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
. 2022 Oct;101(10):1163-1173.
doi: 10.1111/aogs.14424. Epub 2022 Aug 9.

Risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury associated with female genital mutilation/cutting and timing of deinfibulation

Affiliations

Risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury associated with female genital mutilation/cutting and timing of deinfibulation

Sølvi Taraldsen et al. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022 Oct.

Abstract

Introduction: A greater risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury has been reported among African migrants in several host countries compared with the general population. To what degree female genital mutilation/cutting affects this risk is not clear. In infibulated women, deinfibulation prevents anal sphincter injury. Whether the timing of deinfibulation affects the risk, is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the risks of anal sphincter injury associated with female genital mutilation/cutting and timing of deinfibulation in Norway, and to compare the rates of anal sphincter injury in Somali-born women and the general population.

Material and methods: In a historical cohort study, nulliparous Somali-born women who had a vaginal birth in the period 1990-2014 were identified by the Medical Birth Registry of Norway and data collected from medical records. Exposures were female genital mutilation/cutting status and deinfibulation before labor, during labor or no deinfibulation. The main outcome was obstetric anal sphincter injuries.

Results: Rates of obstetric anal sphincter injury did not differ significantly by female genital mutilation/cutting status (type 1-2: 10.2%, type 3: 11.3%, none: 15.2% P = 0.17). The total rate of anal sphincter injury was 10.3% compared to 5.0% among nulliparous women in the general Norwegian population. Women who underwent deinfibulation during labor had a lower risk than women who underwent deinfibulation before labor (odds ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.86, P = 0.01).

Conclusions: The high rate of anal sphincter injury in Somali nulliparous women was not related to type of female genital mutilation/cutting. Deinfibulation during labor protected against anal sphincter injury, whereas deinfibulation before labor was associated with a doubled risk. Deinfibulation before labor should not be routinely recommended during pregnancy.

Keywords: Somalia; country of birth; female genital mutilation/cutting; migration; nulliparity; obstetric anal sphincter injury; timing of deinfibulation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Classification of female genital mutilation/cutting.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Flowchart of participants. The original cohort of nulliparous Somali‐born women 1990–2014 and the subset of women with vaginal births (blue). Aggregated data from the medical Birth Registry of Norway for all nulliparous women with a vaginal birth (gray box).
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Type 3 female genital mutilation/cutting, deinfibulation before labor and obstetric anal sphincter injury by delivery year in nulliparous Somali‐born women with vaginal birth in 1990–2014.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Obstetric anal sphincter injury, instrumental vaginal birth, episiotomy and blood loss in nulliparous Somali‐born women in South East Norway and women in the general population with vaginal birth in 1990–2014.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. World Health Organization . Eliminating female genital mutilation. An interagency statement 2008 [Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/9789241596442/en/]
    1. Abdulcadir J, Rodriguez MI, Say L. Research gaps in the care of women with female genital mutilation: an analysis. BJOG. 2015;122:294‐303. - PubMed
    1. Balachandran AA, Duvalla S, Sultan AH, Thakar R. Are obstetric outcomes affected by female genital mutilation? Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:339‐344. - PubMed
    1. Lurie JM, Weidman A, Huynh S, Delgado D, Easthausen I, Kaur G. Painful gynecologic and obstetric complications of female genital mutilation/cutting: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. PLoS Med. 2020;17:e1003088. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sylla F, Moreau C, Andro A. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the consequences of female genital mutilation on maternal and perinatal health outcomes in European and African countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5:e003307. - PMC - PubMed