Midline episiotomy and anal incontinence: retrospective cohort study
- PMID: 10625261
- PMCID: PMC27253
- DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.86
Midline episiotomy and anal incontinence: retrospective cohort study
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the relation between midline episiotomy and postpartum anal incontinence.
Design: Retrospective cohort study with three study arms and six months of follow up.
Setting: University teaching hospital.
Participants: Primiparous women who vaginally delivered a live full term, singleton baby between 1 August 1996 and 8 February 1997: 209 who received an episiotomy; 206 who did not receive an episiotomy but experienced a second, third, or fourth degree spontaneous perineal laceration; and 211 who experienced either no laceration or a first degree perineal laceration.
Main outcome measures: Self reported faecal and flatus incontinence at three and six months postpartum.
Results: Women who had episiotomies had a higher risk of faecal incontinence at three (odds ratio 5.5, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 16.2) and six (3.7, 0.9 to 15.6) months postpartum compared with women with an intact perineum. Compared with women with a spontaneous laceration, episiotomy tripled the risk of faecal incontinence at three months (95% confidence interval 1.3 to 7.9) and six months (0.7 to 11.2) postpartum, and doubled the risk of flatus incontinence at three months (1.3 to 3.4) and six months (1.2 to 3.7) postpartum. A non-extending episiotomy (that is, second degree surgical incision) tripled the risk of faecal incontinence (1.1 to 9.0) and nearly doubled the risk of flatus incontinence (1.0 to 3.0) at three months postpartum compared with women who had a second degree spontaneous tear. The effect of episiotomy was independent of maternal age, infant birth weight, duration of second stage of labour, use of obstetric instrumentation during delivery, and complications of labour.
Conclusions: Midline episiotomy is not effective in protecting the perineum and sphincters during childbirth and may impair anal continence.
Comment in
-
Midline episiotomy and anal incontinence. A prospective study is needed.BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1601. BMJ. 2000. PMID: 10896429 No abstract available.
-
Midline episiotomy and anal incontinence. Training is needed in the recognition and repair of perineal trauma.BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1601. BMJ. 2000. PMID: 10896430 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Midline episiotomy and anal incontinence. Results should be interpreted with caution in British context.BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1601-2. BMJ. 2000. PMID: 10896431 No abstract available.
-
Midline episiotomy and anal incontinence. Is episiotomy ethically acceptable?BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1602. BMJ. 2000. PMID: 10896432 No abstract available.
References
-
- MacArthur C, Bick DE, Keighley MRB. Faecal incontinence after childbirth. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:46–50. - PubMed
-
- Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Thomas JM, Bartram CI. Anal sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1905–1911. - PubMed
-
- Leigh RJ, Turnberg LA. Faecal incontinence: the unvoiced symptom. Lancet. 1982;i:1349–1351. - PubMed
-
- Sultan AH, Kamm MA. Faecal incontinence after childbirth. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:979–982. - PubMed
-
- Isager-Sally L, Legarth J, Jacobsen B, Bostofte E. Episiotomy repair—immediate and long-term sequelae. A prospective randomised study of three different methods of repair. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986;93:420–425. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical