Abstract
Understanding the effects of birthing positions on labour is crucial for optimising maternal and foetal outcomes. Upright positions are encouraged but their biomechanics are not fully understood. Biomechanical changes during labour can make certain positions more or less favourable depending on individual physical characteristics. Understanding these factors is essential for tailoring strategies that enhance maternal comfort and facilitate labour. This study aimed to quantify the biomechanics of seven common upright birthing positions, comparing their biomechanical characteristics and evaluating the sensitivity and accuracy of marker-based and markerless motion capture systems. Fifteen healthy, non-pregnant women performed seven upright birthing positions. Hip, pelvis, and trunk kinematics were assessed using a 9-camera marker-based system and an 8-camera markerless system. Significant biomechanical differences were found between birthing positions. The “squat” position showed the most hip flexion and abduction, “B-Ball” had the greatest anterior pelvic tilt, and “all-fours” exhibited the most posterior tilt. For the trunk, “upright” led to the most extension, and “elbows bent knees” showed the most flexion. The markerless system aligned well with the marker-based system in the coronal and transverse planes but lacked sensitivity in the sagittal plane. This study highlights the biomechanical differences in upright birthing positions and emphasises the need for personalised birthing strategies. Understanding labour biomechanics is crucial for improving maternal and foetal well-being and reducing complications. By providing comprehensive and evidence-based information, women can make informed decisions about their birthing positions, enhancing outcomes and lowering the risk of maternal and neonatal complications globally.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the THRIVE Research Centre at UCLan.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the University of Central Lancashire - Health Ethics Committee (HEALTH 01203). Data collection conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki, 42 and all information collected was kept strictly confidential, with participant anonymity maintained throughout. Data were collected, managed, analysed, and stored in accordance with General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). Volunteers provided written informed consent prior to participation. During the consent process, participants were briefed on data protection measures and their rights concerning their data.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data availability statement
All data supporting the results of this study are available via the UCLanData repository DOI: 10.17030/uclan.data.00000475 Link: https://uclandata.uclan.ac.uk/475/
