Episiotomy for vaginal birth
- 21 January 2009
- reference entry
- research article
- Published by Wiley
- No. 1,p. CD000081
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000081.pub2
Abstract
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. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of restrictive use of episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy during vaginal birth. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2008). 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. The two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. 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. 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.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Selective vs routine midline episiotomy for the prevention of third- or fourth-degree lacerations in nulliparous womenAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2008
- Episiotomy and perineal tears presumed to be imminent: the influence on the urethral pressure profile, analmanometric and other pelvic floor findings – follow‐up study of a randomized controlled trialActa Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 2004
- Episiotomy and perineal tears presumed to be imminent: randomized controlled trialActa Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 2004
- Meta‐analyses in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine: comparison of fixed and random effects modelsStatistics in Medicine, 2001
- Is routine use of episiotomy justified?American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1996
- Episiotomy, elective or selective: A report of a random allocation trialJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1994
- West Berkshire perineal management trial: three year follow up.BMJ, 1987
- Episiotomy and third‐degree tearsBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1985
- Benefits and Risks of EpisiotomyObstetrical & Gynecological Survey, 1983
- A COMPARISON BETWEEN MIDLINE AND MEDIOLATERAL EPISIOTOMIESBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1980