Is Computerized Labor Monitoring the Future of Labor Assessment?

By birthamiracle, published Dec 17, 2007
Published Content: 31  Total Views: 14,459  Favorited By: 1 CPs
Rating: 3.0 of 5
All women who have given birth with a birth attendant present are familiar with the standard method for determining cervical dilation and position of the baby's head during labor: a manual vaginal exam every 1-4 hours until the child is born. However, there is a new piece of equipment on the market which may change hospital labor monitoring as we know it.

In 2001, an Israeli obstetrician decided that with all the technology available for childbirth, there had to be a way to create a machine that would accurately determine the same factors as a vaginal exam1. In 2007, he and his team finally received FDA approval for the "Barnev Computerized Labor Monitor" (CLM for short) in the active stage of labor, and began marketing it to hospitals across the USA2.

The CLM equipment consists of a doppler placed on the abdomen, two censors attached to the cervix, and one sensor attached to the baby's scalp. The information is then displayed on easy to read screens next the patient's bed and in the nurse's station.

According to the Barnev company, over 300 women participated in a trial of the CLM, resulting in the following alleged benefits: a faster, simpler, and less painful way to determine cervical dilation and fetal position, freedom to use Pitocin or an Epidural, freedom to have a 'natural' childbirth, quicker treatment of fetal distress, CPD, failure to progress, and other labor complications3. Other reported benefits include cost effective management of labor, a legitimate defense for care providers experiencing lawsuits4, less unnecessary cesarean sections, forceps and vacuum extractions5.

What the press releases have not stated is that there are moderate risks involved with the CLM, as classified by the FDA. These risks include: patient injury, electrical hazards, ultrasound tissue damage, electromagnetic interference and electrostatic discharge hazards, mismanagement of patient, adverse tissue reaction, and infection6.

Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
 
 
This is HORRIBLE. It is bad enough to labor with internal or external fetal monitors. I PRAY that this never becomes standard practice. Frankenstein needs to get out of the delivery room. Or better yet, women need to get out of the delivery room and just birth our babies at home - it's safer, and much more comfortable. If we were to suggest monitoring constipation by inserting a monitor into the rectum, people would balk, rightly so, and recognize the absurdity of it all. Wake up, people.

Posted on 01/21/2008 at 10:01:36 PM

 
UM yuck, how is this better, this is even more intervention. So are women going to be restricted to the bed while they labor. I would not allow this, good thing I believe in natural births, and homebirths. women educate your self, you do not have to summit to anything even if it is hospital protocol, and routine.

Posted on 01/16/2008 at 3:01:00 AM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
 
Most Commented On