Background: Episiotomy is done to prevent severe perineal tears, but its routine use has been questioned. The relative effects of midline compared with midlateral episiotomy are unclear.
Objectives: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of restrictive use of episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy during vaginal birth.
Search Strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2008).
Selection Criteria: Randomized trials comparing restrictive use of episiotomy with routine use of episiotomy; restrictive use of mediolateral episiotomy versus routine mediolateral episiotomy; restrictive use of midline episiotomy versus routine midline episiotomy; and use of midline episiotomy versus mediolateral episiotomy.
Data Collection And Analysis: The two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data.
Main Results: We included eight studies (5541 women). In the routine episiotomy group, 75.15% (2035/2708) of women had episiotomies, while the rate in the restrictive episiotomy group was 28.40% (776/2733). Compared with routine use, restrictive episiotomy resulted in less severe perineal trauma (relative risk (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.91), less suturing (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.81) and fewer healing complications (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.85). Restrictive episiotomy was associated with more anterior perineal trauma (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.10). There was no difference in severe vaginal/perineal trauma (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18); dyspareunia (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.16); urinary incontinence (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20) or several pain measures. Results for restrictive versus routine mediolateral versus midline episiotomy were similar to the overall comparison.
Authors' Conclusions: Restrictive episiotomy policies appear to have a number of benefits compared to policies based on routine episiotomy. There is less posterior perineal trauma, less suturing and fewer complications, no difference for most pain measures and severe vaginal or perineal trauma, but there was an increased risk of anterior perineal trauma with restrictive episiotomy.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4175536 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub2 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Episiotomies and obstetric anal sphincter injuries following a restrictive episiotomy policy in France: An analysis of the 2010, 2016, and 2021 National Perinatal Surveys.
PLoS Med
January 2025
Université Paris Cité, Center of Research in Epidemiology and StatisticS/CRESS/Obstetrical Perinatal and Pediatric Epidemiology Research Team (EPOPé), INSERM, INRAE, Paris, France.
Background: The French guidelines have recommended a restrictive policy of episiotomy since 2005. We aimed to assess variations in the prevalence of both episiotomy and obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) from the 2010, 2016, and 2021 National Perinatal Surveys.
Methods And Findings: A total of 29,750 women who had given birth to a live infant by vaginal delivery were included.
Efficacy of intrapartum bundles and interventions in reducing vaginal delivery-related perineal trauma: a systematic review.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol
February 2025
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Parma, Parma, Italy; Catholic University of Sacred Heart Rome, Department of Women and Child Health - Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the current evidence on preventive interventions and bundles, including combinations of multiple techniques, aimed at reducing vaginal delivery-related perineal injury.
Methods: A systematic research of literature was independently conducted on different databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE) by the authors, using a combination of the identified keywords and index terms as per current PRISMA guidelines. The research was restricted to papers published in English starting by 2000.
Guideline No. 457: Obstetrical Anal Sphincter Injuries (OASIS) Part I: Prevention, Recognition, and Immediate Management.
J Obstet Gynaecol Can
December 2024
Regina, SK.
Objective: The purpose of this guideline is to promote recognition and preventive strategies for obstetrical anal sphincter injuries. Furthermore, it provides guidance on primary repair and immediate postpartum management for obstetrical anal sphincter tears in order to minimize further negative sequelae.
Target Population: All patients having a vaginal delivery and those who have sustained an obstetrical anal sphincter injury.
Trends and determinants of the use of episiotomy in a prospective population-based registry from central India.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
September 2024
Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Sawangi, India.
Background: Findings from research and recommendations from the World Health Organization favor restrictive use of episiotomy, but whether this guidance is being followed in India, and factors associated with its use, are not known. This study sought to document trends in use of episiotomy over a five-year period (2014-2018); to examine its relationship to maternal, pregnancy, and health-system characteristics; and to investigate its association with other obstetric interventions.
Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected by the Maternal Newborn Health Registry, a prospective population-based pregnancy registry established in Central India (Nagpur, Eastern Maharashtra).
Levator Ani Muscle Avulsion after Vaginal Delivery Between Routine Versus Restrictive Episiotomy: A Pilot Study.
Int Urogynecol J
September 2024
Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!