-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Many women experience perineal pain after childbirth, especially after having sustained perineal trauma. Perineal pain-management strategies are an important part of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many women experience perineal pain after childbirth, especially after having sustained perineal trauma. Perineal pain-management strategies are an important part of postnatal care. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a commonly-used type of medication in the management of postpartum pain, and their effectiveness and safety should be assessed. This is an update of a review first published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of a single dose of an oral NSAID for relief of acute perineal pain in the early postpartum period.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 December 2019), OpenSIGLE and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (28 February 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing a single dose of a NSAID versus a single dose of placebo, paracetamol or another NSAID for women with perineal pain in the early postpartum period. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. We included papers in abstract format only if they had sufficient information to determine that they met the review's prespecified inclusion criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (FW and VS) independently assessed all identified papers for inclusion and risks of bias, resolving any discrepancies through discussion. Two review authors independently conducted data extraction, including calculations of pain relief scores, and checked it for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 studies examining 16 different NSAIDs and involving 5136 women (none were breastfeeding). Studies were published between 1967 and 2013. Risk of bias due to random sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors was generally unclearly to poorly reported, but participants and caregivers were blinded, and outcome data were generally complete. We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to risk of bias, suspected publication bias, and imprecision for small numbers of participants. NSAID versus placebo Compared to women who receive a placebo, more women who receive a single-dose NSAID may achieve adequate pain relief at four hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64 to 2.23; 10 studies, 1573 women; low-certainty evidence) and at six hours (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.17; 17 studies, 2079 women; very low-certainty evidence), although we are less certain about the effects at six hours. At four hours after administration, women who receive a NSAID are probably less likely to need additional analgesia compared to women who receive placebo (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.58; 4 studies, 486 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may be less likely to need additional analgesia at six hours after initial administration, although the evidence was less certain at six hours (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.40; 10 studies, 1012 women; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported that no adverse events were observed at four hours post-administration (90 women). There may be little or no difference in maternal adverse effects between NSAIDs and placebo at six hours post-administration (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.70; 13 studies, 1388 women; low-certainty evidence). Fourteen maternal adverse effects were reported in the NSAID group (drowsiness (5), abdominal discomfort (2), weakness (1), dizziness (2), headache (2), moderate epigastralgia (1), not specified (1)) and eight in the placebo group (drowsiness (2), light-headedness (1), nausea (1), backache (1), dizziness (1), epigastric pain (1), not specified (1)), although not all studies assessed adverse effects. Neonatal adverse effects were not assessed in any of the studies. NSAID versus paracetamol NSAIDs may lead to more women achieving adequate pain relief at four hours, compared with paracetamol (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.22; 3 studies, 342 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there is any difference in adequate pain relief between NSAIDs and paracetamol at six hours post-administration (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.47; 2 studies, 99 women; very low-certainty evidence) or in the need for additional analgesia at four hours (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.13; 1 study, 73 women; very low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may reduce the risk of requiring additional analgesia at six hours compared with paracetamol (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67; 1 study, 59 women; low-certainty evidence). One study reported that no maternal adverse effects were observed at four hours post-administration (210 women). Six hours post-administration, we are uncertain if there is any difference between groups in the number of maternal adverse effects (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.08; 3 studies, 300 women; very low-certainty evidence), with one case of pruritis in the NSAID group and one case of sleepiness in the paracetamol group. Neonatal adverse effects were not assessed in any of the included studies. Comparisons of different NSAIDs or doses did not demonstrate any differences in effectiveness for any primary outcome measures; however, few data were available on some NSAIDs. None of the included studies reported on any of this review's secondary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In women who are not breastfeeding and who sustained perineal trauma, NSAIDs (compared to placebo or paracetamol) may provide greater pain relief for acute postpartum perineal pain and fewer women need additional analgesia, but uncertainty remains, as the evidence is rated as low- or very low-certainty. The risk of bias was unclear for many studies, adverse effects were often not assessed and breastfeeding women were not included. While this review provides some indication of the likely effect, there is uncertainty in our conclusions. The main reasons for downgrading were the inclusion of studies at high risk of bias and inconsistency in the findings of individual studies. Future studies could examine NSAIDs' adverse effects, including neonatal effects and the compatibility of NSAIDs with breastfeeding, and could assess other secondary outcomes. Future research could consider women with and without perineal trauma, including perineal tears. High-quality studies could be conducted to further assess the efficacy of NSAIDs versus paracetamol and the efficacy of multimodal treatments.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Administration, Oral; Analgesia; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Humans; Neuralgia; Perineum; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33427305
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011352.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Gestational diabetes is a type of diabetes that occurs during pregnancy. Women with gestational diabetes are more likely to experience adverse health outcomes such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gestational diabetes is a type of diabetes that occurs during pregnancy. Women with gestational diabetes are more likely to experience adverse health outcomes such as pre-eclampsia or polyhydramnios (excess amniotic fluid). Their babies are also more likely to have health complications such as macrosomia (birthweight > 4000 g) and being large-for-gestational age (birthweight above the 90th percentile for gestational age). Current clinical guidelines support elective birth, at or near term in women with gestational diabetes to minimise perinatal complications, especially those related to macrosomia.This review replaces a review previously published in 2001 that included "diabetic pregnant women", which has now been split into two reviews. This current review focuses on pregnant women with gestational diabetes and a sister review focuses on women with pre-existing diabetes (Type 1 or Type 2).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of planned birth (either by induction of labour or caesarean birth), at or near term (37 to 40 weeks' gestation) compared with an expectant approach for improving health outcomes for women with gestational diabetes and their infants. The primary outcomes relate to maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (15 August 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised trials comparing planned birth, at or near term (37 to 40 weeks' gestation), with an expectant approach, for women with gestational diabetes. Cluster-randomised and non-randomised trials (e.g. quasi-randomised trials using alternate allocation) were also eligible for inclusion but none were identified.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two of the review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included study. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
The findings of this review are based on a single trial involving 425 women with gestational diabetes. The trial compared induction of labour with expectant management (waiting for the spontaneous onset of labour in the absence of any maternal or fetal issues that may necessitate birth) in pregnant women with gestational diabetes at term. We assessed the overall risk of bias as being low for most domains, apart from performance, detection and attrition bias (for outcome perineum intact), which we assessed as being at high risk. It was an open-label trial, and women and healthcare professionals were not blinded.There were no clear differences between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management for maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 8.76, one trial, 425 women); caesarean section (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77, one trial, 425 women); or instrumental vaginal birth (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.46, one trial, 425 women). For the primary outcome of maternal mortality or serious maternal morbidity, there were no deaths in either group and serious maternal morbidity related to admissions to intensive care unit. The quality of the evidence contributing to these outcomes was assessed as very low, mainly due to the study having high risk of bias for some domains and because of the imprecision of effect estimates.In relation to primary neonatal outcomes, there were no perinatal deaths in either group. The quality of evidence for this outcome was judged as very low, mainly due to high risk of bias and imprecision of effect estimates. There were no clear differences in infant outcomes between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management: shoulder dystocia (RR 2.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 28.21, one trial, 425 infants, very low-quality evidence); large-for-gestational age (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.02, one trial, 425 infants, low-quality evidence).There were no clear differences between women randomised to induction of labour and women randomised to expectant management for postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.54, one trial, 425 women); admission to intensive care unit (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.76, one trial, 425 women); and intact perineum (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.43, one trial, 425 women). No infant experienced a birth trauma, therefore, we could not draw conclusions about the effect of the intervention on the outcomes of brachial plexus injury and bone fracture at birth. Infants of women in the induction-of-labour group had higher incidences of neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia (jaundice) when compared to infants of women in the expectant-management group (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 5.46, one trial, 425 women).We found no data on the following prespecified outcomes of this review: postnatal depression, maternal satisfaction, length of postnatal stay (mother), acidaemia, intracranial haemorrhage, hypoxia ischaemic encephalopathy, small-for-gestational age, length of postnatal stay (baby) and cost.The authors of this trial acknowledge that it is underpowered for their primary outcome of caesarean section. The authors of the trial and of this review note that the CIs demonstrate a wide range, therefore making it inappropriate to draw definite conclusions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence to inform implications for practice. The available data are not of high quality and lack power to detect possible important differences in either benefit or harm. There is an urgent need for high-quality trials evaluating the effectiveness of planned birth at or near term gestation for women with gestational diabetes compared with an expectant approach.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Diabetes, Gestational; Female; Fetal Macrosomia; Humans; Infant; Labor, Induced; Pregnancy; Term Birth; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 29303230
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012910 -
International Wound Journal Apr 2024The efficacy of episiotomy, particularly the angle of incision in mediolateral episiotomies, remains a significant area of inquiry in obstetrics. This meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evaluation of perineal wound healing and pain outcomes after low-angle mediolateral episiotomy in women undergoing vaginal childbirth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
The efficacy of episiotomy, particularly the angle of incision in mediolateral episiotomies, remains a significant area of inquiry in obstetrics. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of low-angle mediolateral episiotomy on perineal wound healing and pain outcomes in women undergoing vaginal childbirth. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted using the PICO framework. Studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving low-angle mediolateral episiotomies. Comprehensive literature searches were performed across major electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. Data extraction and quality assessments were meticulously carried out by independent reviewers, employing the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. A total of 1246 articles were initially identified, with 8 articles meeting the strict inclusion criteria for the final analysis. The meta-analysis revealed significant heterogeneity among studies regarding postoperative pain (p < 0.0001, I = 77.5%), and employed a random-effects model. Results showed that low-angle episiotomies significantly reduced postoperative pain (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17-0.42, p < 0.001), and increased first-degree healing rates (OR = 2.95, 95% CI: 2.20-3.96, p < 0.001) compared to traditional angles. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the stability of these findings, and no significant publication bias was detected. The analysis suggests that low-angle episiotomies can potentially reduce postoperative perineal pain and enhance wound healing. However, the limited number and varying quality of the included studies warrant cautious interpretation of these results. Further well-designed studies are needed to corroborate these findings and guide clinical practice.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Episiotomy; Pain, Postoperative; Databases, Factual; Perineum; Postoperative Period
PubMed: 38512112
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14826 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jun 2024Perineal massage, as a preventive intervention, has been shown to reduce the risk of perineal injuries and may have a positive impact on pelvic floor function in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Perineal massage, as a preventive intervention, has been shown to reduce the risk of perineal injuries and may have a positive impact on pelvic floor function in the early postpartum period. However, there is still debate concerning the best period to apply perineal massage, which is either antenatal or in the second stage of labor, as well as its safety and effectiveness. Meta-analysis was used to evaluate the effect of implementing perineal massage in antenatal versus the second stage of labor on the prevention of perineal injuries during labor and early postpartum pelvic floor function in primiparous women.
METHODS
We searched nine different electronic databases from inception to April 16, 2024. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) we included assessed the effects of antenatal and second-stage labor perineal massage in primiparous women. All data were analyzed with Revman 5.3, Stata Statistical Software, and Risk of Bias 2 was used to assess the risk of bias. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the different periods of perineal massage. The primary outcomes were the incidence of perineal integrity and perineal injury. Secondary outcomes were perineal pain, duration of the second stage of labor, postpartum hemorrhage, urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and flatus incontinence.
RESULTS
This review comprised a total of 10 studies that covered 1057 primigravid women. The results of the analysis showed that perineal massage during the second stage of labor reduced the perineal pain of primigravid women in the immediate postpartum period compared to the antenatal period, with a statistical value of (MD = -2.29, 95% CI [-2.53, -2.05], P < 0.001). Additionally, only the antenatal stage reported that perineal massage reduced fecal incontinence (P = 0.04) and flatus incontinence (P = 0.01) in primiparous women at three months postpartum, but had no significant effect on urinary incontinence in primiparous women at three months postpartum (P = 0.80).
CONCLUSIONS
Reducing perineal injuries in primiparous women can be achieved by providing perineal massage both antenatally and during the second stage of labor. Pelvic floor function is improved in the postnatal phase by perineal massage during the antenatal stage.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
CRD42023415996 (PROSPERO).
Topics: Humans; Female; Perineum; Massage; Pregnancy; Pelvic Floor; Parity; Postpartum Period; Labor Stage, Second; Obstetric Labor Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Fecal Incontinence
PubMed: 38831257
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-06586-w -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Mar 2022Screening for maternal anogenital Group B streptococci (GBS) colonization in pregnancy with initiation of intravenous intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis as indicated has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Vaginal-perianal or vaginal-perineal compared with vaginal-rectal culture-based screening for Group B Streptococci (GBS) colonization during the third trimester of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Screening for maternal anogenital Group B streptococci (GBS) colonization in pregnancy with initiation of intravenous intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis as indicated has led to a significant reduction in the incidence of neonatal GBS infection. This study aims to evaluate the agreement between vaginal-perianal or vaginal-perineal culture and the more typically used vaginal-rectal culture for screening for maternal anogenital GBS colonization in the third trimester of pregnancy.
METHODS
Eligible English-language studies published until January 2020 were retrieved from Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Studies were compiled that assessed for GBS colonization utilizing vaginal-perianal or vaginal-perineal culture and vaginal-rectal culture during the third trimester of pregnancy. Nonoriginal research articles and studies that did not assess pregnant patients, did not use culture-based screening, or did not compare vaginal-perianal or vaginal-perineal culture with vaginal-rectal culture were excluded. The search identified 559 articles with three prospective cohort studies that met inclusion criteria, including 643 participants. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Patient characteristics and associated pain with specimen collection were abstracted. Meta-analyses of both the raw agreement and the Cohen's kappa statistic were performed.
RESULTS
Within the three included studies, the range of GBS detection was 17.6-34.0%, consistent with the anticipated prevalence of GBS colonization reported in earlier publications. For both raw agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient, the test for heterogeneity was not significant, indicating low heterogeneity among studies. The pooled estimate of the raw agreement was 0.97 (95%CI 0.95-0.98) and of the Cohen's kappa coefficient was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87-0.95), indicating (according to the Landis and Koch criteria) an "almost perfect" agreement between the compared clinical tests. In the two studies that assessed procedure-related patient discomfort, vaginal-rectal swabbing caused more discomfort.
CONCLUSION
Use of vaginal-perineal culture for assessment of maternal GBS colonization is comparable to the more typically utilized vaginal-rectal culture and is associated with less discomfort.
Topics: Female; Humans; Mass Screening; Perineum; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Pregnancy Trimester, Third; Rectum; Specimen Handling; Streptococcal Infections; Streptococcus agalactiae; Vagina
PubMed: 35287615
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-04546-w -
Colorectal Disease : the Official... Nov 2022The aim of this systematic review was to analyse recurrence rates after different surgical techniques for perineal hernia repair. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to analyse recurrence rates after different surgical techniques for perineal hernia repair.
METHOD
All original studies (n ≥ 2 patients) reporting recurrence rates after perineal hernia repair after abdominoperineal resection (APR) were included. The electronic database PubMed was last searched in December 2021. The primary outcome was recurrent perineal hernia. A weighted average of the logit proportions was determined by the use of the generic inverse variance method and random effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 19 studies involving 172 patients were included. The mean age of patients was 64 ± 5.6 years and the indication for APR was predominantly cancer (99%, 170/172). The pooled percentage of recurrent perineal hernia was 39% (95% CI: 27%-52%) after biological mesh closure, 29% (95% CI: 21%-39%) after synthetic mesh closure, 37% (95% CI: 14%-67%) after tissue flap reconstruction only and 9% (95% CI: 1%-45%) after tissue flap reconstruction combined with mesh.
CONCLUSION
Recurrence rates after mesh repair of perineal hernia are high, without a clear difference between biological and synthetic meshes. The addition of a tissue flap to mesh repair seemed to have a favourable outcome, which warrants further investigation.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Middle Aged; Hernia, Abdominal; Herniorrhaphy; Perineum; Proctectomy; Surgical Mesh; Free Tissue Flaps; Recurrence; Neoplasms
PubMed: 35712806
DOI: 10.1111/codi.16224 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Perineal trauma is common during childbirth and may be painful. Contemporary maternity practice includes offering women numerous forms of pain relief, including the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Perineal trauma is common during childbirth and may be painful. Contemporary maternity practice includes offering women numerous forms of pain relief, including the local application of cooling treatments. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review last updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of localised cooling treatments compared with no treatment, placebo, or other cooling treatments applied to the perineum for pain relief following perineal trauma sustained during childbirth.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 October 2019) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised trials (RCTs) that compared a localised cooling treatment applied to the perineum with no treatment, placebo, or another cooling treatment applied to relieve pain related to perineal trauma sustained during childbirth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were double checked for accuracy. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs that enrolled 1233 women randomised to the use of one cooling treatment (ice, cold gel pad, cooling plus compression, cooling plus compression plus (being) horizontal) compared with another cooling treatment, no treatment, or placebo (water pack, compression). The included trials were at low or uncertain risk of bias overall, with the exception that the inability to blind participants and personnel to group allocation meant that we rated all trials at unclear or high risk for this domain. We undertook a number of comparisons to evaluate the different treatments. Cooling treatment (ice pack or cold gel pad) versus no treatment There was limited very low-certainty evidence that cooling treatment may reduce women's self-reported perineal pain within four to six hours (mean difference (MD) -4.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to -3.85 on a 10-point scale; 1 study, 100 participants) or between 24 and 48 hours of giving birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94; 1 study, 316 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the various measures of wound healing, for example, wound edges gaping when inspected five days after giving birth (RR 2.56, 95% CI 0.58 to 11.33; 1 study, 315 participants). Women generally rated their satisfaction with perineal care similarly following cooling or no treatment. The potential exception was that there may be a trivially lower mean difference of -0.1 on a five-point scale of psychospiritual comfort with cooling treatment, that is unlikely to be of clinical importance. Cooling treatment (cold gel pad) + compression versus placebo (gel pad + compression) There was limited low-certainty evidence that there may be a trivial MD of -0.43 in pain on a 10-point scale at 24 to 48 hours after giving birth (95% CI -0.73 to -0.13; 1 study, 250 participants) when a cooling treatment plus compression from a well-secured perineal pad was compared with the placebo. Levels of perineal oedema may be similar for the two groups (low-certainty evidence) and perineal bruising was not observed. There was low-certainty evidence that women may rate their satisfaction as being slightly higher with perineal care in the cold gel pad and compression group (MD 0.88, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.38; 1 trial, 250 participants). Cooling treatment (ice pack) versus placebo (water pack) One study reported that no women reported pain after using an ice pack or a water pack when asked within 24 hours of giving birth. There was low-certainty evidence that oedema may be similar for the two groups when assessed at four to six hours (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.86; 1 study, 63 participants) or within 24 hours of giving birth (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.59). No women were observed to have perineal bruising at these times. The trialists reported that no women in either group experienced any adverse effects on wound healing. There was very low-certainty evidence that women may rate their views and experiences with the treatments similarly (for example, satisfied with treatment: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.08; 63 participants). Cooling treatment (ice pack) versus cooling treatment (cold gel pad) The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of using ice packs or cold gel pads on women's self-rated perineal pain, on perineal bruising, or on perineal oedema at four to six hours or within 24 hours of giving birth. Perineal oedema may persist 24 to 48 hours after giving birth in women using the ice packs (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.7; 2 trials, 264 participants; very low-certainty). The risk of gaping wound edges five days after giving birth may be decreased in women who had used ice packs (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.01; 215 participants; very low-certainty). However, this did not appear to persist to day 10 (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.63 to 14.81; 214 participants). Women may rate their opinion of treatment less favourably following the use of ice packs five days after giving birth (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; 1 study, 49 participants) and when assessed on day 10 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92; 1 study, 208 participants), both very low-certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited very low-certainty evidence that may support the use of cooling treatments, in the form or ice packs or cold gel pads, for the relief of perineal pain in the first two days following childbirth. It is likely that concurrent use of several treatments is required to adequately address this issue, including prescription and non-prescription analgesia. Studies included in this review involved the use of cooling treatments for 10 to 20 minutes, and although no adverse effects were noted, these findings came from studies of relatively small numbers of women, or were not reported at all. The continued lack of high-certainty evidence of the benefits of cooling treatments should be viewed with caution, and further well-designed trials should be conducted.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Hypothermia, Induced; Pain Management; Parturition; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33034900
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006304.pub4 -
Chirurgia (Bucharest, Romania : 1990) 2015The laparoscopic-assisted abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) has been proved to be associated with a shorter postoperative recovery, with equivalent oncological results... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The laparoscopic-assisted abdominoperineal resection (LAPR) has been proved to be associated with a shorter postoperative recovery, with equivalent oncological results and similar survival when compared with conventional open surgery, for patients with low rectal cancer.
METHOD
Case report of a massive intraoperative bleeding during LAPR and systematic review of the English language literature, using PubMed Medline, ISI Thopmson, OVID and EMBASE databases.
RESULTS
58 years old patient admitted in emergency setting or rectal bleeding. Rectal examination revealed a protruding,frail tumor, located 2 cm from the anal verge. Total colono scopy revealed an infiltrative, protruding tumor, situated at 2 cm from the anal verge, with a 5 cm cranial extension,without any additional colonic lesions. Computed Tomography showed a 4,5 cm circumferential rectal wall thickening, without any enlarged mesorectal or abdominal lymph nodes. The patient was transported to operating room for a LAPR. During final hemostasis, at the level of perineal surgical wound, an acute massive bleeding occurred from the presacral vessels with severe blood loss. This bleeding couldnot be managed laparo scopicaly and conversion to laparotomywas decided, with pelvic packing. At 48 hours after the initial surgical approach, the tamponing packs were removed, without signs of active bleeding. There were applied haemostatic agents and the perineal wound was sutured, without further rbleeding during in-hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS
A rapid and effective control of the presacral bleeding is mandatory to prevent a fatal outcome. Pelvic packing remains a life-saving procedure and the treatment of choice in severe cases.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Blood Loss, Surgical; Carcinoembryonic Antigen; Colectomy; Conversion to Open Surgery; Humans; Intraoperative Period; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Perineum; Rectal Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26011840
DOI: No ID Found -
International Wound Journal Oct 2018Impaired perineal wound healing is a major source of morbidity after abdominoperineal resection. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy can improve healing, prevent...
Impaired perineal wound healing is a major source of morbidity after abdominoperineal resection. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy can improve healing, prevent infections, and decrease the frequency of dehiscence. Our objective was to summarise existing evidence on the use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy on perineal wounds after abdominoperineal resection and to determine the effect on perineal wound complications. Electronic databases were searched in January 2017. Studies describing the use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy on primarily closed perineal wounds after abdominoperineal resection were included. Of the 278 identified articles, 5 were retrieved for inclusion in the systematic review (n = 169 patients). A significant decrease in perineal wound complications when using incisional negative pressure wound therapy was demonstrated, with surgical site infection rates as low as 9% (vs 41% in control groups). The major limitation of this systematic review was a small number of retrieved studies with small patient populations, high heterogeneity, and methodological issues. This review suggests that incisional negative pressure wound therapy decreases perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal resection. Further prospective trials with larger patient populations would be needed to confirm this association and delineate which patients might benefit most from the intervention.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Colorectal Surgery; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Perineum; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 29863305
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12921 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Apr 2020Pelvic floor trauma during childbirth is highly prevalent and is associated with long term risks of incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Societies and organizations...
Pelvic floor trauma during childbirth is highly prevalent and is associated with long term risks of incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Societies and organizations have published clinical guidelines in order to standardise and improve the management of perineal care. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of clinical guidelines on obstetric perineal trauma and care using the AGREE II instrument. We searched Medline, PubMed, Web of Science and ScienceDirect databases from inception until the 15th of December 2018 using the terms "guideline" OR "guidelines", OR "guidance", OR "recommendation" AND "obstetric anal sphincter injury", OR "perineal laceration" OR "perineal tear" OR "perineal trauma" OR "vaginal tear". Twelve guidelines were included, in English and Spanish.The assessment of the guidelines was performed using AGREE II by 5 appraisers.Ten guidelines scored more than 50 %, and 3 of them scored higher than 70 %. Two guidelines scored <50 % and were considered as low quality. Level of evidence and grade of recommendations were used by 7 guidelines of the 12 guidelines. Although some guidelines received high scores, there is space for improvement of the standards of guidelines.
Topics: Anal Canal; Delivery, Obstetric; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Lacerations; Pelvic Floor; Perineum; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32070848
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.01.049