New approach to the evaluation of perineal measurements to predict the likelihood of the need for an episiotomy
- PMID: 30140939
- DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-3745-9
New approach to the evaluation of perineal measurements to predict the likelihood of the need for an episiotomy
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis: Episiotomy is performed selectively during vaginal delivery. Among the maternal anthropometric factors for episiotomy, the length of the perineal body (pb) and genital hiatus (gh) defined as per the POP-Q system have been studied. The objective of our study was to compare two perineal measurements (defined as per the POP-Q system and the anogenital distance [AGD] concept) to determine which of these can predict the likelihood of an episiotomy being performed.
Methods: An observational prospective cohort study was designed. Anthropometric data (pb, gh, symphysis-coccyx distance, distance between ischial tuberosities, AGDaf [anus-fourchette], and AGDac [anus-clitoris]), duration of the second stage of labor, and neonatal biometric data were collected from 119 women included in this study. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t test for unpaired data, Mann-Whitney, and Chi-squared tests. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated to compare AGDaf, AGDac, and "gh + pb" with the presence of episiotomy.
Results: A shorter "gh + pb" length and AGDac were risk factors for episiotomy. Compared with AGDac, gh + pb was a slightly better predictor in ROC curve analysis. Furthermore, a longer duration of second-stage labor was evident in the episiotomy group.
Conclusions: This study introduces measures of AGD as risk factors for episiotomy. We propose that "gh + pb" length <77 mm and AGDac <93 mm may predict the likelihood of requiring episiotomy and may be useful for diminishing subjectivity in the decision to perform an episiotomy.
Keywords: Anogenital distance; Episiotomy; Perineum; Vaginal delivery.
Similar articles
-
The relationship between perineal size and episiotomy during delivery.J Med Life. 2022 Nov;15(11):1379-1383. doi: 10.25122/jml-2021-0390. J Med Life. 2022. PMID: 36567847 Free PMC article.
-
Comparability between adult female anogenital distance and perineal measurements standardized by POP-Q system (GH and PB).Neurourol Urodyn. 2018 Nov;37(8):2847-2853. doi: 10.1002/nau.23798. Epub 2018 Aug 22. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018. PMID: 30136306
-
Anogenital Distance and Perineal Measurements of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) Quantification System.J Vis Exp. 2018 Sep 20;(139):57912. doi: 10.3791/57912. J Vis Exp. 2018. PMID: 30295651 Free PMC article.
-
Obstetric anal sphincter injuries: review of anatomical factors and modifiable second stage interventions.Int Urogynecol J. 2015 Dec;26(12):1725-34. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2747-0. Epub 2015 Jun 5. Int Urogynecol J. 2015. PMID: 26044511 Review.
-
[Perineal tears and episiotomy: Surgical procedure - CNGOF perineal prevention and protection in obstetrics guidelines].Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018 Dec;46(12):948-967. doi: 10.1016/j.gofs.2018.10.024. Epub 2018 Nov 2. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018. PMID: 30392991 Review. French.
Cited by
-
Association between anogenital distance as a noninvasive index in the diagnosis and prognosis of reproductive disorder: A systematic review.Int J Reprod Biomed. 2023 Sep 20;21(8):599-618. doi: 10.18502/ijrm.v21i8.14016. eCollection 2023 Aug. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2023. PMID: 37885976 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The relationship between perineal size and episiotomy during delivery.J Med Life. 2022 Nov;15(11):1379-1383. doi: 10.25122/jml-2021-0390. J Med Life. 2022. PMID: 36567847 Free PMC article.
-
Antenatal Anovaginal Distance, a Potential Indicator of Perineal Damage during Pregnancy.Healthcare (Basel). 2024 Oct 15;12(20):2044. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12202044. Healthcare (Basel). 2024. PMID: 39451459 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources