To explore the application analgesia effect of the epidural perforating epidural block (EPEB) and epidural block used for the painless labor of pregnant women. Methods: 80 pregnant women who wanted painless labor in the hospital were included and were randomly divided into two groups by the random number table method from December 2023 to July 2024. 40 women in the control group received epidural block for the painless labor, and 40 women in the study group received EPEB for the painless labor. The pain relief situation evaluated by VAS score, the status of neural blockade, delivery and labor stage, the duration and the interval time of the uterine contractions, and the levels of the serum and umbilical cord blood cortisol, interleukin (IL)-1β, and IL-8 of the women were compared between the two groups. The incidences of complications of the women in the two groups were counted. Results: The analgesic effect for the uterine contraction of the women in the study group was significantly better than that of the women in the control group, and the VAS score of the women in the study group at the uterine contraction had decreased significantly over time (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the VAS score of the women from 0.5h after analgesia to the drug withdrawal between the two groups (P>0.05), and the analgesic effect of the women in the two groups was not affected by the time and the interaction, and the difference of the analgesic effect of the women had no significantly different between the two groups (P>0.05). The amount of ropivacaine used (50.44±5.16mg) of the women in the study group was significantly less than that (50.44±5.16mg) of the women in the control group, and the proportion of bilateral sensory block level to S2 (95.0%) of the women in the study group was significantly higher than that (72.5%) of the women in the control group (all P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the proportion of the bilateral sensory block level to T10, and the incidences of asymmetric block and catheter replacement of the women between the two groups (P>0.05). The proportion of oxytocin used (15.0%) of the women in the study group was significantly lower than that (52.5%) in the control group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the durations of the first and the second stages of labor and the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage of the women between the two groups (P>0.05). The uterine contraction duration and the uterine contraction interval time of the women had no significant differences between the two groups, and both of which were not affected by the interaction between the two groups and the time interaction (P>0.05). The time of the women in the two groups had significantly influenced on their duration of the uterine contraction (P<0.05), but which had no influenced on their interval time of the uterine contractions (P>0.05). The levels of serum and cord blood cortisol, IL-1β and IL-8 of the women in the study group in 1h after labor analgesia were significantly lower than those of the women in the control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the adverse reactions rate of the women between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: During labor analgesia of the women with uterine contraction, EPEB technology shows the better analgesic effect than that of the traditional epidural block, which can reduce the dosage of the anesthetic drugs used and reduce the stress and the inflammatory response of the women, and which has no influence on the labor process of the women, and with the good safety.