Advertisement
6| Volume 211, P201-202, April 2017

Effect of episiotomy on pelvic floor injuries and urogynecological complaints

      Introduction and aim of the study: Episiotomy has proven to be a protective factor during operative vaginal delivery and restrictive use during normal vaginal delivery for developing an anal sphincter tear [
      • Kapoor D.S.
      • Thakar R.
      • Sultan A.H.
      Obstetric anal sphincter injuries: review of anatomical factors and modifiable second stage interventions.
      ,
      • Verghese T.S.
      • Champaneria R.
      • Lapoor D.S.
      • Latthe P.M.
      Obstetric anal sphincter injuries after episiotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
      ,
      • de Vogel J.
      • van der Leeuw-van Beek A.
      • Gietelink D.
      • Vujkovic M.
      • de Leeuw J.W.
      • van Bavel J.
      • Papatsonis D.
      The effect of a mediolaterale episiotomy during operative vaginal delivery on the risk of developing obstetrical anal sphincter injuries.
      ]. This study evaluates if an episiotomy also might reduce the risk of obtaining other pelvic floor injuries; i.e. levator avulsion (LA) and/or levator ballooning, and urogynecological complaints.
      Materials and methods: A prospective observational cohort study of 204 primiparous women with a spontaneous vaginal delivery between 2012 and 2015 being delivered in a general hospital in the Netherlands. 103 of these women had undergone an episiotomy. Validated urogynecological questionnaires and transperineal 3D/4D ultrasound were completed between 6 and 33 months after delivery. Statitistacal analysis was performed using univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis.
      Results: LA was identified in 27 (22.8%) of the 103 women whom had undergone an episiotomy and in 23 (26.2%) of the 101 women who had not (p = 0.529). There was also no significant difference in levator ballooning between women with or without episiotomy (20 (19.4%) versus 23 (22.8%); p = 0.557) Oxytocine use was found to be a protective factor for LA (OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.234-0.990) p = 0.047). The duration of the second stage of labour increased the risk for LA (OR 1.01 (95% CI 1.001–1.028). Non occiput anterior fetal position increased the risk for ballooning and for pelvic floor injuries (OR 10.38 (95% CI 1.87–57.66) and OR 11.01 (95% CI 1.26–96.03). There were neither differences in urogynecological complaints between women with or without episiotomy nor between women with or without pelvic floor injuries.
      Interpretation of results: Pelvic floor injury is related with a prolonged second stage of labor, but not with episiotomy.
      Conclusions: Episiotomy has no influence in developing pelvic floor injuries or urogynecological complaints.

      References

        • Kapoor D.S.
        • Thakar R.
        • Sultan A.H.
        Obstetric anal sphincter injuries: review of anatomical factors and modifiable second stage interventions.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2015 Dec; 26: 1725-1734
        • Verghese T.S.
        • Champaneria R.
        • Lapoor D.S.
        • Latthe P.M.
        Obstetric anal sphincter injuries after episiotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2016 Feb 19;
        • de Vogel J.
        • van der Leeuw-van Beek A.
        • Gietelink D.
        • Vujkovic M.
        • de Leeuw J.W.
        • van Bavel J.
        • Papatsonis D.
        The effect of a mediolaterale episiotomy during operative vaginal delivery on the risk of developing obstetrical anal sphincter injuries.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 May; 206: 404