Midline episiotomies: more harm than good?
- PMID: 2183106
Midline episiotomies: more harm than good?
Abstract
The association between episiotomy and severe (third- and fourth-degree) perineal lacerations was studied in 24,114 women. The overall rates of severe lacerations were 8.3 and 1.5% for primiparous and multiparous women, respectively. Women who had midline episiotomies were nearly 50 times more likely and women who had mediolateral episiotomies were over eight times more likely to suffer a severe laceration than were women who did not undergo an episiotomy. Severe lacerations were also more common after use of forceps, in occiput transverse and posterior presentations, among women with smaller pelvic outlet measurements or lower prepregnant weight, and with larger fetuses. The same factors that caused a woman to have an increased risk of laceration also made performance of an episiotomy more likely. After statistical adjustment for these risk factors, mediolateral episiotomy was associated with a 2.5-fold reduction in the risk of severe lacerations among primiparous women, and a statistically nonsignificant 2.4-fold increase among multiparous women, compared with no episiotomy. Midline episiotomy was associated with statistically significant 4.2- and 12.8-fold increases in the risk of lacerations among primiparous and multiparous women, respectively. We conclude that the risks and benefits of midline episiotomy should be evaluated in a randomized clinical trial that compares policies of "usual" versus conservative use of episiotomy.
Comment in
-
Midline episiotomies: more harm than good?Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Sep;76(3 Pt 1):474-5. Obstet Gynecol. 1990. PMID: 2381626 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Fecal and urinary incontinence after vaginal delivery with anal sphincter disruption in an obstetrics unit in the United States.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Dec;189(6):1543-9; discussion 1549-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.09.030. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003. PMID: 14710059
-
Operative vaginal delivery and midline episiotomy: a bad combination for the perineum.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Sep;195(3):749-54. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.078. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006. PMID: 16949408
-
Severe perineal lacerations in nulliparous women and episiotomy type.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005 Jul 1;121(1):46-50. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.10.013. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005. PMID: 15950361
-
The role of episiotomy in instrumental delivery: is it preventative for severe perineal injury?J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008 Jul;28(5):469-73. doi: 10.1080/01443610802196492. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008. PMID: 18850416 Review.
-
The relationship of episiotomy to third and fourth degree lacerations.J Ark Med Soc. 1996 Feb;92(9):447-8. J Ark Med Soc. 1996. PMID: 8742161 Review.
Cited by
-
A comparison between early maternal and neonatal complications of restrictive episiotomy and routine episiotomy in primiparous vaginal delivery.J Res Med Sci. 2011 Dec;16(12):1583-9. J Res Med Sci. 2011. PMID: 22973367 Free PMC article.
-
Perineal care.BMJ Clin Evid. 2011 Apr 11;2011:1401. BMJ Clin Evid. 2011. PMID: 21481287 Free PMC article.
-
Impact of episiotomy on pelvic floor disorders and their influence on women's wellness after the sixth month postpartum: a retrospective study.BMC Womens Health. 2011 Apr 18;11:12. doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-11-12. BMC Womens Health. 2011. PMID: 21501462 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of different episiotomy techniques on perineal pain and sexual activity 3 months after delivery.Int Urogynecol J. 2014 Dec;25(12):1629-37. doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2401-2. Epub 2014 May 8. Int Urogynecol J. 2014. PMID: 24807426
-
Selective Episiotomy: Indications, Techinique, and Association with Severe Perineal Lacerations.Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2016 Jun;38(6):301-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1584942. Epub 2016 Jul 11. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2016. PMID: 27399925 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources