Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Clin Cases. Dec 26, 2021; 9(36): 11330-11337
Published online Dec 26, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i36.11330
Published online Dec 26, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i36.11330
Table 1 Comparison of baseline data between the two groups of mothers
Group | n | Age (yr) | Pregnancy times (times) | Parity (times) | Average height (cm) | Prenatal BMI | Induced labor pregnancy |
Delivery ball group | 100 | 27.7 ± 3.0 | 2.85 ± 1.30 | 0.89 ± 0.40 | 160.2 ± 4.4 | 28.9 ± 2.4 | 40.0 ± 1.1 |
Regular group | 100 | 28.0 ± 2.9 | 3.01 ± 1.43 | 0.93 ± 0.38 | 159.8 ± 4.0 | 29.2 ± 2.0 | 39.9 ± 0.9 |
t | -0.719 | -0.828 | -0.725 | 0.673 | -0.960 | 0.704 | |
P value | 0.473 | 0.409 | 0.469 | 0.502 | 0.338 | 0.483 |
Table 2 Comparison of cervical Bishop score between birthing ball group and conventional group (mean ± SD, points)
Group | n | Before intervention | After the intervention | t | P value |
Delivery ball group | 100 | 3.71 ± 1.10 | 7.84 ± 1.52 | -22.012 | 0.000 |
Regular group | 100 | 3.50 ± 1.25 | 7.32 ± 1.29 | -21.266 | 0.000 |
t | 1.261 | 2.608 | |||
P value | 0.209 | 0.010 |
Table 3 Comparison of duration of labor between birthing ball group and conventional group (mean ± SD, min)
Group | n | First stage of labor | Second stage of labor | Third stage of labor | Total labor |
Delivery ball group | 100 | 510.9 ± 98.7 | 43.0 ± 8.5 | 6.1 ± 1.1 | 560.0 ± 120.9 |
Regular group | 100 | 602.1 ± 133.2 | 48.4 ± 9.1 | 6.3 ± 1.3 | 656.8 ± 148.5 |
t | -5.501 | -4.337 | -1.174 | -5.065 | |
P value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.242 | 0.000 |
Table 4 Comparison of neonatal blood gas indexes between birthing ball group and conventional group (mean ± SD)
Group | n | pH | PO2 (mmHg) | PCO2 (mmHg) | 1-min Apgar (Scores) |
Delivery ball group | 100 | 7.34 ± 0.05 | 27.51 ± 3.61 | 42.70 ± 4.86 | 9.10 ± 0.38 |
Regular group | 100 | 7.33 ± 0.05 | 26.83 ± 2.76 | 43.84 ± 4.40 | 8.94 ± 0.31 |
t | 1.414 | 1.496 | -1.739 | 3.263 | |
P value | 0.159 | 0.136 | 0.084 | 0.001 |
Table 5 Comparison of delivery methods between delivery ball group and routine group, n (%)
Group | n | Natural childbirth | Cesarean section |
Delivery ball group | 100 | 91 (91.00) | 9 (9.00) |
Regular group | 100 | 78 (78.00) | 22 (22.00) |
χ2 | 6.452 | ||
P value | 0.011 |
Table 6 Comparison of complication rate between birthing ball group and conventional group
Group | n | Soft birth canal laceration | Fetal distress | Amniotic fluid pollution | Contractions | Complication rate (%) |
Delivery ball group | 100 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 (5.00) |
Regular group | 100 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 11 (11.00) |
χ2 | 2.446 | |||||
P value | 0.118 |
- Citation: Shen HC, Wang H, Sun B, Jiang LZ, Meng Q. Birthing ball on promoting cervical ripening and its influence on the labor process and the neonatal blood gas index. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(36): 11330-11337
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v9/i36/11330.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i36.11330