Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Sep 25;2013(9):CD008977.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008977.pub2.

Secondary suturing compared to non-suturing for broken down perineal wounds following childbirth

Lynn M Dudley  1 , Christine Kettle, Khaled M K Ismail
Affiliations

Secondary suturing compared to non-suturing for broken down perineal wounds following childbirth

Lynn M Dudley et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Each year approximately 350,000 women in the United Kingdom and millions more worldwide, experience perineal suturing following childbirth. The postpartum management of perineal trauma is a core component of routine maternity care. However, for those women whose perineal wound dehisces (breaks down), the management varies depending on individual practitioners preferences as there is limited scientific evidence and no clear guidelines to inform best practice. For most women the wound will be managed expectantly whereas, others may be offered secondary suturing.

Objectives: To evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness of secondary suturing of dehisced perineal wounds compared to non-suturing (healing by secondary intention, expectancy).

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2013) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials of secondary suturing of dehisced perineal wounds (second-, third- or fourth-degree tear or episiotomy), following wound debridement and the removal of any remaining suture material within the first six weeks following childbirth compared with non-suturing.

Data collection and analysis: Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.

Main results: Two small studies of poor methodological quality including 52 women with a dehisced and/or infected episiotomy wound at point of entry have been included.Only one small study presented data in relation to wound healing at less than four weeks, (the primary outcome measure for this review), although no reference was made to demonstrate how healing was measured. There was a trend to favour this outcome in the resuturing group, however, this difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio (RR) 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 3.88, one study, 17 women).Similarly, only one trial reported on rates of dyspareunia (a secondary outcome measure for this review) at two months and six months with no statistically significant difference between both groups; two months, (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.11, one study, 26 women) and six months, (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.87, one study 32 women). This trial also included data on the numbers of women who resumed sexual intercourse by two months and six months. Significantly more women in the secondary suturing group had resumed intercourse by two months (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.89, one study, 35 women), although by six months there was no significant difference between the two groups (RR 1.08, 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.28).Neither of the trials included data in relation to the following prespecified secondary outcome measures: pain at any time interval; the woman's satisfaction with the aesthetic results of the perineal wound; exclusive breastfeeding; maternal anxiety or depression.

Authors' conclusions: Based on this review, there is currently insufficient evidence available to either support or refute secondary suturing for the management of broken down perineal wounds following childbirth. There is an urgent need for a robust randomised controlled trial to evaluate fully the comparative effects of both treatment options.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors of this review (LD, CK and KMKI) are conducting a randomised controlled trial 'The PREVIEW study' (perineal resuturing versus expectant management following vaginal delivery complicated by a dehisced wound) to evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness of resuturing dehisced perineal wounds versus healing by expectant management (secondary intention) (Dudley 2012). The contact person for this review is the Chief Investigator for the PREVIEW study. In the update of this review, two independent assessors who are not involved in the PREVIEW trial will conduct independent assessment of eligibility, risk of bias and data extraction for this trial.

Lynn Dudley is a recipient of a Doctoral Nursing Studentship award from the Smith and Nephew Foundation and Research Into Ageing (RIA) which has provided the funding for the trial and to prepare the Cochrane review. The Smith and Nephew Foundation and Research into Ageing do not have any financial interest in the conclusions of this review.

CK and KI run perineal repair workshops both nationally and internationally and have developed an episiotomy and second‐degree tear training model with Limbs & Things, UK. They receive a very small royalty fee for input into the design of the model, which is administered by Keele University Office and Research enterprise and is used as part of their women's health research funds.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Suturing versus non‐suturing for perineal wound infection/breakdown, Outcome 1 Wound healing within 4 weeks.
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Suturing versus non‐suturing for perineal wound infection/breakdown, Outcome 2 Resumed intercourse within 2 months.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Suturing versus non‐suturing for perineal wound infection/breakdown, Outcome 3 Resumed intercourse by 6 months.
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Suturing versus non‐suturing for perineal wound infection/breakdown, Outcome 4 Dyspareunia at 2 months.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Suturing versus non‐suturing for perineal wound infection/breakdown, Outcome 5 Dyspareunia at 6 months.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008977

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

References to studies included in this review

Christensen 1994 {published data only (unpublished sought but not used)}
    1. Christensen S, Anderson G, Detlefsen GU, Hansen PK. Treatment of episiotomy wound infections. Incision and drainage versus incision, curettage and sutures under antibiotic cover; a randomised trial [Behandling af episiotomisarinfektion. Incision og droenage versus incision, curettage og sutur under antibiotikadoekke‐‐en randomiseret undersogelse]. Ugeskrift for Laeger 1994;156(34):4829‐33. - PubMed
Monberg 1987 {published data only}
    1. Monberg J, Hammen S. Ruptured episiotomia resutured primarily. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1987;66(2):163‐4. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Arona 1995 {published data only}
    1. Arona AJ, Al‐Marayati L, Grimes D, Ballard C. Early secondary repair of third and fourth degree perineal lacerations after outpatient wound preparation. Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1995;86(2):294‐6. - PubMed
Hankins 1990 {published data only}
    1. Hankins GDV, Heath JC, Gilstrap LC, Hammond TL, Yeomans ER, Snyder RR. Early repair of episiotomy dehiscence. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1990;75(48):48‐51. - PubMed
Ramin 1992 {published data only}
    1. Ramin SM, Ramus RM, Little BB, Gilstrap LC. Early repair of episiotomy dehiscence associated with infection. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1992;167(4):1104‐7. - PubMed
Uygur 2004 {published data only}
    1. Uygur D, Yesildaglar N, Kis S, Sipahi T. Early repair of episiotomy dehiscence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2004;44(3):244‐6. - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

Dudley 2012 {published data only}
    1. Dudley L, Kettle C, Carter P, Thomas P, Ismail K. Perineal resuturing versus expectant management following vaginal delivery complicated by a dehisced wound (PREVIEW): protocol for a pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2012; Vol. 2, issue 4:e001458. - PMC - PubMed

Additional references

ACOG 2006
    1. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 71: Episiotomy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2006;107(4):957‐62. - PubMed
Al‐Mufti 1997
    1. Al‐Mufti R, McCarthy A, Fisk NM. Survey of obstetricians' personal preference and discretionary practice. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 1997;73(1):1‐4. - PubMed
Bick 2010
    1. Bick D. A Delphi survey of women who have experienced perineal trauma. Personal communication 2010.
Boyle 2006
    1. Boyle M. Wound Healing in Midwifery. Oxford: Radcliffe, 2006.
Clements 2001
    1. Clements RV. Risk Management and Litigation in Obstetrics. London: RSM press/Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 2001.
CMACE 2011
    1. Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE). Saving Mothers’ Lives Reviewing Maternal Deaths to Make Motherhood Safer: 2006‐2008. The Eighth Report on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the UK. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2011;118(Suppl 1):1‐203. - PubMed
Flanagan 1996
    1. Flanagan M. A practical framework for wound assessment 1:Physiology. British Journal of Nursing 1996;5(22):1391‐7. - PubMed
Gallop 2002
    1. Gallop DG, Freedman MA, Meguiar RV, Freedman SN, Nolan TE. Necrotizing fasciitis in gynecologic and obstetric patients: a surgical emergency. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;187(2):305‐10. - PubMed
Ganapathy 2008
    1. Ganapathy R, Bardis NS, Lamont RF. Secondary repair of the perineum following childbirth. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2008;28(6):608‐13. - PubMed
Goldaber 1993
    1. Goldaber KG, Wendel PJ, McIntire DD, Wendel GD. Postpartum perineal morbidity after fourth‐degree perineal repair. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1993;168:489‐93. - PubMed
Gould 2007
    1. Gould D. Perineal tears and episiotomy. Nursing Standard 2007;21(52):41‐6. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Kettle 2002
    1. Kettle C, Hills RK, Jones P, Darby L, Gray R, Johanson R. Continuous versus interrupted perineal repair with standard or rapidly absorbed sutures after spontaneous vaginal birth: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;359(9325):2217‐23. - PubMed
Kettle 2012
    1. Kettle C, Dowswell T, Ismail KMK. Continuous and interrupted suturing techniques for repair of episiotomy or second‐degree tears. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 11. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000947.pub3] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Koelbl 2009
    1. Koelbl H, Nitti V, Baessler K, Salvatore S, Sultan A, Yamaguchi O. Pathophysiology of urinary incontinence, faecal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury, Wein A editor(s). Incontinence. 4th Edition. Plymouth: Health Publication Ltd, 2009:293‐5.
Lewis 2007
    1. Lewis G. Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health. Why Mothers Die: the Seventh Report of Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom 2003‐2005. London: RCOG, 2007.
McCandlish 1998
    1. McCandlish R, Bowler U, Asten H, Berridge G, Winter C, Sames L, et al. A randomised controlled trial of the care of the perineum during the second stage of labour. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1998;105(12):1262‐72. - PubMed
NICE 2006
    1. NICE. Routine Postnatal Care for Women and their Babies. NICE Clinical Guideline, Number 37. London: NICE, 2006.
Norton 2002
    1. Norton C, Christiansen J, Butler U, Harari D, Nelson RL, Pemberton J, et al. Anal incontinence. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury, Wein A editor(s). Incontinence. 2nd Edition. Plymouth: Health Publication Ltd, 2002:985‐1044.
Perkins 2008
    1. Perkins E, Tohill S, Kettle C, Bick D, Ismail KM. Women’s views of important outcomes following perineal repair. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2008;115(Suppl 1):1.179, 132.
Ramin 1994
    1. Ramin SM, Gilstrap LC. Episiotomy and early repair of dehiscence. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1994;37:816‐23. - PubMed
RCOG 2004
    1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Methods and Materials used in Perineal repair. Clinical Guideline Number 23. London: RCOG, 2004.
RCOG 2007
    1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The management of third and fourth degree perineal tears. Clinical Guideline Number 29. London: RCOG, 2007.
RevMan 2011 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.1. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
Rotas 2007
    1. Rotas M, McCalla S, Liu C, Minkoff H. Methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus necrotizing pneumonia arising from an infected episiotomy site. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2007;109(2 Pt 2):533‐6. - PubMed
Sleep 1991
    1. Sleep J. Perineal care: a series of five randomised controlled trials. In: Robinson S, Thompson AM editor(s). Midwives Research and Childbirth. Vol. 2, London: Chapman and Hall, 1991:199‐251.
Steen 2007
    1. Steen M. Perineal tears and episiotomy: how do wounds heal?. British Journal of Midwifery 2007;15(5):273‐80.
Sultan 1999
    1. Sultan AH. Obstetric perineal injury and anal incontinence. Clinical Risk 1999;5:193‐6.
Tharpe 2008
    1. Tharpe N. Post pregnancy genital tract and wound infections. Journal of Midwifery and Womens Health 2008;53:236‐46. - PubMed
Thomas 1990
    1. Thomas S. Wound Management and Dressings. London: Pharmaceutical Press, 1990.
Tortora G 1996
    1. Tortora G, Grabowski S. Principles of Anatomy and Physiology. 8th Edition. New York: Harper Collins College Publications, 1996.
Wagner 2000
    1. Wagner M. Choosing caesarean section. Lancet 2000;356(9242):1677‐80. - PubMed
Williams 2006
    1. Williams MK, Chames MC. Risk factors for the breakdown of perineal laceration repair after vaginal delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2006;195:755‐9. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Dudley 2011
    1. Dudley LM, Kettle C, Ismail KMK. Secondary suturing compared to non‐suturing for broken down perineal wounds following childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008977] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources