You will be provided with the titles and abstracts of a collection of medical RCT reports studying a clinical question -- for instance, the efficacy of an intervention on some medical outcome. Please write a few sentences synthesizing the findings of these reports, which could serve as a conclusion section for a systematic review article. Your response should not include any other text. The RCT reports are below.



Title 1:
Upright versus recumbent position in the second stage of labour in women with combined spinal-epidural analgesia.
Abstract 1:
Neuraxial blockade is widely used for pain relief in labour. This form of analgesia may be associated with an increase in instrumental delivery rates due to dystocia. 'Traditional' epidurals cause motor blockade and hence immobility. Using a low dose anaesthetic-opioid combination with either epidural or combined spinal-epidural, selective sensory blockade can be achieved, allowing mobility as well as pain relief. In this study, we randomised women with combined spinal-epidural analgesia either to mobilise (upright group n = 25) or to remain recumbent (n = 41) in the second stage of labour. We found women in the upright group had significantly shorter total second stage, (132 vs 109 min,P = 0.019) particularly during the pushing phase (73 vs 51 min, P = 0.011). Although there were fewer instrumental deliveries in the upright group, this was not statistically significant. Women who were randomised to the upright group, did actually mobilise. We conclude that mobilisation in the second stage of labour is possible, and may reduce the length of the second stage.


Title 2:
Ambulatory epidural anesthesia and the duration of labor.
Abstract 2:
Ambulatory epidural analgesia has become a common option for women in labor in France. We tested the hypothesis that a method of epidural analgesia that allowed women to walk had specific advantages regarding mode of delivery, consumption of local anesthetic, oxytocin requirement, and labor duration.
                Two hundred and twenty-one women with uncomplicated pregnancies who presented in spontaneous labor between 36 and 42 weeks of gestation or who were scheduled for induced labor were randomly divided into two groups, ambulatory and non-ambulatory. All were given intermittent epidural injections of 0.1% ropivacaine with 0.6 microg/ml sufentanil for analgesia during labor (P<0.05 was considered significant). None of the women had previous cesarean delivery.
                There were no significant differences between the two groups in mode of delivery, consumption of local anesthetic, or oxytocin requirement. However, a significant difference was noted in labor duration (173.4+/-109.9 min vs. 236.4+/-130.6 min; P=0.001).
                Walking with ambulatory labor analgesia shortens labor duration but has no other effect on the progress and outcome of labor.


Title 3:
A prospective randomised trial on the effect of position in the passive second stage of labour on birth outcome in nulliparous women using epidural analgesia.
Abstract 3:
To determine whether the rate of instrumental birth in nulliparous women using epidural analgesia is affected by maternal position in the passive second stage of labour.
                A pragmatic prospective randomised trial.
                Consultant maternity unit in the Midlands.
                One hundred and seven nulliparous women using epidural analgesia and reaching the second stage of labour with no contraindications to spontaneous birth.
                The lateral versus the supported sitting position during the passive second stage of labour.
                Mode of birth, incidence of episiotomy, and perineal suturing.
                Recruitment was lower than anticipated (107 vs. 220 planned). Lateral position was associated with lower rates of instrumental birth rate (lateral group 33%; sitting group 52%; p=0.05, RR 0.64, CI for RR: 0.40-1.01; Number-needed-to-treat (NNT)=5), of episiotomy (45% vs. 64%; p=0.05, RR 0.66, CI for RR: 0.44-1.00, NNT=5), and of perineal suturing (78% vs. 86%; p=0.243, RR 0.75, CI for RR 0.47-1.17). The odds ratio for instrumental birth in the sitting group was 2.2 (CI 1.00-4.6). Logistic regression of potential confounder variables was undertaken, due to a large variation in maternal weight between the randomised groups. Of the nine possible confounders tested, only position of the baby's head at full dilation affected the risk of instrumental birth significantly (p=0.4, OR 2.7 where the fetal head was in the lateral or posterior position). Maternal weight did not appear to have any effect. The odds ratio for instrumental delivery for women randomised to the sitting position was slightly higher within the logistic regression model (adjusted OR 2.3).
                Women randomised to the lateral position had a better chance of a spontaneous vaginal birth than those randomised to the supported sitting position. Position of the babies head at full dilation had an additional effect on mode of birth. These effects are not conclusively generalizable. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The lateral position is likely to be at best beneficial, and at the worst no less harmful than the sitting position for most women and their babies who meet the criteria set for this study. Conclusive evidence for or against the technique should be established using larger trials.
There are insufficient data to say anything conclusive about the effect of position for the second stage of labour for women with epidural analgesia. Women with an epidural should be encouraged to use whatever position they find comfortable in the second stage of labour. Future research should involve large trials of positions that women can maintain and predefined endpoints. One large trial is ongoing.