Article: Breaking Water Does Not Speed Delivery

[BellyBelly]

Childbirth: Purposely Breaking Water Does Not Speed Delivery

By NICHOLAS BAKALAR
Published: October 30, 2007

A large review of studies suggests that a common procedure in labor, intentionally breaking the water, has no effect in reducing the labor time or assuring the baby?s health.

The procedure, sometimes called amniotomy, involves rupturing the amniotic membranes to speed contractions. The procedure has been in use for at least 250 years, although its popularity has varied.

The researchers reviewed 14 randomized controlled trials involving almost 5,000 women and found little evidence for any benefits. Amniotomy did not shorten the length of labor, decrease the need for the labor-stimulating drug oxytocin, decrease pain, reduce the number of instrument-aided births or lead to serious maternal injury or death.

The report, published Oct. 17 in The Cochrane Reviews, did find that the procedure might be associated with an increase in Caesarean sections and a reduced risk of a lower reading on the Apgar scale, which rates the baby?s condition at birth. But neither finding was statistically significant.

?We advise women whose labors are progressing normally to request their waters be left intact,? said the lead author, Dr. Rebecca Smyth, a research associate at the University of Liverpool. ?There is no evidence that leaving the waters intact causes any problems, and there is not sufficient evidence to suggest any benefit to either themselves or their baby.?

[Lulu]

I always thought it did speed labour. Since I had such a fast labour for my first (4hours), I assumed this was why.
However my last two births were even shorter and they didn't pop until the last second, so probably had nothing to do with it in the end....

[visitor1]

Mine were ruptured for DD1...it sped up the contractions..but not sure if it sped the labour itself up. It was 10 hours 25 mins.

DD2 ruptured not long before she was born on their own and labour was 6 hours 14 mins.

I always thought it made for a quick labour too!

[Zee]

I felt it did with DD as my labour was only 3hrs 54 mins.

[{sarah}]

My friend had her waters broken a few weeks ago when she was 10 days over & it did absolutely nothing, so I can believe that.

I wonder though if all these people that say it does shortern labour etc is because a lot of the time the waters are broken at the same time as the drip is put in & therefore the contractions are going to get more intense etc straight away??

[BellyBelly]

It may start labour, but would you have had a fast labour anyway? We'll never know

But I have heard it from the horse's mouth (an Ob) who admitted there is no proof it speeds up labour and that it's just what they 'think' (his words).

But I do know it can cause problems more than it it has benefits - not only infection, but cord prolapse if the baby is high, posterior babies seem harder to move once waters have broken, you are put on the clock having artifically ruptured membranes, you have to stay in hospital and they will get your labour going one way or the other, if you have a posterior baby and have a premature urge to push it just makes it worse (my poor sister) .... so many reasons to leave well alone! Membranes left alone often break just before pushing and I think this serves a good purpose.