomeswerelengthofthefirststageand secondstageoflabor,modeofdelivery,andneonataloutcomes, includingbirthweightandApgarscore.Outcomeswereassessed insubgroupanalysesbyparity.

Dataanalysis

The dataanalysiswas completed usingReviewManager 5.3 (Copenhagen:The NordicCochraneCentre,Cochrane Collabora-tion,2014).Between-studyheterogeneitywasexploredusingthe I2 _{statistic, which represents the percentage of between-study}

variationthatisduetoheterogeneityratherthanchance.Avalueof 0%indicatesnoobservedheterogeneity,whereasI2valuesof50% indicateasubstantiallevelofheterogeneity.

Thesummarymeasureswerereportedassummaryrelativerisk (RR)orassummarymeandifference(MD)with95%ofconfidence interval(CI)usingtherandomeffectsmodelofDerSimonianand Laird.

All review stages were conducted independently by two reviewers (JG, ER). The two authors independently assessed electronicsearch,eligibilityofthestudies,inclusioncriteria,risk of bias, data extraction and data analysis. Disagreements were resolvedbydiscussionwithathirdreviewer(VB).

The meta-analysis was reported following the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)statement[21].Fig.1showstheflowdiagram(PRISMA template)ofinformationthroughthedifferentphasesofreview. The meta-analysis was registered with the PROSPERO

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. The registrationnumberisCRD42018082438.

Results

Studyselectionandstudycharacteristics

Fourtrialswereincludedinthemeta-analysis[16–19].Alltrials included only women with singleton gestations with cephalic presentationatorafter37weeksgestationwhochoseanepidural fortheirlaborpainmanagement.Atotalof648nulliparousand multiparous women in spontaneous or induced labor were included. Of the 648 women included, 330 (50.93%) were randomized to the intervention group (peanut ball) and 318 (49.1%)wererandomizedtothecontrolgroup (nopeanut ball) (Table1).

The intervention group (peanut ball) involved the use of a peanutshapedexerciseballplacedbetweenthekneesusuallysoon after the epidural and until 10cm dilation. The control group receivedstandardcarewithnouseofthepeanutball(Table2).

Oxytocinuse was only reported in two of the four studies [17,19].Inthestudiesthatreportedoxytocinuse, 115of150women (76.7%)inthepeanutballgroupreceivedoxytocinand108of137 women(78.8%)inthecontrolgroupreceivedoxytocin.Threeof fourstudiesreportedinductionoflabor[16,17,19].Inonestudy,all womeninbothgroupswereinduced[16].Intheothertwostudies, 54of150women(36%)inthepeanutballgroupwereinducedand 52 of 137 women (38.0%) in the control group were induced (Table3).

Riskofbiasofincludedstudies

The quality of the RCTs included in our meta-analysis was assessedbyusingthecriteriaoutlinedintheCochraneHandbook

forSystematicReviewsofInterventions.Alltheincludedstudies hadlow riskofbiasin“randomsequencegeneration”Adequate methods forallocationofwomenwereusedinalltheincluded studies(Fig.2).Testsforfunnelplotasymmetrywerecarriedout only with an exploratory aim because the total number of publicationsincludedforeachoutcomewaslessthanten. Synthesisofresults

Theprimaryoutcome,totallengthoflabor,wasonlyreported inoneoutofthefourtrials[16].Inthistrial,totallengthoflabor was 79minshorter in the peanutball group compared tothe controlgroup;however,thisdifferenceisnotsignificant(MD 79.1min,95%CI 204.9,46.7;1study;170participants;Fig.3). Whenanalyzedbyparity,therewasalsonosignificantdifference intotallengthoflaborbetweenpeanutballversusnopeanutball groupsinnulliparouswomenonly(MD 94.6min,95%CI 298.5, 109.3;1study;62participants;Table6)ormultiparouswomen only (MD 89.7 min, 95% CI 238.4, 59.0; 1 study; 108 participants;Table7).

Length of thefirst stage of laborwas 53minshorterin the peanut ballgroupversusthe controlgroup,and thisdifference approached significance (MD 53.2min, 95% CI 110.8,4.3; 4 studies;648participants;I2_{=60%;Table4).Thisdatawasfurther} analyzedbasedonparity.Innulliparouswomen,lengthofthefirst stageof laborwas 48minshorterin thepeanut ballversusno peanut ball group;however, this differencewas not significant (MD 48.4min,95%CI 110.7,13.7;4studies;429participants; I2_{=49%;Table6).Similarly,formultiparouswomen,thelengthof} thefirststageoflaborwas65minshorterinthepeanutballgroup, but the difference was not significant (MD 64.6 min, 95% CI 132.2,2.9];2studies;198participants;I2_=0%;Table7).

There was alsonosignificantdifference in thelengthofthe secondstageoflaborinthepeanutballgroupversusnopeanutball

Table1 StudyCharacteristics. Location Intervention group(n) Control group(n)

Parity Exclusioncriteria

Roth201616

USA 89 81 Nulliparous and multiparous

Initially,therewerenoexclusioncriteriaotherthanthoseimpliedbyinclusioncriteria. ResearcherslaterdecidedtoexcludefromanalysisallwomenwhorequiredC-section becausemostdidnotreach10cmdilation.

Tussey201517 _{USA 107 94 Nulliparous}

and multiparous

Preeclampsiarequiringmagnesiumsulfate;intrauterineinfection;Category3fetalheart tracing

Evans201618

USA 91 100 Nulliparous Highriskpregnancies;musculoskeletaldisorders;pretermorpost-termgestation;diabetes; useofmagnesiumsulfate;plannedcesareandelivery

Mercier201819

USA 43 43 Nulliparous Multiparous,multiplegestation,under18yearsold,non-Englishspeakers,majorfetal congenitalanomalies

Table2

Interventionandcontrolgroups.

Howpeanutballwasused Whenenrolledinlabor Wheninlabor started

Wheninlabor ended

Controlgroup

Roth201616

Peanutballplacedbetweenknees.Additional lateralrotationofbodypositionevery30minutes.

Uponpresentingfor inductionoflabor

Within 30minutesof epidural.

At10cmdilation Nopeanutball,maximum onepillowbetween knees.

Tussey201517

Peanutballplacedbetweenknees.Additional changingofbodypositionevery1-2hoursafter epiduraladministration.

Afterreceivingepidural Immediately afterepidural.

At10cmdilation andafterpassive decentoffetus.

Nopeanutball

Evans201618

Peanutballplacedbetweenknees. Notreported Within 30minutesof epidural.

At10cmdilation Nopeanutball,receiving standardcareusing pillowsandwedges

Mercier201819

Peanutballplacedbetweenkneesforatleast 15minutesperhouroflabor.

UponpresentingtoLabor andDeliveryforlaboror laborinduction

Uponreaching 6cmorgreater dilation

At10cmdilation Nopeanutball,maximum 2pillowsbetweenknees.

group (MD 11.7 min, 95% CI 33.6 to 10.2; 2 studies; 371 participants;I2=81%;Table4).Whenanalyzedbasedonparity, therewasnosignificantdifferencebetweengroupsinnulliparous women(MD 19.7,95%CI 45.7to6.4;2studies;152participants; I2=46%;Table6)orinmultiparouswomen(MD 5.5min,95% CI 11.6,0.7;2studies;198participants;I2_=0%;Table7).

Use ofthe peanut ball versus no peanut ball resulted in trendsfor higher incidence of spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0, 1.2; 4 studies; 648 participants; I2_=0%; Table4)andlowerincidenceofcesareandelivery(RR0.8,95% CI 0.6, 1.0; 4 studies; 648 participants; I2_{=0%; Table 4).} Subgroupanalysesoftheseoutcomesinnulliparous(Table6) andmultiparouswomen(Table7)concurredwiththeoverall analysis(Figs.4and5).

There was not a signi_ficant difference in rate of operative vaginal delivery in peanut ball versus no peanut ball group (Table4)overall,orinsubgroupanalysesofnulliparous(Table6) andmultiparouswomen(Table7).Therewasalsonosignificant differencefoundinneonataloutcomessuchasApgarscoreand birthweight(Table5).

Discussion

Mainfindings

Thismeta-analysisincludedfourtrialswith648participants andaimedtoevaluatelengthof labor,and potentialharmsand benefits of peanuts ball in singleton gestations with cephalic presentation at term with epidural anesthesia. This study demonstratedthatuseofthepeanutballduringlaborresultsin a non-significantreduction intotal lengthoflaborbyoverone hour.Similarly,atrendtowardreductionoffirstandsecondstage oflaborwasalsofoundinthepeanutballgroupversusthecontrol group,thoughthistrendwasnotsignificant.Therewasalsoaslight increasedincidenceofspontaneousvaginaldeliveryanddecreased incidenceofcesareandelivery,andthesedataapproachedbutdid notreachstatisticalsignificance.Thesefindingssuggestthatwhile thereisnosignificantbenefitassociatedwithuseofthepeanut ball,theremaybepossiblereductioninthelengthoflaborand possibleincreasedincidenceofspontaneousvaginaldelivery,with moreresearchanddataneeded.

Table3

Labormanagement.

Oxytocin Induction

Roth201616 _{Notreported Allwomenwereinduced}

PB:78/78(100%)NoPB:71/71(100%)

Tussey201517

PB:Oxytocinusedin85/107(79.3%)NoPB:Oxytocinusedin74/94(79.8%) PB:30/107(28.0%)wereinduced NoPB:29/94(31.5%)wereinduced

Evans201618

Notreported Notreported

Mercier201819

PB:Oxytocinusedin30/43(70%)NoPB:Oxytocinusedin34/43(79%) PB:24/43(55%)NoPB:23/43(53%) PB,peanutball.

Fig.2. Assessmentofriskofbias.(A)Summaryofriskofbiasforeachtrial;Plussign:lowriskofbias;minussign:highriskofbias;questionmark:unclearriskofbias.(B)Risk ofbiasgraphabouteachriskofbiasitempresentedaspercentagesacrossallincludedstudies.

Strengths,limitations,andcomparisonwithexistingliterature Thismeta-analysishasseveralstrengths.All randomized con-trolledtrialspublishedonthistopicwereincludedinthisanalysis.To ourknowledge,thisisthefirstmeta-analysisexaminingwhetheruse ofthepeanutballreducesthelengthoflabor.

Limitationsofthisanalysisareinherenttothelimitationsofthe includedRCTs.Onlyfourtrialswereincluded,andonlyonestudy

reporteddataontheprimaryoutcome.Defininglengthoflaboris challenging since it often depends onwhen a woman initially presentsforlaboriflaborisspontaneous.Iflaborisinduced,itis stillchallengingbecausetechniquesusedforcervicalripeningcan varybetweenpatientsand providers.However,thefact thatall studiesinthisanalysisarerandomizedshouldmitigatesomeof this variability. Additionally, subgroup analyses in RCTs are consideredtobeprovisional;therefore,anysubgroupanalysisin Fig.2.(Continued)

Fig.3. Forestplotfortotallengthoflabor.

Table4

Obstetricoutcomes.

Totallengthoflabor(min) 1st

stage(min) 2nd

stage(min) SVD OVD CD

Roth201616 _423.8(353.6) vs502.9(469.0) 370.1(341.5)vs 449.3(456.1) 53.7(47.6)vs 53.6(54.0) 73/86(84.9%)vs 70/84(83.3%) 4/86(4.7%)vs4/ 84(4.8%) 9/86(10.5%)vs 10/84(11.9%) Tussey201517 Notreported 250.9(185.9)vs 343.0(214.3) 21.5(25.0)vs 43.8(52.1) 87/107(81.3%)vs 64/94(68.1%) 9/107(8.4%)vs 11/94(11.7%) 11/107(10.3%)vs 19/94(21.1%) Evans201618 Notreported 331.3(187.1)vs 322.7(174) Notreported 70/91(76.9%)vs 69/100(69.0%) 0/91vs0/100 21/91(23.1%)vs 31/100(31.0%) Mercier201819 Notreported 315(176)vs387 (227) Notreported 29/43(67.4%)vs 28/43(65.1%) 0/43vs0/43 14/43(32.6%)vs 15/43(34.9%) Total 424vs503 317vs376 38vs49 259/327(79.2%) vs231/321 (72.0%) 13/327(4.0%)vs 15/321(4.7%) 55/327(16.8%)vs 75/321(23.4%) I2 N/A 60% 81% 0% 0% 0% RRorMD (95%CI) 79.1[ 204.9 to46.7] 53.2[ 110.8to 4.3] 11.7[ 33.6to 10.2] 1.1[1.0to1.2] 0.8[0.4to1.6] 0.8[0.6to1.0]

Datapresentedasnumbers(percentage)orasmean(standarddeviation)intheintervention(peanutball)vscontrol(nopeanutball)group.

RR,relativerisk;MD,meandifference;CI,confidenceinterval;SVD,spontaneousvaginaldelivery;OVD,operativevaginaldelivery;CD,cesareandelivery.

Fig.5. Forestplotforcesareandeliveryinnulliparouswomen.

Table5

Neonataloutcomes.

Birthweight(grams) Apgarscoreat1min Apgarscoreat10min

Roth201616

Notreported Notreported Notreported

Tussey201517 _{3,456(452)vs3393(609) 8.2(1.2)vs8.2(1.5) 8.8(1.2)vs8.8(1.0)}

Evans201618 _{Notreported Notreported Notreported}

Mercier201819

3,254(466)vs3281(509) Notreported Notreported

Total 3,355vs3,337 8.2vs8.2 8.8vs8.8

I2

0% Notapplicable Notapplicable

MD(95%CI) 28.8[ 98.4to156.0] 0.0[ 0.4to0.4] 0.0[ 0.3to0.3] Datapresentedasnumbers(percentage)orasmean(standarddeviation)intheintervention(peanutball)vscontrol(nopeanutball)group.

MD,meandifference;CI,confidenceinterval.

Table6

Obstetricsoutcomesinsubgroupanalysesofnulliparouswomen.

Totallengthoflabor(min) 1st_{stage(min) 2}nd_{stage(min) SVD OVD CD}

Roth201616 605.6(403.9)vs 700.2(410.6) 502.9(412.7)vs 596.7(408.5) 102.8(49.9)vs 103.5(69.7) 22/34(64.7%)vs 16/28(57.1%) 4/34 (11.8%)vs3/28 (10.7%) 8/34 (23.5%)vs9/28 (10.7%)

Tussey201517 _{Notreported 303.8(230.7)vs}

401.1(197.1) 33.7(27.5)vs62.7 (60.1) 36/51(70.6%)vs 29/55(44.6%) 4/51(7.8%)vs 8/55(14.5%) 11/51(21.6%)vs 18/55(32.7%) Evans201618 Notreported 331.3(187.1)vs 322.7(174) Notreported 70/91(76.9%)vs 69/100(69.0%) 0/91vs0/100 21/91(23.1%)vs 31/100(31.0%) Mercier201819 Notreported 315(176)vs387 (227) Notreported 29/43(67.4%)vs 28/43(65.1%) 0/43vs0/43 14/43(32.6%)vs 15/43(34.9%) Total 606vs700 363vs376 68vs83 157/219(71.7%) vs142/226 (62.8%) 8/219(3.7%)vs11/ 226(4.9%) 54/219(24.7%)vs 73/226(32.3%) I2 Notapplicable 49% 46% 0% 0% 0% RRorMD(95% CI) 94.6[ 298.5to109.3] 48.5[ 110.7to 13.7] 19.7[ 45.7to 6.4] 1.1[1.0to1.3] 0.7[0.3to1.7] 0.8[0.6to1.0]

Datapresentedasnumbers(percentage)orasmean(standarddeviation)intheintervention(peanutball)vscontrol(nopeanutball)group.

RR,relativerisk;MD,meandifference;CI,confidenceinterval;SVD,spontaneousvaginaldelivery;OVD,operativevaginaldelivery;CD,cesareandelivery.

Table7

Obstetricsoutcomesinsubgroupanalysesofmultiparouswomen. Totallengthoflabor(min) 1st

stage(min) 2nd

stage(min) SVD OVD CD

Roth201616 _{336.6(292.8)vs} 426.3(471.5) 306.4(284.7)vs 392.1(464.7) 30.2(21.4)vs34.2 (29.7) 51/52(98.1%)vs 54/56(96.4%) 0/52vs1/56 (1.8%) 1/52(1.9%)vs1/ 56(1.8%)

Tussey201517 _{Notreported 208.0(126.3)vs}

267.1(214.8) 11.6(17.5)vs18.0 (20.0) 56/56(100.0%)vs 31/38(81.6%) 0/56(0.0%)vs3/ 38(7.9%) 0/56(0.0%)vs4/ 38(10.5%) Evans201618 * – – – – – – Mercier201819 * – – – – – – Total 336vs426 257vs330 21vs26 107/108(99.1%) vs85/94(90.4%) 0/108vs4/94 (4.3%) 1/108(0.9%)vs5/ 94(5.3%) I2 _{N/A 0% 0% 88% 0% 44%} RRorMD(95%CI) 89.7[ 238.4to59.0] 64.6[ 132.2to 2.9] 5.5[ 11.6to 0.7] 1.1[0.9to1.4] 0.2[0.0to1.5] 0.3[0.0to4.3]

Datapresentedasnumbers(percentage)orasmean(standarddeviation)intheintervention(peanutball)vscontrol(nopeanutball)group.

RR,relativerisk;MD,meandifference;CI,confidenceinterval;SVD,spontaneousvaginaldelivery;OVD,operativevaginaldelivery;CD,cesareandelivery.

*

thismeta-analysiscannotbeconsideredasdefinitiveasanalysisof therandomizedgroup.

Conclusionsandimplications

Maternalpositioningduringlaborcanbemodifiedtofacilitate fetaldescentandprogressionoflabor.IntheUnitedStates,women mostcommonlylaborin ahorizontalpositionlikely duetothe popularity of epidural anesthesia for pain management [11]. Womenremaininbedafterplacementofepiduralanesthesiadue torisk of postural hypotensionand decreased lowerextremity mobility[11].However,thishorizontalpositionmaybe detrimen-taltotheprogressionoflabor.Thepressureofthebedcausesthe sacrumandcoccyxtobepushedanteriorly,hinderingthenatural wideningofthepelvicoutletand interferingwithfetaldescent [13].Therefore,laboringinanuprightpositionisfavoredinorder towiden the pelvic outlet and facilitate fetal descent. Upright positioning has also been associated with decreased operative vaginaldelivery,decreasedlengthoffirstandsecondstageoflabor, anddecreasedincidenceofperineallacerations[13].Someupright positionscommonlyused includestanding, squattingorsitting, includingsittingonabirthingball[11].

While ourresults arenot statisticallysignificant, use of the peanutballduringlabormayresultinareductionintotallengthof labor,firststageoflabor,andsecondstageoflabor,aswellastrends for higher rate of vaginal delivery and lower ratefor cesarean delivery.MoredatafromadditionalRCTsareneededtodetermine ifthesetrendsarevalid.

Disclosure

Theauthorsreportnoconflictofinterest.

Financialsupport

No_financialsupportwasreceivedforthisstudy.

Theauthorsdeclarethefollowingfinancialinterests/personal relationshipswhich may beconsidered as potential competing interests:None

DeclarationofCompetingInterest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appearedtoinfluencetheworkreportedinthispaper.

References

[1]LaughonSK,BerghellaV,ReddyUM,SundaramR,LuZ,HoffmanMK.Neonatal andmaternaloutcomeswithprolongedsecondstageoflabor.ObstetGynecol 2014;124(July1):57–67.

[2]ChengYW,ShafferBL,BryantAS,CaugheyAB.Lengthofthefirststageoflabor andassociatedperinataloutcomesinnulliparouswomen.ObstetGynecol 2010;116(November5):1127–35.

[3]GiffordDS,MortonSC,FiskeM,KeeseyJ,KeelerE,KahnKL.Lackofprogressin laborasareasonforcesarean.ObstetGynecol2000;95(April4):589–95. [4]AquinoCI,GuidaM,SacconeG,CruzY,VitaglianoA,ZulloF,etal.Perineal

massageduringlabor:asystematicreviewandmeta-analysisofrandomized controlledtrials.JMaternFetalNeonatalMed2018;19:1–13,doi:http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1512574Sep.

[5]RiegelM,Quist-NelsonJ,SacconeG,LocciM,ShrivastavaVK,SalimR,etal. Dextroseintravenousfluidtherapyinlaborreducesthelengthofthefirststage oflabor.EurJObstetGynecolReprodBiol2018;228:284–94,doi:http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.07.019SepEpub2018Jul17.Review..

[6]AquinoCI,SacconeG,TroisiJ,ZulloF,GuidaM,BerghellaV.Useoflubricant geltoshortenthesecondstageoflaborduringvaginaldelivery.JMaternFetal Neonatal Med 2018;27:1–8, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018. 1482271Jun.

[7]SchoenCN,SacconeG, BackleyS,SandbergEM, GuN,DelaneyS,etal. Increasedsingle-balloonFoleycathetervolumeforinductionoflaborandtime todelivery:asystematicreviewandmeta-analysis.ActaObstetGynecolScand 2018;97(September9)1051–60,doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13353Epub 2018Apr25.

[8]SacconeG, CiardulliA, BaxterJK, QuiñonesJN,DivenLC,PinarB, etal. Discontinuingoxytocininfusionintheactivephaseoflabor:asystematic reviewandmeta-analysis.ObstetGynecol2017;130(November5):1090–6, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.000000000000232.

[9]EhsanipoorRM,SacconeG,SeligmanNS,Pierce-WilliamsRAM,CiardulliA, BerghellaV.Intravenousfluidrateforreductionofcesareandeliveryrate innulliparouswomen:asystematicreviewandmeta-analysis.ActaObstet Gynecol Scand 2017;96(July 7):804–11, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs. 13121.

[10]CiardulliA,SacconeG,AnastasioH,BerghellaV.Less-restrictivefoodintake duringlaborinlow-risksingletonpregnancies:asystematicreviewand meta-analysis.ObstetGynecol2017;129(March3):473–80,doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001898.

[11]ShermerRH,RainesDA.Positioningduringthesecondstageoflabor:moving backtobasics.JObstetGynecolNeonatalNurs1997;26(November-December 6):727–34.

[12]CommentaryPaciornikM.Argumentsagainstepisiotomyandin favorof squattingforbirth.Birth1990;17(June2):104–5.

[13]ZwellingE.Overcomingthechallenges:maternalmovementandpositioning tofacilitatelaborprogress.MCNAmJMaternChildNurs2010;35(March-April 2):72–80.

[14]ZwellingE,JohnsonK,AllenJ.Howtoimplementcomplementarytherapiesfor laboringwomen.MCNAmJMaternChildNurs2006;31(November-December 6)36470.

[15]JohnsonJ.Birthballs.MidwiferyToday1997;43:59–67.

[16]RothC,DentSA,ParfittSE,HeringSL,BayRC.Randomizedcontrolledtrialof useofthepeanutballduringlabor.MCNAmJMaternChildNurs 2016;41(May-June3):140–6.

[17]TusseyCM,BotsiosE,GerkinRD,KellyLA,GamezJ,MensikJ.Reducinglength oflaborandcesareansurgeryrateusingapeanutballforwomenlaboringwith anepidural.JPerinatEduc2015;24(1):16–24.

[18]EvansSJ,CremeringM.Useofpeanutlaborballforpelvicpositioningfor nulliparous women following epidural anesthesia. JOGNN: Journal of Obstetric,Gynecologic&NeonatalNursing2016;45(SupplS3):S47. [19]MercierRJ,KwanM.Impactofpeanutballdeviceonthedurationofactive

labor:arandomizedcontroltrial.AmJPerinatol2018;35(10):1006–11. [20]HigginsJPT,GreenS,editors.Cochranehandbookforsystematicreviewsof

interventions, version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 (update March2011).

[21]MoherD, LiberatiA,TetzlaffJ,AltmanDG. Preferredreportingitemsfor systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol2009;62:1006–12.