Analgesic effects of sterile water injection in the management of low back pain during labor: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Chueh‐Yi Huang,Sheu‐Fang Lo,Shih‐Hsiang Chou,Chia‐Lung Shih

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14168

2022-03-22

Abstract:International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, Accepted Article.

obstetrics & gynecology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Sterile water injections for back pain in labour

Giulia M Muraca,John L K Kramer,Alexander J Butwick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1187

2024-06-03

BMJ

Abstract:Recent recommendations by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)1 regarding the use of sterile water injections for back pain during labour have sparked controversy.23 The intrapartum care guideline states that sterile water injections alleviate back pain during labour from 10 minutes after injection for up to three hours.1 However, the NICE evidence review underpinning these recommendations reveals uncertainty about the effectiveness of sterile water injections and the lack of transparency regarding the pain associated with sterile water injections is concerning.4In its review, NICE evaluated 11 studies (10 randomised controlled trials and one Cochrane systematic review5) assessing low risk women who gave birth to a single infant at 37-42 weeks' gestation. Using the GRADE framework,6 NICE produced detailed evidence profiles and assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome of interest. These certainty assessments considered five domains: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias.7 Among...

medicine, general & internal
Effect of topical local anaesthesia on injection pain associated with administration of sterile water injections - a randomized controlled trial

Lena B. Mårtensson,Britt-Marie Gunnarsson,Sandra Karlsson,Nigel Lee,Ingrid Bergh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01573-0

IF: 2.376

2022-02-01

BMC Anesthesiology

Abstract:Abstract Background Sterile water injections can provide effective pain relief during childbirth, particularly for low back pain related to childbirth. However, the pain associated administering the injections can negatively impact women’s impressions of the procedure. It may discourage women from considering repeat doses despite the quality of analgesia experienced. Determining strategies to reduce the pain related to the administration of sterile water injections would improve the acceptability of the technique. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of topical local anesthesia on the pain associated with administration of sterile water injections. Methods The study was designed as a multi-arm single-blind, randomized, controlled trial and 120 female healthy students were randomly divided according to one of four groups. The Intervention group received sterile water injections with topical local anesthesia. Control group 1 received sterile water injections without topical local anesthesia, control group 2 received injections of isotonic saline 0.9% with topical local anesthesia and control group 3 received injections of isotonic saline 0.9% without topical local anesthesia. Pain Immediately after the injections and subsidence in pain were recorded using a visual analogue scale. Sensations in the injection area were reported 15 min and the day after the injections. Results The main finding of this study was that local anesthesia with EMLA® reduces the pain associated with the administration of intracutaneous sterile water injections. There was a significant difference in the self-assessed pain score immediately following the injections between the control (73.3 mm) and intervention groups (50.0 mm), p = 0.001. No adverse side effects were reported. Conclusion Local anesthesia with EMLA® reduces the pain associated with intracutaneous administration of sterile water injections. Trial registration The study was registered 08/07/2014 at ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02213185 .

anesthesiology
Effect of Intradermal Sterile Water Injection on Labor Experiences: A Randomized Controlled Study

Rojjin Mamuk,Nevin Hotun Şahin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog5003065

2023-03-15

Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract:Background: Sterile water injection is rapidly gaining popularity as a method of pain relief in labor. The purpose of this single-blinded randomized controlled study is to investigate the effect of intradermal sterile water injection (ISWI) on labor experiences of women who experience low-back pain during labor. Methods: The sample group of the study was 120 pregnant women with severe low-back pain during labor (30-sterile water, 30-saline solution, 60-control). In the study, the baseline low back pain score (>7) was determined with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in the ISWI group and then 0.1 mL sterile water made to form 4 small blebs 1 over each posterior superior iliac spine and 2 others placed 3 cm below and 1 cm medial to each of the first sites (Michaelis Rhomboid). The VAS scoring were repeated at 10–30–60–90 and 120th minutes after the injections. In the saline solution group, injection of 0.1 mL saline solution was made with the same procedure. Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) were utilized to determine the effect of injections on participants’ labor experiences. Also participants’ satisfaction with the method was evaluated via Intradermal injections assessment form. Results: There was a significant difference between the mean VAS scores in favor of the ISWI group (p < 0.05). Also comparisons indicated significant differences in favor of the ISWI group in terms of both CEQ total mean score and women’s thoughts about injections (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The findings of this study showed that ISWI was effective in relieving low-back pain during labor and the technique had positive effects on labor experiences.

obstetrics & gynecology
Sterile water injections for relief of labour pain (the SATURN trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Nigel Lee,Yu Gao,Lena B. Mårtensson,Leonie Callaway,Belinda Barnett,Sue Kildea

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06093-3

IF: 2.728

2022-02-16

Trials

Abstract:Abstract Background Up to 80% of women use some form of pharmacological analgesia during labour and birth. The side effects of pharmacological agents are often incompatible with the concurrent use of non-pharmacological pain relieving strategies, such as water immersion, ambulation and upright positioning, or may have negative effects on both the mother and fetus. Sterile water injections given into the skin of the lumbar region have been demonstrated to reduce back pain during labour. However, the injections given for back pain have no effect on abdominal contraction pain. The analgesic efficacy of sterile water injections for abdominal pain during childbirth is unknown. The injections cause an immediate, brief but significant pain that deters some women from using the procedure. This study aims to investigate the use of water injections given intradermally into the abdomen to relieve labour contraction pain. A vapocoolant spray will be applied to the skin immediately prior to the injections to reduce the injection pain. Methods In this pragmatic, placebo controlled trial 154 low-risk women in labour at term with a labour pain score ≥ 60 on a 100 millimitre visual analogue scale (VAS) will be randomly allocated to receive either six injections of sterile water or a sodium chloride 0.9% solution as a placebo (0.1–.0.3 ml per injection). Three injections are given along the midline from the fundus to the supra-pubis and three laterally across the supra-pubis. The primary outcome will be the difference in VAS score 30 min post injection between groups. Secondary outcomes include VAS score of the injection pain on administration, VAS score of labour pain at 60 and 90 min, maternal and neonatal birth outcomes. Discussion Access to effective pain relief during labour is fundamental to respectful and safe maternity care. Pharmacological analgesics should support rather than limit other non-pharmacological strategies. Sterile water injections have the potential to provide an alternative form of labour pain relief that is easy to administer in any labour and birth setting, and compatible with other non-pharmacological choices. Trial registration ANZCTR (ACTRN12621001036808) Date submitted: 22/06/2021. Date registered: 05/08/2021. https://www.anzctr.org.au/

medicine, research & experimental
Two versus four sterile water injections for managing back pain in labour

Nigel Lee,Mrs Bernadette Leiser,Ms Yvonne Halter-Wehrli,Lena B Mårtensson,Yu Gao,Sue Kildea,Nigel Lee,Lena B Mårtensson,Yu Gao,Sue Kildea

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2022.07.023

IF: 3.349

2022-09-01

Women and Birth

Abstract:Introduction The efficacy and safety of sterile water injections to manage labour back pain was demonstrated in recent clinical trials. Varying the number of injections used in the procedure from four to two has been cited as a means of possibly reducing the injection pain while maintaining analgesic effect. However, it is not known if the pain relief provided by two sterile water injections is the same as that from the usual four injections, or if fewer injections results in a decrease in injection discomfort. Aim The aim of this trial was to determine if the pain relief experienced by participants receiving two water injections would be clinically equivalent to four. Methods We conducted a multicenter randomised controlled equivalence trial in which 238 women in labour with a Visual Analogue Scale pain score (VAS) of 70 millimetres (mm) (0= no pain; 100= worst pain imaginable) were randomised to two or four sterile water injections. The primary outcome was pain measured on a VAS at 30minutes post treatment. A clinically relevant a-priori margin of equivalence was set at ±10mm difference in VAS scores. Secondary outcomes included the likelihood of achieving an at least 30% and 50% reduction in pain, birth and neonatal outcomes. Results Clinical equivalence was not demonstrated. Both techniques achieved an at least 30% reduction in pain in over 75% of participants though duration of effect was longer in the four injection group. There was no difference in other birth related secondary outcomes. Conclusion Four injections provided a margin of benefit over two injections in level and duration of analgesia. Four injections remains the technique of choice though two injections still provided significant pain relief and would be suitable where it was not possible or desirable to provide four.

nursing,obstetrics & gynecology
A comparison of two versus four sterile water injections for the relief of back pain in labour: A multicentre randomised equivalence trial

Nigel Lee,Bernadette Leiser,Yvonne Halter-Wehrli,Yu Gao,Sue Kildea,Lena B. Mårtensson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2022.02.002

IF: 3.349

2022-02-01

Women and Birth

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Recent trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy of sterile water injections to provide relief from labour back pain. While four injections is the most common approach variations in technique, such as employing two injections, are also used.AIM: To determine if the analgesic effect of two sterile water injections is clinically equivalent to four.METHODS: 238 women in labour with a Visual Analogue Scale pain score (VAS) of 70 millimetres (mm) (0 = no pain; 100 = worst pain imaginable) were randomised to two or four sterile water injections. The primary outcome was pain measured on a VAS at 30 min post treatment. A priori margin of equivalence was set at ±10 mm. Secondary outcomes included the likelihood of achieving an at least 30% and 50% reduction in pain, birth and neonatal outcomes.RESULTS: At 30 min post-injection the difference in VAS scores between the techniques was -5.97 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] -13.18-1.22). As the lower end of the CI exceeds the margin of -10 mm equivalence was not demonstrated. Both techniques achieved an at least 30% reduction in pain in over 75% of participants though duration of effect was longer in the four injection group. There was no difference in other birth related secondary outcomes.CONCLUSION: Four injections provided a margin of benefit over two injections in level and duration of analgesia.DISCUSSION: Four injections remains the technique of choice though two injections still provided significant pain relief and would be suitable where it was not possible or desirable to provide four.

nursing,obstetrics & gynecology
Comparative Analgesic Effects of Intradermal and Subdermal Injection of Sterile Water on Active Labor Pain

Fariba Almassinokiani,Nasim Ahani,Peyman Akbari,Poupak Rahimzadeh,Hossein Akbari,Fatemeh Sharifzadeh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5812/aapm.99867

2020-04-25

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Abstract:<span><b>Background:</b> The labor pain is one of the factors encouraging pregnant women for cesarean section delivery. Recently, intradermal and subdermal injection of distilled water has shown to be effective in improving this pain. <b>Objectives:</b> The present study aimed to determine which method has a greater impact on labor pain reduction. <b>Methods:</b> In this double-blind, randomized clinical trial, 121 nulliparous women with a gestational age of ≥ 37 weeks were randomly divided into three groups: (1) 0.5 cc sterile water injection subdermally at four sacral points with insulin needles (n = 40); (2) 0.5 cc sterile water injection intradermally (n = 39); and (3) needle contact with the mentioned points as the placebo (n = 42). Before the intervention, the VAS score was measured for labor pain, and it was repeated 10, 30, 60, and 90 min after the intervention. The results were compared between the three groups. <b>Results:</b> Before the intervention, the mean VAS pain score had no significant difference between the three groups. However, 30, 60, and 90 min after the intervention, the mean pain score was significantly lower in the intradermal and subdermal injection groups than in the control group (P = 0.001); however, the difference between the intradermal and subdermal injection groups was not significant. <b>Conclusions:</b> The injection of distilled water by either intradermal or subdermal method was associated with a significant reduction in the pain score during labor, but there was no difference between these two methods in terms of decreasing labor pain. As sterile water injection is a safe, effective, and low-cost method, it is proposed to increase the knowledge of midwives and obstetricians about this method. Keywords <a class="ui tag label" href="/aapm/result.html?@d_keyword=Analgesia"> Analgesia </a><a class="ui tag label" href="/aapm/result.html?@d_keyword=Labor%20Pain"> Labor Pain </a><a class="ui tag label" href="/aapm/result.html?@d_keyword=Intradermal%20Injection"> Intradermal Injection </a><a class="ui tag label" href="/aapm/result.html?@d_keyword=Subdermal%20Injection"> Subdermal Injection </a></span>
Clinical Analysis of Water Birth 98 Cases

Le Chen

2014-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To assess the analgesic effect of water birth and its safety for the mother and the newborn. Methods: Ninetyeight pregnant women who delivered under water were enrolled in the water birth group and 96 pregnant women who delivered vaginally acted as control. The subjective pain intensity score was evaluated by the questionnaires. The birth process,labor pain,intrapartum hemorrhage,perineal tears of the parturients and incidence of neonatal asphyxia were compared between the two groups. Results: The intensity of labor pain in the water birth group was significantly decreased after the parturient women got into water( P 0. 01). No episiotomy occurred in the water birth group,and the episiotomy rate in the control group was 66. 67%; the difference was not significant between the two groups( P 0. 01). There was obvious difference between the two groups in the length of the first stage of labor( P 0.01),but no significant difference in the second and third stage of labor,blood loss,perineal laceration,postpartum hemorrhage or neonatal asphyxia( P 0. 05). Conclusions: Water birth can relieve labor pain and reduce perineal trauma; it is safe for the mother and the newborn.
Randomized controlled study of intradermal sterile water injection and intradermal lidocaine injection in obstetric analgesia

Birsen Konukcu,Enis Özkaya,Berna Buse Kobal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51271/jcogp-0034

2024-07-30

Abstract:Aims: In today’s world, the increasing desire for normal and uninterrupted delivery in pregnant women has brought the need to combat labor pain and non-pharmacological techniques to the agenda again. These methods should be reconsidered in order to increase their analgesia effectiveness and to popularize their use. Methods: In our study, intradermal sterile water (SW) injection technique, which is one of the non-pharmacological techniques, was used and the effects of intra-injection saline and lidocaine were compared. 128 patients were included in our study, and 64 patients were injected with intradermal SW and 64 patients were injected with intradermal lidocaine to provide analgesia. During labor follow-up, durations of labor phases, dilatation and effacement rates were recorded, along with Visuel analoque scale (VAS) scoring and delivery type, episiotomy application, operative delivery, cesarean section, and apgar data. At the end of the delivery, the patient's satisfaction with the procedure, the degree of pain reduction and her willingness to use this method again were questioned and recorded. Results: Between groups, statistically significant results such as 1st hour dilatation (p = 0.02), 30th minute VAS (p = 0.02), were obtained. No maternal and fetal side effects were recorded during the study, and no significant difference was found in terms of cesarean delivery episiotomy and neonatal outcomes. Conclusion: Lidocaine injection can be considered superior to SW injection because its positive effect on VAS score lasts longer.
Intracutaneous sterile water injection versus oral paracetamol for renal colic during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial

Peng Xue,Chuanquan Tu,Kunpeng Wang,Xiangbo Wang,Yi Fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-013-0405-3

Abstract:Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the analgesic efficacy of intracutaneous sterile water injection compared with oral paracetamol in pregnant women with acute renal colic caused by urolithiasis. Methods: The study included 45 patients randomized into two different groups: Group A (n = 24) received paracetamol (1,000 mg, oral), while group B (n = 21) received sterile water injections. The severity of pain was assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS) system at baseline and at 15, 30 min, and 1 h after administering the treatments. Subjects with inadequate pain relief at 1 h received rescue analgesia. Results: The VAS values prior to the start of therapy and 15, 30 min, and 1 h after therapy were 85.42 ± 10.62, 69.17 ± 8.3, 45.42 ± 12.5, and 32.08 ± 14.44 for the paracetamol group, while for the sterile water injection group, the VAS values were 90.48 ± 11.17, 30.95 ± 16.7, 14.76 ± 11.23, and 10.48 ± 8.65, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the starting VAS values of the two groups, but the VAS values 15, 30 min, and 1 h after paracetamol administration were statistically less in the group that received sterile water injections. Rescue analgesics at 1 h were required by eight subjects (33 %) receiving paracetamol and one subject (5 %) receiving sterile water injection. Conclusions: Intracutaneous injection of sterile water is an efficacious treatment for renal colic caused by urolithiasis in pregnant women. It was significantly superior to oral administration of paracetamol.
Systematic Reviews and Synthesis without Meta-Analysis on Hydrotherapy for Pain Control in Labor

Elena Mellado-García,Lourdes Díaz-Rodríguez,Jonathan Cortés-Martín,Juan Carlos Sánchez-García,Beatriz Piqueras-Sola,Juan Carlos Higuero Macías,Raquel Rodríguez-Blanque

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12030373

2024-02-02

Health Care

Abstract:Background: Although there is scientific evidence regarding the use of water immersion during labor, this evidence is primarily focused on the first stage of labor. There is limited scientific evidence on water immersion during the second stage of labor. Objective: The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and synthesis of contemporary evidence related to water birth, with a specific focus on the second stage of labor. Methods: A systematic review of the scientific literature published between January 2018 and October 2023 was carried out. A synthesis of the results was conducted following the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were utilized as information sources. The search strategy was designed using the keywords "immersion" and "parturition", along with their relevant synonyms. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies employing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and quantitative and qualitative approaches focusing on pregnant women undergoing water immersion at any stage of the labor process. Results: Eleven articles were selected: two systematic reviews (one quantitative and one qualitative), five cohort studies, one case–control study, one cross-sectional observational study, and two qualitative studies. A thorough assessment of the methodology was performed using several specific tools: the Cochrane RoB 2 (Risk of Bias 2) tool for systematic reviews, JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research for qualitative studies, STROBE for observational descriptive studies, and CASPe for qualitative studies. The results provided fundamental insights that will contribute to conceptual standardization regarding the effects of water birth on maternal and fetal health. Additionally, a synthesis of the results was performed concerning types of delivery, analgesia use, pain perception, and maternal satisfaction with the water birth experience. Conclusions: In this study, we conclude that the results regarding delivery types, labor durations, and analgesia use found in the literature, along with statistically significant maternal/fetal effects, are crucial for making recommendations regarding the use of water during labor in any of its stages if the woman desires it safely.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Effects of Water Immersion Versus Epidural as Analgesic Methods during Labor among Low-Risk Women: A 10-Year Retrospective Cohort Study

Carmen Herrero-Orenga,Laura Galiana,Noemí Sansó,Myriam Molas Martín,Araceli Castro Romero,Juan Carlos Fernández-Domínguez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12191919

2024-09-25

Health Care

Abstract:Background: Adequate pain relief during childbirth is a very important issue for women and healthcare providers. This study investigates the effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes of two analgesic methods during labor: water immersion and epidural analgesia. Methods: In this retrospective observational cohort study at a first-level hospital, in Spain, from 2009 to 2019, 1134 women, low-risk singleton and at term pregnancy, were selected. Among them, 567 women used water immersion; 567 women used epidural analgesia for pain control. Maternal outcomes included mode of birth and perineum condition. Neonatal outcomes included 5 min Apgar score, umbilical cord arterial pH, and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit admissions. Chi-square tests and Mann–Whitney U tests, together with their effect sizes (Cramer's V, odds ratio, and Cohen's d) were used to test the main hypotheses. Results: Spontaneous vaginal birth was almost 17 times more likely in the water immersion group (OR = 16.866 [6.540, 43.480], p < 0.001), whereas the odds of having a cesarean birth were almost 40 times higher in the epidural group (OR = 39.346 [3.610, 429.120], p < 0.001). The odds of having an intact perineum were more than two times higher for the water immersion group (OR = 2.606 [1.290, 5.250], p = 0.007), whereas having an episiotomy was more than eight times more likely for the epidural group (OR = 8.307 [2.800, 24.610], p < 0.001). Newborns in the water immersion group showed a better 5 min Apgar score and umbilical cord arterial pH and lower rates in admissions at the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Conclusions: Women choosing water immersion as an analgesic method were no more likely to experience adverse outcomes and presented better results than women choosing epidural analgesia.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Mechanical Needling With Sterile Water Versus Lidocaine Injection for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Areerat Suputtitada,Carl P. C. Chen,Krit Pongpirul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682221094533

2022-05-06

Global Spine Journal

Abstract:Global Spine Journal, Ahead of Print. Study Design: This was a retrospective observational study that assessed the clinical outcome of ageing patients who received ultrasound-guided (USG) mechanical needling with sterile water injection. In addition, the clinical outcome of age-and gender matched patients randomly selected from patients who received needling with sterile water was compared to the patients injected with lidocaine in a 1:1 ratio.Objective: This present study aimed to explore the clinical effects of USG mechanical needling with sterile water injection for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).Methods: The data was extracted from the medical records of ageing patients with LSS who received USG injection at the lumbosacral spine by the first author. Low back pain or axial pain, and leg pain or radicular pain were assessed by the visual analogue scale, and gait ability with walking distance were obtained at six different time points.Results: A total of 4328 medical records were examined. Four thousand two hundred and twenty-eight ageing patients received mechanical needling with sterile water injection and found the efficacy lasted up to 6 months. One hundred patients were compared with 100 patients who received lidocaine injection. Those who received lidocaine had pain returned at 3 months and 6 months post-injection.Conclusions: USG mechanical needling with sterile water injection could help relieve axial and radicular pain for at least 6 months. Removal of calcification and fibrosis as well as reduction of sensitization are all possible mechanisms.

clinical neurology,orthopedics
Sterile water injections – a treatment for renal colic when other painkillers are contraindicated?

Hans-Göran Tiselius

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2022.2078878

2022-05-30

Scandinavian Journal of Urology

Abstract:Is sterile water injection a useful alternative to pain management with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or opioids in patients with renal colic? This is the topic of a systematic review in this issue of the journal by Lee and Mårtensson [ 1 ]. The most common indication for sterile water skin injections is labour-related back pain in childbirth, but there are some studies that have investigated the effect of sterile water injections as a treatment for renal colic.

urology & nephrology
Efficacy and safety of acupuncture in treating low back and pelvic girdle pain during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aolin Zhang,Junwei Li,Tao He,Hongliang Xie,Xuan Mou,Tsz Ching Yeung,Siming Chen,Chi Chiu Wang,Xiaohui Fan,Lu Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/hm9.0000000000000093

2024-01-26

Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine

Abstract:Background: Low back and pelvic girdle pain (LBPGP) is common during pregnancy. Acupuncture is an effective and safe therapy for pain relief. However, further evidence is required to confirm the efficacy and safety of acupuncture in treating LBPGP during pregnancy. Objectives: This study aimed to systematically review and investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of pregnancy-related LBPGP. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang databases were searched from January 2000 to August 2023. Only the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving pregnant women between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation diagnosed with LBPGP were included in the study. A meta-analysis was conducted and pooled risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were compared. Results: Meta-analysis included 12 RCTs involving 1641 participants. Eleven trials compared acupuncture alone or acupuncture combined with standard care (SC), of which three trials also used nonpenetrating or placebo acupuncture as the control group. One trial compared acupuncture alone with nonpenetrating acupuncture. Compared with SC, acupuncture combined with SC group significantly decreased visual analog scale score (MD = −2.83, 95%CI = −3.41 to −2.26, P < 0.00001), cesarean section rate (RR = 0.69, 95%CI = 0.49 to 0.97, P = 0.03), preterm birth rate (RR = 0.42, 95%CI = 0.27 to 0.65, P < 0.0001), labor duration (MD = −1.97, 95%CI = −2.73 to −1.20, P < 0.0001), and Oswestry disability index score (MD = −9.14, 95%CI = −15.68 to −2.42, P =0.008). In addition, acupuncture combined with SC significantly improved SF-PCS. No significant differences were observed in the spontaneous delivery rate, newborn weight, drowsiness, and SF-MSC between the two groups. Adverse events such as needle pain and needle bleeding were aggravated in both the SC and acupuncture treatment groups but none were associated with acupuncture during or after the treatment period. Conclusions: Meta-analysis showed that acupuncture combined with SC had better efficacy than SC alone and could be a potential therapy for LBPGP during pregnancy. The safety results imply that acupuncture caused few adverse reactions; however, more evidence is required for further confirmation.
Laser Acupuncture Analgesia on Postpartum Low Back Pain: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

Hsuesh-Yu Cheng,Bei-Yu Wu,Tao-Hsin Tung,Carol Shieh,Chun-Ting Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmn.2022.07.007

IF: 2.356

2022-09-03

Pain Management Nursing

Abstract:Background Unresolved postpartum LBP may affect women's physical and psychological health. Aim To investigate the analgesic effects of laser acupuncture therapy (LAT) for postpartum LBP. Method Postpartum women with LBP were recruited and randomly assigned to the intervention group or the control group from November 2017 to July 2018. The participants in the intervention group received LAT and standard care. The participants in the control group received only standard care. The primary outcome was the Visual Analogue Scale for LBP. Secondary outcomes were limitation of daily activities and physical activity; perceived stress scale; and salivary cortisol values. Results In all, 106 participants were recruited and assigned to the intervention group or the control group. As compared with the control group, the participants in the LAT group had significantly lower intensity of LBP (mean ± SD: 1.21 ± 0.99 vs 3.25 ± 1.14; p < .001), limitations of daily activities (mean ± SD: 3.17 ± 2.09 vs 10.40 ± 4.72; p < .001) and physical activity (mean ± SD: 3.04 ± 2.17 vs 9.79 ± 4.71; p < .001), perceived stress (mean ± SD: 26.13 ± 3.97 vs 28.85 ± 4.26; p = .001), and salivary cortisol levels (mean ± SD: 0.194 ± 0.131 vs 0.280 ± 0.234; p = .02) post-intervention. Conclusions For postpartum LBP, LAT combined with standard care had greater analgesic efficacy, lower perceived stress, lower limitations of daily activities and physical activity, and lower salivary cortisol levels than standard care alone.

nursing
A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Elena Mellado-García,Lourdes Díaz-Rodríguez,Jonathan Cortés-Martín,Juan Carlos Sánchez-García,Beatriz Piqueras-Sola,María Montserrat Prieto Franganillo,Raquel Rodríguez-Blanque

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13113260

IF: 3.9

2024-06-01

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Background: the benefits of water are significant during the birth process. Improved maternal experience of labor, less use of epidurals, better pain management, shorter labor, and a greater sense of control are observed during the birth process. Objective: This report aims to determine the benefits of hydrotherapy in clinical childbirth approaches and its applicability in pain control. Methods: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials selected from various databases with no publication date limits was conducted, comparing groups that did not use hydrotherapy with groups that did during labor. Results: Seven articles met the inclusion criteria, with five articles using hot water immersion and two using hot water shower as hydrotherapy treatments. This study identified 840 participants, with the intervention groups including 417 term pregnant women and the control groups including 423 pregnant women. The effect size of hydrotherapy on pain was calculated using the visual analog scale in five articles and analgesic use in the other two articles. Hydrotherapy significantly reduced pain during labor with a mean difference of −0.97 (95% CI: −1.91 to −0.03; I2 = 97.32%, p < 0.001). The duration of the first stage of labor was not significantly affected, with a mean difference of −0.17 h (95% CI: −0.55 to 0.21; I2 = 56.75%, p = 0.059). Additionally, hydrotherapy did not significantly impact the newborns' Apgar scores at 5 min, with a mean difference of 0.18 (95% CI: −0.48 to 0.85; I2 = 2.15%, p = 0.939). Conclusions: Hydrotherapy is beneficial for pain control in the first stage of labor and does not increase its duration or negatively affect the Apgar score of newborns.

medicine, general & internal
Mechanical Needling with Sterile Water versus Steroids Injection for Facet Joint Syndrome: A Retrospective Observational Study

Areerat Suputtitada,Carl P. C. Chen,Krit Pongpirul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9830766

2022-02-09

Pain Research and Management

Abstract:Objective. This present study aimed to explore the clinical effects of ultrasound-guided (USG) mechanical needling with sterile water injection for lumbar facet joint syndrome. Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study that assessed the clinical outcome of ageing patients who received USG mechanical needling with sterile water injection. In addition, the clinical outcome of age- and gender-matched patients randomly selected from patients who received mechanical needling with sterile water was compared to the patients injected with steroids in a 2 : 1 ratio. The data were extracted from the medical records of ageing patients with facet joint syndrome who received USG injection at the lumbosacral spine by the first author. Low back pain or axial pain, and leg pain or radicular pain were assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS), and gait ability with walking distance was obtained at 6 different time points. Results. A total of 4,276 medical records were examined. Four thousand two hundred twenty-eight ageing patients received needling with sterile water injection and found that the efficacy lasted up to 6 months. Ninety-six patients were compared with 48 patients who received steroid injection. Those who received steroids had less back and leg pain at 1 week after injection; however, pain returned at 3 months and 6 months after injection. Conclusions. USG mechanical needling with sterile water could help relieve axial and radicular pain for at least 6 months. Reduced sensitization and removal of calcification and fibrosis were all possible mechanisms.Keywords: Mechanical needling, Sterile water, Ultrasound guided (USG) injection, Facet joint syndrome, Pain

clinical neurology
Comparative Effects of Different Epidural Injection Approaches on Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Zhihe Yun,Chenglong Wang,Tong Yu,Tianyang Yuan,Xinyu Nie,Tao He,Rui Liu,Junyan An,Le Qi,Chen Li,Yang Sun,Jun Zhang,Qinyi Liu

IF: 4.396

Pain Physician

Abstract:Background: Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is the main cause of low back pain and/or radiculopathy. Currently, epidural intervention is a widely used and effective conservative treatment method for managing low back and radicular pain caused by LDH. Objectives: To explore the effectiveness of different epidural injection approaches in adult patients with lumbosacral radicular pain. Study design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: An electronic literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Two authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. A Bayesian random effects model was conducted to incorporate the estimates of direct and indirect treatment comparisons and rank the interventions in order. Effect estimates from Bayesian NMA were presented as mean difference (MD) with 95% credible intervals (CrI). Results: This NMA assessed caudal (C), interlaminar (IL), transforaminal (TF) and parasagittal interlaminar (PIL) epidural injection approaches for lumbosacral radicular pain from 7 trials. A statistically significant treatment difference for pain relief was reported for midline interlaminar (MIL) vs PIL (MD, 1.16; 95%CrI, 0.31-2.06), MIL vs TF (MD, 1.12; 95%CrI, 0.51-1.85), C vs TF (MD, 1.07; 95%CrI, 0.01-2.18) in short-term follow-up and MIL vs TF (MD, 1.8; 95% CrI, 0.3-3.48) in intermediate-term follow-up. For functional improvement, a statistically significant difference was observed with MIL vs PIL (MD, 9.9; 95% CrI, 0.64-19.94) and MIL vs TF (MD, 1.08; 95% CrI, 1.08-17.08) in short-term follow-up. Moreover, the PIL approach and TF appeoach were ranked in the top 2 for pain relief and functional improvement, both in short-term and intermediate-term follow-up. Limitations: 1) The number of studies included was small; 2) some treatments lacked direct comparisons; 3) only scores from the visual analog scale for pain and the Oswestry Disability Index were included in the result; 4) important outcomes, such as complications, were not included. Conclusion: In short-term and intermediate-term follow-up, the PIL approach has the highest probability for pain relief and functional improvement.
Efficacy and safety of non‐pharmacological interventions for labour pain management: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta‐analysis

Yinchu Hu,Hong Lu,Jing Huang,Yu Zang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15865

2021-06-01

Journal of Clinical Nursing

Abstract:<section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Aims and objectives</h3><p>To compare and rank the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions in the management of labour pain.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Background</h3><p>Recently, various non-pharmacological interventions have been applied to manage labour pain and have shown positive effects. However, evidence identifying which type of non-pharmacological intervention is more efficient and safer is limited.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Design</h3><p>Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis based on PRISMA-NMA.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods</h3><p>Seven databases were searched from database inception–March 2020. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, quality appraisal and data extraction. Conventional meta-analysis was conducted using either fixed-effects model or random-effects model according to statistical heterogeneity. The Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using the consistency model.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>43 studies involving nine non-pharmacological interventions were included. The Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that acupressure (SMD = −2.00, 95% CrI −3.09 to −0.94), aromatherapy (SMD = −2.01, 95% CrI −3.70 to −0.35) and massage therapy (SMD = −1.26, 95% CrI −2.26 to −0.30) had significant positive effects on alleviating labour pain, with aromatherapy being the most effective. The results also revealed that yoga (SMD = −130.85, 95% CrI −212.01 to −59.32) and acupressure (SMD = −10.14, 95% CrI −20.24 to −0.41) were the most effective interventions for shortening the first stage and the second stage of labour, respectively. There were no significant differences between non-pharmacological interventions and usual care or placebo control on the use of pharmacological methods and neonatal 5-min Apgar score.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusions</h3><p>The evidence in this network meta-analysis illustrates that non-pharmacological interventions are effective and safe for labour pain management in low-risk pregnant women. In the future, well-designed studies are needed to validate the conclusion of this network meta-analysis.</p></section><section class="article-section__content"><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Relevance to clinical practice</h3><p>The results support the use of non-pharmacological interventions, especially aromatherapy and acupressure, to relieve labour pain in low-risk pregnant women. Non-pharmacological interventions for labour pain management are recommended to apply according to maternal women's preference and values.</p></section>

nursing

Analgesic effects of sterile water injection in the management of low back pain during labor: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Sterile water injections for back pain in labour

Effect of topical local anaesthesia on injection pain associated with administration of sterile water injections - a randomized controlled trial

Effect of Intradermal Sterile Water Injection on Labor Experiences: A Randomized Controlled Study

Sterile water injections for relief of labour pain (the SATURN trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Two versus four sterile water injections for managing back pain in labour

A comparison of two versus four sterile water injections for the relief of back pain in labour: A multicentre randomised equivalence trial

Comparative Analgesic Effects of Intradermal and Subdermal Injection of Sterile Water on Active Labor Pain

Clinical Analysis of Water Birth 98 Cases

Randomized controlled study of intradermal sterile water injection and intradermal lidocaine injection in obstetric analgesia

Intracutaneous sterile water injection versus oral paracetamol for renal colic during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial

Systematic Reviews and Synthesis without Meta-Analysis on Hydrotherapy for Pain Control in Labor

Effects of Water Immersion Versus Epidural as Analgesic Methods during Labor among Low-Risk Women: A 10-Year Retrospective Cohort Study

Mechanical Needling With Sterile Water Versus Lidocaine Injection for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Sterile water injections – a treatment for renal colic when other painkillers are contraindicated?

Efficacy and safety of acupuncture in treating low back and pelvic girdle pain during pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Laser Acupuncture Analgesia on Postpartum Low Back Pain: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study

A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Mechanical Needling with Sterile Water versus Steroids Injection for Facet Joint Syndrome: A Retrospective Observational Study

Comparative Effects of Different Epidural Injection Approaches on Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of non‐pharmacological interventions for labour pain management: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta‐analysis