Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Can We Deliver Better?

  • Invited Review Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Human childbirth has been described as an “obstetrical dilemma”. Evolution favours enlargement of the foetal brain, whilst bipedal locomotion demands a reduction in pelvic breadth for improvements in biomechanical efficiency. The result of this conflict is a human pelvis incongruous with the dynamics of childbirth. Acute genital distortion at delivery can inflict lasting damage to female pelvic function. Pelvic organ prolapse, urinary, faecal incontinence and sexual dysfunction are long-term sequelae rarely discussed at antenatal care, impacting upon the expectant mother’s ability to make an informed decision. The alternative option is the elective caesarean section, an abdominal incision bypassing the maladies of a vaginal delivery, although not without complications of its own. Childbirth remains an emotive event where evidence-based medicine can be disempowered, and the rising trend to “normalise” birth can disrupt care of the woman. This needs to be maintained in a healthy balance to best provide competent and safe care for women.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gruss LT, Schmitt D. The evolution of the human pelvis: changing adaptations to bipedalism, obstetrics and thermoregulation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1663):20140063. doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0063.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Franciscus RG. When did the modern human pattern of childbirth arise? New insights from an old Neandertal pelvis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106(23):9125–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903384106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Pan W, Gu T, Pan Y, et al. Birth intervention and non-maternal infant-handling during parturition in a nonhuman primate. Primates. 2014;55(4):483–8. doi:10.1007/s10329-014-0427-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Huseynov A, Zollikofer CP, Coudyzer W, et al. Developmental evidence for obstetric adaptation of the human female pelvis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(19):5227–32. doi:10.1073/pnas.1517085113.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Handa VL, Lockhart ME, Fielding JR, et al. Racial differences in pelvic anatomy by magnetic resonance imaging. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(4):914–20. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318169ce03.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Lenhard MS, Johnson TR, Weckbach S, et al. Pelvimetry revisited: analyzing cephalopelvic disproportion. Eur J Radiol. 2010;74(3):e107–11. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wells JC, DeSilva JM, Stock JT. The obstetric dilemma: an ancient game of Russian roulette, or a variable dilemma sensitive to ecology? Am J Phys Anthropol. 2012;149(Suppl 55):40–71. doi:10.1002/ajpa.22160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dahlen HG, Ryan M, Homer CS, et al. An Australian prospective cohort study of risk factors for severe perineal trauma during childbirth. Midwifery. 2007;23(2):196–203. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2006.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Burrell M, Dilgir S, Patton V, et al. Risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injuries and postpartum anal and urinary incontinence: a case–control trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(3):383–9. doi:10.1007/s00192-014-2478-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Davies-Tuck M, Biro MA, Mockler J, et al. Maternal Asian ethnicity and the risk of anal sphincter injury. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(3):308–15. doi:10.1111/aogs.12557.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bergeron V. The ethics of cesarean section on maternal request: a feminist critique of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ position on patient-choice surgery. Bioethics. 2007;21(9):478–87. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00593.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Luce A, Cash M, Hundley V, et al. “Is it realistic?” the portrayal of pregnancy and childbirth in the media. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:40. doi:10.1186/s12884-016-0827-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Todman D. A history of caesarean section: from ancient world to the modern era. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;47(5):357–61. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2007.00757.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Clews C. Normal birth and it’s meaning: a discussion paper. Evid Based Midwifery. 2013;11(1):16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Park A. Choosy mothers choose caesareans. Time. 2008 17 April. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1731904,00.html.

  16. Milsom I, Altman D, Cartwright R, et al. Epidemiology of urinary incontinence (UI) and other lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and anal incontinence (AI). In: Abrams Cardozo, Kouhry Wein, editors. Incontinence. 5th ed. Paris: Health Publications Ltd; 2013. p. 15–170.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dietz HP. Forceps: towards obsolescence or revival? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015;94(4):347–51. doi:10.1111/aogs.12592.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Altman D, Ekstrom A, Forsgren C, et al. Symptoms of anal and urinary incontinence following cesarean section or spontaneous vaginal delivery. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2007;197(5):512e1–7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.03.083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Parente MP, Jorge RM, Mascarenhas T, et al. Deformation of the pelvic floor muscles during a vaginal delivery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(1):65–71. doi:10.1007/s00192-007-0388-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dietz HP, Campbell S. Toward normal birth-but at what cost? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(4):439–44. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2016.04.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dietz HP, Bernardo MJ, Kirby A, et al. Minimal criteria for the diagnosis of avulsion of the puborectalis muscle by tomographic ultrasound. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(6):699–704. doi:10.1007/s00192-010-1329-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lowenstein E, Ottesen B, Gimbel H. Incidence and lifetime risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Denmark from 1977 to 2009. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(1):49–55. doi:10.1007/s00192-014-2413-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dietz HP, Caudwell-Hall J, Shek KL, et al. The effect of replacing primary vacuum delivery with forceps. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(S1):95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilson D, Dornan J, Milsom I, et al. UR-CHOICE: Can we provide mothers-to-be with information about the risk of future pelvic floor dysfunction? Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(11):1449–52. doi:10.1007/s00192-014-2376-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. Clinical Guideline 55. London: NICE; 2007. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21250397.

  26. Trochez R, Waterfield M, Freeman RM. Hands on or hands off the perineum: a survey of care of the perineum in labour (HOOPS). Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(10):1279–85. doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1454-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Laine K, Skjeldestad FE, Sandvik L, et al. Incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries after training to protect the perineum: cohort study. BMJ Open. 2012;. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001649.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Aytan H, Tok EC, Ertunc D, et al. The effect of episiotomy on pelvic organ prolapse assessed by pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;173:34–7. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.11.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shahraki AD, Aram S, Pourkabirian S, et al. A comparison between early maternal and neonatal complications of restrictive episiotomy and routine episiotomy in primiparous vaginal delivery. J Res Med Sci. 2011;16(12):1583–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kapoor DS, Thakar R, Sultan AH. Obstetric anal sphincter injuries: review of anatomical factors and modifiable second stage interventions. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(12):1725–34. doi:10.1007/s00192-015-2747-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, James Cook University, 100 Angus Smith Dr., Douglas, QLD, 4814, Australia

    Ajay Rane, Jay Iyer, Harsha Ananthram & Thomas Currie

  2. The Townsville Hospital, 100 Angus Smith Dr., Douglas, QLD, 4814, Australia

    Ajay Rane, Jay Iyer & Harsha Ananthram

Authors
  1. Ajay Rane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jay Iyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Harsha Ananthram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Currie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Currie.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Ajay Rane, Jay Iyer, Harsha Ananthram and Thomas Currie declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animals Rights

Ajay Rane, Jay Iyer, Harsha Ananthram and Thomas Currie declare that no human research participants were involved in composing this invited review article. Ajay Rane, Jay Iyer, Harsha Ananthram and Thomas Currie declare that no animals were involved in composing this invited review article.

Informed Consent

Ajay Rane, Jay Iyer, Harsha Ananthram and Thomas Currie declare that informed consent was not required for this invited review article as no human research participants were involved.

Additional information

Ajay Rane MBBS, MSc, MD, FRCOG, FRCS, FRANZCOG, CU, FICOG(Hon), PhD, FRCPI(Hon), Professor and Head of Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, James Cook University; and Director of Urogynaecology, The Townsville Hospital; Jay Iyer MBBS, MD, DNB, MRCOG, FRANZCOG, Senior Lecturer of James Cook University; and Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Pelvic Floor Surgeon, The Townsville Hospital; Harsha Ananthram MBBS, Advance Trainee FRANZCOG, Senior Lecturer of James Cook University; Thomas Currie is a 6th Year Medical Student of James Cook University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rane, A., Iyer, J., Ananthram, H. et al. Can We Deliver Better?. J Obstet Gynecol India 67, 157–161 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-017-0981-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-017-0981-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation