The Experts below are selected from a list of 183 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Fabrice Pierre - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Biomechanical comparison of squatting and “optimal” supine Birth Positions
Journal of biomechanics, 2020Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Bertand Gachon, Yosra Cherni, Fabrice PierreAbstract:Abstract In obstetric science, it is unknown whether the inherent biomechanical features of the squatting Position can be achieved and/or transposed to the supine Birth Position. In this study Biomechanical features of the squatting Position were compared with 2 hyperflexed supine Positions for giving Birth. Thirteen pregnant women past the 32 weeks of gestational age not in labor were assessed first in the squatting Position with the feet flat on the floor, then in the hyperflexed supine Position, and finally in the optimal supine Position “crushing” the hand of the caregiver onto the bed. For each Position, the flexion of the spine associated with the plane of the external conjugate (ANGce) and the pelvis, hip flexion, and abduction were quantified using an optoelectronic motion capture system. A non-invasive strain-gauge-based measuring system was used to track the lumbar curve. An optimal Position was defined with a flat lumbar spine and a pelvic inlet plane perpendicular to the lumbar spine (ANGce = 0° ± 5°). For the 13 participants, hip flexion, hip abduction, and the lumbar curve did not differ significantly for the three Positions (squatting Position, hyperflexed supine Position, and OS) in the post-hoc analyses. The optimal supine Position induced an ANGce closer to the perpendicular plane than the squatting Position (p = 0.002). In the squatting Position or in hyperflexed supine Position Positions, none of the subjects fulfilled the two conditions considered necessary to reach the optimal Position. The squatting Position was not significantly different from the supine hyperflexed supine Position with or without voluntary lordosis correction.
-
Is there an impact of feet Position on squatting Birth Position? An innovative biomechanical pilot study
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2019Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Fabrice PierreAbstract:The squatting Birth Position is widely used for “natural” Birth or in countries where childBirth occurs in non-medical facilities. Squatting Birth Positions, like others, are roughly defined so a biomechanical assessment is required with the availability of noninvasive technology in pregnant women. In practice, we can observe spontaneously two kinds of squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes and with feet flat. Objective To compare the impact of foot posture on biomechanical parameters considered essential in obstetrical biomechanics during a squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes versus with feet flat on the floor. Study design Thirteen pregnant women beyond 32 weeks of gestational age who were not in labor were assessed during squatting Birth Position firstly spontaneously and secondly with the foot posture that was not taken spontaneously (on the tiptoes vs with feet flat). For each Position, ANGle of flexion on the spine of the plane of the pelvis external conjugate (ANGec), hip flexion and abduction, and lumbar curve were assessed using an optoelectronic motion capture system and a biomechanical model adapted from the conventional gait model as well as a measuring system of the lumbar curve Results Spontaneously, 11 out of 13 women squatted on tiptoe at the first test. On tiptoes the hip flexion was lower than with feet flat (p
-
Is there an impact of feet Position on squatting Birth Position? An innovative biomechanical pilot study
BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Fabrice PierreAbstract:The squatting Birth Position is widely used for “natural” Birth or in countries where childBirth occurs in non-medical facilities. Squatting Birth Positions, like others, are roughly defined so a biomechanical assessment is required with the availability of noninvasive technology in pregnant women. In practice, we can observe spontaneously two kinds of squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes and with feet flat. To compare the impact of foot posture on biomechanical parameters considered essential in obstetrical biomechanics during a squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes versus with feet flat on the floor. Thirteen pregnant women beyond 32 weeks of gestational age who were not in labor were assessed during squatting Birth Position firstly spontaneously and secondly with the foot posture that was not taken spontaneously (on the tiptoes vs with feet flat). For each Position, ANGle of flexion on the spine of the plane of the pelvis external conjugate (ANGec), hip flexion and abduction, and lumbar curve were assessed using an optoelectronic motion capture system and a biomechanical model adapted from the conventional gait model as well as a measuring system of the lumbar curve. Spontaneously, 11 out of 13 women squatted on tiptoe at the first test. On tiptoes the hip flexion was lower than with feet flat (p
-
is there an impact of feet Position on squatting Birth Position an innovative biomechanical pilot study
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2019Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Fabrice PierreAbstract:The squatting Birth Position is widely used for “natural” Birth or in countries where childBirth occurs in non-medical facilities. Squatting Birth Positions, like others, are roughly defined so a biomechanical assessment is required with the availability of noninvasive technology in pregnant women. In practice, we can observe spontaneously two kinds of squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes and with feet flat. To compare the impact of foot posture on biomechanical parameters considered essential in obstetrical biomechanics during a squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes versus with feet flat on the floor. Thirteen pregnant women beyond 32 weeks of gestational age who were not in labor were assessed during squatting Birth Position firstly spontaneously and secondly with the foot posture that was not taken spontaneously (on the tiptoes vs with feet flat). For each Position, ANGle of flexion on the spine of the plane of the pelvis external conjugate (ANGec), hip flexion and abduction, and lumbar curve were assessed using an optoelectronic motion capture system and a biomechanical model adapted from the conventional gait model as well as a measuring system of the lumbar curve. Spontaneously, 11 out of 13 women squatted on tiptoe at the first test. On tiptoes the hip flexion was lower than with feet flat (p < 0.02), whereas hip abduction was not significantly different (p = 0.28). A lower ANGec angle (p = 0.003) was noticed for the tiptoe Position than feet flat. The lumbar curve (lordosis) was more marked for the squatting Position on tiptoes than for the Position with feet flat (p < 0.001). On tiptoes no woman had a pelvic inlet plane perpendicular to the spine and none had a flat back or kyphosis. No woman on tiptoes fulfilled the two conditions necessary for the Position that we consider optimal. In squatting Birth Position, foot posture has a biomechanical impact on lumbar curve and pelvic orientation. When comparing squatting Positions (on tiptoes vs feet flat), feet flat on the ground is closer to optimal Birth conditions than on tiptoes.
Li Thies-lagergren - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Birth Position and obstetric anal sphincter injury: a population-based study of 113 000 spontaneous Births
BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015Co-Authors: Charlotte Elvander, Li Thies-lagergren, Mia Ahlberg, Sven Cnattingius, Olof StephanssonAbstract:The association between Birth Position and obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS) in spontaneous vaginal deliveries is unclear. The study was based on the Stockholm-Gotland Obstetric Database (Sweden) from Jan 1st 2008 to Oct 22nd 2014 and included 113 279 singleton spontaneous vaginal Births with no episiotomy. We studied risk of OASIS with respect to the following Birth Positions: a) sitting, b) lithotomy, c) lateral, d) standing on knees, e) Birth seat, f) supine, g) squatting, h) standing and i) all fours. All analyses were stratified for parity. General linear models were used to calculate risk ratios (RR) adjusted for maternal, pregnancy and fetal characteristics. The rates of OASIS among nulliparous women, parous women and women undergoing vaginal Birth after a caesarean (VBAC) were 5.7 %, 1.3 % and 10.6 %, respectively. The rates varied by Birth Position: from 3.7 to 7.1 % in nulliparous women, 0.6 % to 2.6 % in parous women and 5.6 % to 18.2 % in women undergoing VBAC. Regardless of parity, the lowest rates were found among women giving Birth in standing Position and the highest rates among women Birthing in the lithotomy Position. Compared with sitting Position, the lithotomy Position involved an increased risk of OASIS among nulliparous (adjusted RR 1.17, 95 % CI 1.06-1.29) and parous women (adjusted RR 1.66, 95 % CI 1.35-2.05). Birth seat and squatting Position involved an increased risk of OASIS among parous women (adjusted RR [95 % CI] 1.36 [1.03-1.80] and 2.16 [1.15-4.07], respectively). Independent risk factors for OASIS were maternal age, head circumference ≥35 cm, Birth weight ≥4000 g, length of gestation ≥ 40 weeks, prolonged second stage of labour, non-occiput anterior presentation and oxytocin augmentation. Compared with sitting Position, lateral Position has a slightly protective effect in nulliparous women whilst an increased risk is noted among women in the lithotomy Position, irrespective of parity. Squatting and Birth seat Position involve an increase in risk among parous women.
-
Swedish fathers' experiences of childBirth in relation to maternal Birth Position: a mixed method study.
Women and Birth, 2015Co-Authors: Margareta Johansson, Li Thies-lagergrenAbstract:Abstract Background Fathers often want to be involved in labour and Birth. Aim To investigate how maternal Birth Position during second stage of labour may influence fathers’ experience of childBirth. Methods Mixed method study with 221 Swedish fathers completing an on-line questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis were used. Results In total 174 (78.7%) had a positive overall Birth experience. The theme An emotional life-changing event influenced by the Birth process and the structure of obstetrical care was revealed and included the categories; Midwives ability to be professional, The Birth process’ impact, and Being prepared to participate. The most frequently utilised Birth Position during a spontaneous vaginal Birth was Birth seat (n = 83; 45.1%), and the fathers in this group were more likely to assess the Birth Position as very positive (n = 40; 54.8%) compared to other upright and horizontal Birth Positions. Fathers with a partner having an upright Birth Position were more likely to have had a positive Birth experience (p = 0.048), to have felt comfortable (p = 0.003) and powerful (p = 0.019) compared to women adopting a horizontal Birth Position during a spontaneous vaginal Birth. When the women had an upright Birth Position the fathers deemed the second stage of labour to have been more rapid (mean VAS 7.01 vs. 4.53) compared to women in a horizontal Birth Position. Conclusion An upright Birth Position enhances fathers’ experience of having been positively and actively engaged in the Birth process. Midwives can enhance fathers’ feelings of involvement and participation by attentiveness through interaction and communicating skills.
-
Swedish fathers' experiences of childBirth in relation to maternal Birth Position: a mixed method study.
Women and birth : journal of the Australian College of Midwives, 2015Co-Authors: Margareta Johansson, Li Thies-lagergrenAbstract:Fathers often want to be involved in labour and Birth. To investigate how maternal Birth Position during second stage of labour may influence fathers' experience of childBirth. Mixed method study with 221 Swedish fathers completing an on-line questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis were used. In total 174 (78.7%) had a positive overall Birth experience. The theme An emotional life-changing event influenced by the Birth process and the structure of obstetrical care was revealed and included the categories; Midwives ability to be professional, The Birth process' impact, and Being prepared to participate. The most frequently utilised Birth Position during a spontaneous vaginal Birth was Birth seat (n=83; 45.1%), and the fathers in this group were more likely to assess the Birth Position as very positive (n=40; 54.8%) compared to other upright and horizontal Birth Positions. Fathers with a partner having an upright Birth Position were more likely to have had a positive Birth experience (p=0.048), to have felt comfortable (p=0.003) and powerful (p=0.019) compared to women adopting a horizontal Birth Position during a spontaneous vaginal Birth. When the women had an upright Birth Position the fathers deemed the second stage of labour to have been more rapid (mean VAS 7.01 vs. 4.53) compared to women in a horizontal Birth Position. An upright Birth Position enhances fathers' experience of having been positively and actively engaged in the Birth process. Midwives can enhance fathers' feelings of involvement and participation by attentiveness through interaction and communicating skills. Copyright © 2015 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
Who decides the Position for Birth? A follow-up study of a randomised controlled trial.
Women and birth : journal of the Australian College of Midwives, 2013Co-Authors: Li Thies-lagergren, Kyllike Christensson, Ingegerd Hildingsson, Linda J. KvistAbstract:Background: Physical benefits are suggested for women and their babies when women adopt an upright Position of their choice at Birth. Available care options during labour influence women's impressions of what intrapartum care is. This indicates that choice of Birth Positions may be determined more by midwives than by women's preferences. Question: The aims of this study were to investigate factors associated with adherence to allocated Birth Position and also to investigate factors associated with decision-making for Birth Position. Method: An invitation to answer an on-line questionnaire was mailed. Findings: Despite being randomised, women who gave Birth on the seat were statistically significantly more likely to report that they participated in decision-making and that they took the opportunity to choose their preferred Birth Position. They also reported statistically significantly more often than non-adherers that they felt powerful, protected and self-confident. Conclusions: Midwives should be conscious of the potential impact that Birth Positions have on women's Birth experiences and on maternal outcomes. Midwives should encourage women's autonomy by giving unbiased information about the Birth seat. An upright Birth Position may lead to greater childBirth satisfaction. Women's experience of and preferences for Birth Positions are consistent with current evidence for best practice. (C) 2013 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Australia (a division of Reed International Books Australia Pty Ltd). All rights reserved. (Less)
-
The Swedish Birth seat trial
2013Co-Authors: Li Thies-lagergrenAbstract:Background: Evidence for the safety of upright Birth Positions in relation to maternal blood loss and perineal outcomes is inconclusive. Little is known about the impact of upright Positions on the use of synthetic oxytocin for augmentation of labour or whether an upright Birth Position in the second stage of labour can reduce the number of instrumental vaginal deliveries. In addition women’s preferences for and experiences of Birth Positions in the second stage of labour require investigation. Aims: to investigate the efficacy of the use of a Birth seat in relation to maternal and infant outcomes, and to investigate women’s experiences of Birth Position in the second stage of labour. Methods: in a randomised controlled trial maternal and infant outcomes were investigated when first time mothers were allocated either to an experimental group (Birth seat) or to a control group (any Position except for the Birth seat). Analysis was according to the intention to treat principal in paper I & II (n = 1002). Outcomes were analysed according the ontreatment analysis in paper III (n = 950). A follow-up study was carried out using a questionnaire and answers from 289 women who were allocated to the experimental group were included (IV). Results: Birth on the Birth seat resulted in a shorter second stage of labour and in less use of synthetic oxytocin for augmentation of labour, but did not reduce the number of instrumental vaginal deliveries (I-III). There was an increased risk for post-partum blood loss in women who gave Birth on the Birth seat and also in women who were given synthetic oxytocin during the first stage, regardless of Birth Position (I & III). There were no differences in any degrees of perineal lacerations (I & III) and women who gave Birth on a Birth seat were less likely to have an episiotomy performed (III). There was no increased risk for perineal oedema in the Birth seat group (I & III). No adverse infant outcomes were identified (II). Despite randomisation, women who gave Birth on the Birth seat reported to a higher degree that they themselves had made the decision about Birth Position and felt that they had been given the opportunity to take their preferred Position. Women who gave Birth on the Birth seat reported more often that they felt powerful, protected and self-confident (IV). Conclusions: Birth on the Birth seat reduced the duration of the second stage of labour. The number of instrumental vaginal Births was not reduced. There were no adverse infant or maternal outcomes except for an increased blood loss in women who gave Birth on the Birth seat; this finding was without affecting the haemoglobin level 8-12 weeks postpartum. An upright Birth Position, when chosen by the woman, could give a feeling of empowerment, which leads to greater childBirth satisfaction. An upright Position during the second stage of labour, facilitated by a Birth seat, can be recommended as a non-medical intervention to healthy nulliparous women.
David Desseauve - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Biomechanical comparison of squatting and “optimal” supine Birth Positions
Journal of biomechanics, 2020Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Bertand Gachon, Yosra Cherni, Fabrice PierreAbstract:Abstract In obstetric science, it is unknown whether the inherent biomechanical features of the squatting Position can be achieved and/or transposed to the supine Birth Position. In this study Biomechanical features of the squatting Position were compared with 2 hyperflexed supine Positions for giving Birth. Thirteen pregnant women past the 32 weeks of gestational age not in labor were assessed first in the squatting Position with the feet flat on the floor, then in the hyperflexed supine Position, and finally in the optimal supine Position “crushing” the hand of the caregiver onto the bed. For each Position, the flexion of the spine associated with the plane of the external conjugate (ANGce) and the pelvis, hip flexion, and abduction were quantified using an optoelectronic motion capture system. A non-invasive strain-gauge-based measuring system was used to track the lumbar curve. An optimal Position was defined with a flat lumbar spine and a pelvic inlet plane perpendicular to the lumbar spine (ANGce = 0° ± 5°). For the 13 participants, hip flexion, hip abduction, and the lumbar curve did not differ significantly for the three Positions (squatting Position, hyperflexed supine Position, and OS) in the post-hoc analyses. The optimal supine Position induced an ANGce closer to the perpendicular plane than the squatting Position (p = 0.002). In the squatting Position or in hyperflexed supine Position Positions, none of the subjects fulfilled the two conditions considered necessary to reach the optimal Position. The squatting Position was not significantly different from the supine hyperflexed supine Position with or without voluntary lordosis correction.
-
Is there an impact of feet Position on squatting Birth Position? An innovative biomechanical pilot study
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2019Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Fabrice PierreAbstract:The squatting Birth Position is widely used for “natural” Birth or in countries where childBirth occurs in non-medical facilities. Squatting Birth Positions, like others, are roughly defined so a biomechanical assessment is required with the availability of noninvasive technology in pregnant women. In practice, we can observe spontaneously two kinds of squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes and with feet flat. Objective To compare the impact of foot posture on biomechanical parameters considered essential in obstetrical biomechanics during a squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes versus with feet flat on the floor. Study design Thirteen pregnant women beyond 32 weeks of gestational age who were not in labor were assessed during squatting Birth Position firstly spontaneously and secondly with the foot posture that was not taken spontaneously (on the tiptoes vs with feet flat). For each Position, ANGle of flexion on the spine of the plane of the pelvis external conjugate (ANGec), hip flexion and abduction, and lumbar curve were assessed using an optoelectronic motion capture system and a biomechanical model adapted from the conventional gait model as well as a measuring system of the lumbar curve Results Spontaneously, 11 out of 13 women squatted on tiptoe at the first test. On tiptoes the hip flexion was lower than with feet flat (p
-
Is there an impact of feet Position on squatting Birth Position? An innovative biomechanical pilot study
BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Fabrice PierreAbstract:The squatting Birth Position is widely used for “natural” Birth or in countries where childBirth occurs in non-medical facilities. Squatting Birth Positions, like others, are roughly defined so a biomechanical assessment is required with the availability of noninvasive technology in pregnant women. In practice, we can observe spontaneously two kinds of squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes and with feet flat. To compare the impact of foot posture on biomechanical parameters considered essential in obstetrical biomechanics during a squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes versus with feet flat on the floor. Thirteen pregnant women beyond 32 weeks of gestational age who were not in labor were assessed during squatting Birth Position firstly spontaneously and secondly with the foot posture that was not taken spontaneously (on the tiptoes vs with feet flat). For each Position, ANGle of flexion on the spine of the plane of the pelvis external conjugate (ANGec), hip flexion and abduction, and lumbar curve were assessed using an optoelectronic motion capture system and a biomechanical model adapted from the conventional gait model as well as a measuring system of the lumbar curve. Spontaneously, 11 out of 13 women squatted on tiptoe at the first test. On tiptoes the hip flexion was lower than with feet flat (p
-
is there an impact of feet Position on squatting Birth Position an innovative biomechanical pilot study
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2019Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Fabrice PierreAbstract:The squatting Birth Position is widely used for “natural” Birth or in countries where childBirth occurs in non-medical facilities. Squatting Birth Positions, like others, are roughly defined so a biomechanical assessment is required with the availability of noninvasive technology in pregnant women. In practice, we can observe spontaneously two kinds of squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes and with feet flat. To compare the impact of foot posture on biomechanical parameters considered essential in obstetrical biomechanics during a squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes versus with feet flat on the floor. Thirteen pregnant women beyond 32 weeks of gestational age who were not in labor were assessed during squatting Birth Position firstly spontaneously and secondly with the foot posture that was not taken spontaneously (on the tiptoes vs with feet flat). For each Position, ANGle of flexion on the spine of the plane of the pelvis external conjugate (ANGec), hip flexion and abduction, and lumbar curve were assessed using an optoelectronic motion capture system and a biomechanical model adapted from the conventional gait model as well as a measuring system of the lumbar curve. Spontaneously, 11 out of 13 women squatted on tiptoe at the first test. On tiptoes the hip flexion was lower than with feet flat (p < 0.02), whereas hip abduction was not significantly different (p = 0.28). A lower ANGec angle (p = 0.003) was noticed for the tiptoe Position than feet flat. The lumbar curve (lordosis) was more marked for the squatting Position on tiptoes than for the Position with feet flat (p < 0.001). On tiptoes no woman had a pelvic inlet plane perpendicular to the spine and none had a flat back or kyphosis. No woman on tiptoes fulfilled the two conditions necessary for the Position that we consider optimal. In squatting Birth Position, foot posture has a biomechanical impact on lumbar curve and pelvic orientation. When comparing squatting Positions (on tiptoes vs feet flat), feet flat on the ground is closer to optimal Birth conditions than on tiptoes.
Patrick Lacouture - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Biomechanical comparison of squatting and “optimal” supine Birth Positions
Journal of biomechanics, 2020Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Bertand Gachon, Yosra Cherni, Fabrice PierreAbstract:Abstract In obstetric science, it is unknown whether the inherent biomechanical features of the squatting Position can be achieved and/or transposed to the supine Birth Position. In this study Biomechanical features of the squatting Position were compared with 2 hyperflexed supine Positions for giving Birth. Thirteen pregnant women past the 32 weeks of gestational age not in labor were assessed first in the squatting Position with the feet flat on the floor, then in the hyperflexed supine Position, and finally in the optimal supine Position “crushing” the hand of the caregiver onto the bed. For each Position, the flexion of the spine associated with the plane of the external conjugate (ANGce) and the pelvis, hip flexion, and abduction were quantified using an optoelectronic motion capture system. A non-invasive strain-gauge-based measuring system was used to track the lumbar curve. An optimal Position was defined with a flat lumbar spine and a pelvic inlet plane perpendicular to the lumbar spine (ANGce = 0° ± 5°). For the 13 participants, hip flexion, hip abduction, and the lumbar curve did not differ significantly for the three Positions (squatting Position, hyperflexed supine Position, and OS) in the post-hoc analyses. The optimal supine Position induced an ANGce closer to the perpendicular plane than the squatting Position (p = 0.002). In the squatting Position or in hyperflexed supine Position Positions, none of the subjects fulfilled the two conditions considered necessary to reach the optimal Position. The squatting Position was not significantly different from the supine hyperflexed supine Position with or without voluntary lordosis correction.
-
Is there an impact of feet Position on squatting Birth Position? An innovative biomechanical pilot study
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2019Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Fabrice PierreAbstract:The squatting Birth Position is widely used for “natural” Birth or in countries where childBirth occurs in non-medical facilities. Squatting Birth Positions, like others, are roughly defined so a biomechanical assessment is required with the availability of noninvasive technology in pregnant women. In practice, we can observe spontaneously two kinds of squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes and with feet flat. Objective To compare the impact of foot posture on biomechanical parameters considered essential in obstetrical biomechanics during a squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes versus with feet flat on the floor. Study design Thirteen pregnant women beyond 32 weeks of gestational age who were not in labor were assessed during squatting Birth Position firstly spontaneously and secondly with the foot posture that was not taken spontaneously (on the tiptoes vs with feet flat). For each Position, ANGle of flexion on the spine of the plane of the pelvis external conjugate (ANGec), hip flexion and abduction, and lumbar curve were assessed using an optoelectronic motion capture system and a biomechanical model adapted from the conventional gait model as well as a measuring system of the lumbar curve Results Spontaneously, 11 out of 13 women squatted on tiptoe at the first test. On tiptoes the hip flexion was lower than with feet flat (p
-
Is there an impact of feet Position on squatting Birth Position? An innovative biomechanical pilot study
BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Fabrice PierreAbstract:The squatting Birth Position is widely used for “natural” Birth or in countries where childBirth occurs in non-medical facilities. Squatting Birth Positions, like others, are roughly defined so a biomechanical assessment is required with the availability of noninvasive technology in pregnant women. In practice, we can observe spontaneously two kinds of squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes and with feet flat. To compare the impact of foot posture on biomechanical parameters considered essential in obstetrical biomechanics during a squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes versus with feet flat on the floor. Thirteen pregnant women beyond 32 weeks of gestational age who were not in labor were assessed during squatting Birth Position firstly spontaneously and secondly with the foot posture that was not taken spontaneously (on the tiptoes vs with feet flat). For each Position, ANGle of flexion on the spine of the plane of the pelvis external conjugate (ANGec), hip flexion and abduction, and lumbar curve were assessed using an optoelectronic motion capture system and a biomechanical model adapted from the conventional gait model as well as a measuring system of the lumbar curve. Spontaneously, 11 out of 13 women squatted on tiptoe at the first test. On tiptoes the hip flexion was lower than with feet flat (p
-
is there an impact of feet Position on squatting Birth Position an innovative biomechanical pilot study
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2019Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Fabrice PierreAbstract:The squatting Birth Position is widely used for “natural” Birth or in countries where childBirth occurs in non-medical facilities. Squatting Birth Positions, like others, are roughly defined so a biomechanical assessment is required with the availability of noninvasive technology in pregnant women. In practice, we can observe spontaneously two kinds of squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes and with feet flat. To compare the impact of foot posture on biomechanical parameters considered essential in obstetrical biomechanics during a squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes versus with feet flat on the floor. Thirteen pregnant women beyond 32 weeks of gestational age who were not in labor were assessed during squatting Birth Position firstly spontaneously and secondly with the foot posture that was not taken spontaneously (on the tiptoes vs with feet flat). For each Position, ANGle of flexion on the spine of the plane of the pelvis external conjugate (ANGec), hip flexion and abduction, and lumbar curve were assessed using an optoelectronic motion capture system and a biomechanical model adapted from the conventional gait model as well as a measuring system of the lumbar curve. Spontaneously, 11 out of 13 women squatted on tiptoe at the first test. On tiptoes the hip flexion was lower than with feet flat (p < 0.02), whereas hip abduction was not significantly different (p = 0.28). A lower ANGec angle (p = 0.003) was noticed for the tiptoe Position than feet flat. The lumbar curve (lordosis) was more marked for the squatting Position on tiptoes than for the Position with feet flat (p < 0.001). On tiptoes no woman had a pelvic inlet plane perpendicular to the spine and none had a flat back or kyphosis. No woman on tiptoes fulfilled the two conditions necessary for the Position that we consider optimal. In squatting Birth Position, foot posture has a biomechanical impact on lumbar curve and pelvic orientation. When comparing squatting Positions (on tiptoes vs feet flat), feet flat on the ground is closer to optimal Birth conditions than on tiptoes.
Laetitia Fradet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Biomechanical comparison of squatting and “optimal” supine Birth Positions
Journal of biomechanics, 2020Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Bertand Gachon, Yosra Cherni, Fabrice PierreAbstract:Abstract In obstetric science, it is unknown whether the inherent biomechanical features of the squatting Position can be achieved and/or transposed to the supine Birth Position. In this study Biomechanical features of the squatting Position were compared with 2 hyperflexed supine Positions for giving Birth. Thirteen pregnant women past the 32 weeks of gestational age not in labor were assessed first in the squatting Position with the feet flat on the floor, then in the hyperflexed supine Position, and finally in the optimal supine Position “crushing” the hand of the caregiver onto the bed. For each Position, the flexion of the spine associated with the plane of the external conjugate (ANGce) and the pelvis, hip flexion, and abduction were quantified using an optoelectronic motion capture system. A non-invasive strain-gauge-based measuring system was used to track the lumbar curve. An optimal Position was defined with a flat lumbar spine and a pelvic inlet plane perpendicular to the lumbar spine (ANGce = 0° ± 5°). For the 13 participants, hip flexion, hip abduction, and the lumbar curve did not differ significantly for the three Positions (squatting Position, hyperflexed supine Position, and OS) in the post-hoc analyses. The optimal supine Position induced an ANGce closer to the perpendicular plane than the squatting Position (p = 0.002). In the squatting Position or in hyperflexed supine Position Positions, none of the subjects fulfilled the two conditions considered necessary to reach the optimal Position. The squatting Position was not significantly different from the supine hyperflexed supine Position with or without voluntary lordosis correction.
-
Is there an impact of feet Position on squatting Birth Position? An innovative biomechanical pilot study
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2019Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Fabrice PierreAbstract:The squatting Birth Position is widely used for “natural” Birth or in countries where childBirth occurs in non-medical facilities. Squatting Birth Positions, like others, are roughly defined so a biomechanical assessment is required with the availability of noninvasive technology in pregnant women. In practice, we can observe spontaneously two kinds of squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes and with feet flat. Objective To compare the impact of foot posture on biomechanical parameters considered essential in obstetrical biomechanics during a squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes versus with feet flat on the floor. Study design Thirteen pregnant women beyond 32 weeks of gestational age who were not in labor were assessed during squatting Birth Position firstly spontaneously and secondly with the foot posture that was not taken spontaneously (on the tiptoes vs with feet flat). For each Position, ANGle of flexion on the spine of the plane of the pelvis external conjugate (ANGec), hip flexion and abduction, and lumbar curve were assessed using an optoelectronic motion capture system and a biomechanical model adapted from the conventional gait model as well as a measuring system of the lumbar curve Results Spontaneously, 11 out of 13 women squatted on tiptoe at the first test. On tiptoes the hip flexion was lower than with feet flat (p
-
Is there an impact of feet Position on squatting Birth Position? An innovative biomechanical pilot study
BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2019Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Fabrice PierreAbstract:The squatting Birth Position is widely used for “natural” Birth or in countries where childBirth occurs in non-medical facilities. Squatting Birth Positions, like others, are roughly defined so a biomechanical assessment is required with the availability of noninvasive technology in pregnant women. In practice, we can observe spontaneously two kinds of squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes and with feet flat. To compare the impact of foot posture on biomechanical parameters considered essential in obstetrical biomechanics during a squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes versus with feet flat on the floor. Thirteen pregnant women beyond 32 weeks of gestational age who were not in labor were assessed during squatting Birth Position firstly spontaneously and secondly with the foot posture that was not taken spontaneously (on the tiptoes vs with feet flat). For each Position, ANGle of flexion on the spine of the plane of the pelvis external conjugate (ANGec), hip flexion and abduction, and lumbar curve were assessed using an optoelectronic motion capture system and a biomechanical model adapted from the conventional gait model as well as a measuring system of the lumbar curve. Spontaneously, 11 out of 13 women squatted on tiptoe at the first test. On tiptoes the hip flexion was lower than with feet flat (p
-
is there an impact of feet Position on squatting Birth Position an innovative biomechanical pilot study
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2019Co-Authors: David Desseauve, Laetitia Fradet, Patrick Lacouture, Fabrice PierreAbstract:The squatting Birth Position is widely used for “natural” Birth or in countries where childBirth occurs in non-medical facilities. Squatting Birth Positions, like others, are roughly defined so a biomechanical assessment is required with the availability of noninvasive technology in pregnant women. In practice, we can observe spontaneously two kinds of squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes and with feet flat. To compare the impact of foot posture on biomechanical parameters considered essential in obstetrical biomechanics during a squatting Birth Position: on tiptoes versus with feet flat on the floor. Thirteen pregnant women beyond 32 weeks of gestational age who were not in labor were assessed during squatting Birth Position firstly spontaneously and secondly with the foot posture that was not taken spontaneously (on the tiptoes vs with feet flat). For each Position, ANGle of flexion on the spine of the plane of the pelvis external conjugate (ANGec), hip flexion and abduction, and lumbar curve were assessed using an optoelectronic motion capture system and a biomechanical model adapted from the conventional gait model as well as a measuring system of the lumbar curve. Spontaneously, 11 out of 13 women squatted on tiptoe at the first test. On tiptoes the hip flexion was lower than with feet flat (p < 0.02), whereas hip abduction was not significantly different (p = 0.28). A lower ANGec angle (p = 0.003) was noticed for the tiptoe Position than feet flat. The lumbar curve (lordosis) was more marked for the squatting Position on tiptoes than for the Position with feet flat (p < 0.001). On tiptoes no woman had a pelvic inlet plane perpendicular to the spine and none had a flat back or kyphosis. No woman on tiptoes fulfilled the two conditions necessary for the Position that we consider optimal. In squatting Birth Position, foot posture has a biomechanical impact on lumbar curve and pelvic orientation. When comparing squatting Positions (on tiptoes vs feet flat), feet flat on the ground is closer to optimal Birth conditions than on tiptoes.