-
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Nov 2015Because there is a lack of knowledge on the long-term consequences of maternal morbidity/near miss episodes on women's sexual life and function we conducted a systematic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Because there is a lack of knowledge on the long-term consequences of maternal morbidity/near miss episodes on women's sexual life and function we conducted a systematic review with the purpose of identifying the available evidence on any sexual impairment associated with complications from pregnancy and childbirth.
METHODS
Systematic review on aspects of women sexual life after any maternal morbidity and/or maternal near miss, during different time periods after delivery. The search was carried out until May 22(nd), 2015 including studies published from 1995 to 2015. No language or study design restrictions were applied. Maternal morbidity as exposure was split into general or severe/near miss. Female sexual outcomes evaluated were dyspareunia, Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) scores and time to resume sexual activity after childbirth. Qualitative syntheses for outcomes were provided whenever possible.
RESULTS
A total of 2,573 studies were initially identified, and 14 were included for analysis after standard selection procedures for systematic review. General morbidity was mainly related to major perineal injury (3(rd) or 4(th) degree laceration, 12 studies). A clear pattern for severity evaluation of maternal morbidity could not be distinguished, unless when a maternal near miss concept was used. Women experiencing maternal morbidity had more frequently dyspareunia and resumed sexual activity later, when compared to women without morbidity. There were no differences in FSFI scores between groups. Meta-analysis could not be performed, since included studies were too heterogeneous regarding study design, evaluation of exposure and/or outcome and time span.
CONCLUSION
Investigation of long-term repercussions on women's sexual life aspects after maternal morbidity has been scarcely performed, however indicating worse outcomes for those experiencing morbidity. Further standardized evaluation of these conditions among maternal morbidity survivors may provide relevant information for clinical follow-up and reproductive planning for women.
Topics: Dyspareunia; Female; Humans; Maternal Health Services; Morbidity; Obstetric Labor Complications; Parturition; Perineum; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological
PubMed: 26596506
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-015-0742-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015During childbirth, many women sustain trauma to the perineum, which is the area between the vaginal opening and the anus. These tears can involve the perineal skin, the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
During childbirth, many women sustain trauma to the perineum, which is the area between the vaginal opening and the anus. These tears can involve the perineal skin, the pelvic floor muscles, the external and internal anal sphincter muscles as well as the rectal mucosa (lining of the bowel). When these tears extend beyond the external anal sphincter they are called 'obstetric anal sphincter injuries' (OASIS). When women sustain an OASIS, they are at increased risk of developing anal incontinence either immediately following birth or later in life. Anal incontinence is associated with significant medical, hygiene and social problems. Endoanal ultrasound (EAUS) can be performed with a bedside scanner by inserting a small probe into the anus and the structures of the anal canal and perineum can be reviewed in real-time. We proposed that by examining the perineum with EAUS after the birth of the baby and before the tear has been repaired, there would be an increase in detection of OASIS. This increased detection could lead to improved primary repair of the external and internal anal sphincter resulting in reduced rates of anal incontinence and improved quality of life for women. EAUS may also have a role after perineal repair in the evaluation of residual injury and may help guide a woman's management in subsequent pregnancies and allow for early referral to specialised units, minimising long-term complications.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of EAUS in the detection of OASIS following vaginal birth and in reducing the risk of anal sphincter complications related to OASIS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2015) and reference list of the one retrieved study.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing EAUS versus no ultrasound in women prior to repair of perineal trauma and EAUS performed after perineal repair. RCTs published in abstract form only and trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified.Trials using a cross-over design and quasi-RCTs were not eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The two review authors independently assessed the single trial for inclusion and assessed trial quality. Both review authors independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included one trial that randomised 752 primiparous women with clinically detectable second-degree perineal tears to either further assessment with EAUS prior to perineal repair or standard care. We assessed this trial as being at a low risk of bias. The trial reported women's anal incontinence at three and 12 months as well as their pain scores and quality of life assessment. The trial authors reported outcomes at three months for 719 women (364 in the experimental group, 355 in the control group, 4% loss to follow-up), and an outcome at 12 months for 684 women (342 in the experimental group, 342 in the control group, 9% loss to follow-up). Primary outcomeCompared with clinical examination (routine care), the use of EAUS prior to perineal repair was associated with a reduction in the rate of severe anal incontinence (defined as involuntary loss of faeces or flatus that constitutes social and/or hygiene problems, or as defined by authors), at greater than six months postpartum (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.97, 684 women at the 12-month time point). Secondary outcomes Severe anal incontinence at less than six months was reduced with the use of EAUS prior to repair when compared with clinical examination (routine care) (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.72, 719 women). However, increased perineal pain at three months was associated with the use of EAUS prior to perineal repair when compared with routine care (RR 5.86, 95% CI 1.74 to 19.72, 684 women). There was no clear difference in the number of women who reported any anal incontinence at either less than six months or equal to or greater than six months (outcomes not prespecified in our published protocol). Similarly, there was no clear difference between groups in terms of faecal incontinence, flatal incontinence, faecal urgency, or maternal quality of life. The study did not report any data on the need for secondary repair of external anal sphincter, dyspareunia, women's satisfaction with care or the planned or actual mode of birth in any subsequent pregnancy. We were unable to assess the detection rates of OASIS with EAUS from the included study because women with clinically-detected OASIS were excluded from randomisation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence to suggest that EAUS prior to perineal repair is associated with reduced risk of severe anal incontinence but an increase in the incidence of perineal pain at three months postpartum. However, these results are based on one small study involving 752 women. The study took place in a large teaching hospital with an average to busy labour ward. The trial participants were similar to those found in most large obstetric units in developed countries, thus increasing applicability of the evidence, but were restricted to primiparous women.More research is needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of EAUS in the detection of OASIS following vaginal birth and in reducing the risk of anal sphincter complications related to OASIS. More high-quality RCTs are needed to fully evaluate the intervention before the routine use of EAUS on the labour ward could be supported. It would be particularly useful if future trials could assess detection rates of OASIS with EAUS versus clinical examination alone as this is the basis of the theory for improved outcomes with this intervention. Cost and the training required to implement EAUS should be considered, along with maternal quality of life and individual symptoms experienced by postnatal women . It would also be useful to follow up women after their subsequent vaginal births to determine if subsequent mode of delivery affects long-term outcomes. Future studies in multiparous women may also be useful.
Topics: Adult; Anal Canal; Endosonography; Fecal Incontinence; Female; Humans; Lacerations; Parity; Parturition; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26513224
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010826.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Postpartum constipation, with symptoms such as pain or discomfort, straining, and hard stool, is a common condition affecting mothers. Haemorrhoids, pain at the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postpartum constipation, with symptoms such as pain or discomfort, straining, and hard stool, is a common condition affecting mothers. Haemorrhoids, pain at the episiotomy site, effects of pregnancy hormones and haematinics used in pregnancy can increase the risk of postpartum constipation. Eating a high-fibre diet and increasing fluid intake is usually encouraged, although laxatives are commonly used in relieving constipation. The effectiveness and safety of available interventions for preventing postpartum constipation needs to be ascertained.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interventions for preventing postpartum constipation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), Stellenbosch University database, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 April 2015) and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention for preventing postpartum constipation versus another intervention, placebo or no intervention. Interventions could include pharmacological (e.g. laxatives) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. acupuncture, educational and behavioural interventions).We included quasi-randomised trials. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Studies using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results were pooled in a meta-analysis only where there was no substantial statistical heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five trials (1208 postpartum mothers); four compared a laxative with placebo and one compared a laxative alone versus the same laxative plus a bulking agent in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears. Trials were poorly reported and risk of bias was unclear for most domains. Overall, there was a high risk of selection and attrition bias. Laxative versus placeboNone of the four trials included in this comparison assessed any of our pre-specified primary outcomes (pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation or changes in quality of life).All four trials reported time to first bowel movement (not pre-specified in our protocol). In one trial, more women in the laxative group had their first bowel movement less than 24 hours after delivery compared to women in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 2.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24 to 3.75, 471 women). Individual trials also reported inconsistent results for days one, two and three after delivery. Pooled results of two trials showed that fewer women in the laxative group were having their first bowel movement at day four compared with controls (average RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61, 671 women).Regarding secondary outcomes, no trials reported on stool consistency using the Bristol stool form scale orrelief of abdominal pain/discomfort . One trial reported the number of women having loose or watery stools and there were more women who experienced this in the laxative group compared to the placebo group (RR 26.96, 95% CI 3.81 to 191.03, 106 women). One trial found no clear difference in the number of enemas between groups (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.05, 244 women). One trial reported more women having more than two bowel movements per day in the laxative compared to the placebo group (RR 26.02, 95% CI 1.59 to 426.73, 106 women). Adverse effects were poorly reported; two trials reported the number of women having abdominal cramps, but their results could not be pooled in a meta-analysis due to substantial statistical heterogeneity. In one trial, more women in the laxative group had abdominal cramps compared to the placebo group (RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.19, 471 women), while the other trial showed no difference between groups (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.20, 200 women). With regards to adverse effects of the intervention on the baby , one trial found no difference in the incidence of loose stools (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.41, 281 women) or diarrhoea (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 26.82, 281 women) between the two groups. Laxative versus laxative plus bulking agentOnly one trial was included in this comparison and reported on pain or straining on defecation in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears; there was no reported difference between groups (median (range) data only). No difference was reported in the incidence of postpartum constipation (data not reported) and the outcome changes in quality of life was not mentioned.Time to first bowel movement was reported as a median (range) with no difference between the two groups. In terms of adverse effects , women in the laxative plus stool-bulking group were reported to be at a greater risk of faecal incontinence during the immediate postpartum period (median (range) data only). However the number of women having any episode of faecal incontinence during first 10 days postpartum was reported with no clear difference between the two groups (14/77 (18.2%) versus 23/70 (32.9%), RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99, 147 women). The trial did not report on adverse effects of the intervention on the babies.The trial reported none of the following pre-specified secondary outcomes: stool consistency using Bristol stool form scale , use of alternative products , laxative agents , enemas , relief of abdominal pain/discomfort and stool frequency .
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not identify any trials assessing educational or behavioural interventions. We identified four trials that examined laxatives versus placebo and one that examined laxatives versus laxatives plus stool bulking agents. Results from trials were inconsistent and there is insufficient evidence to make general conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of laxatives.Further rigorous trials are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of laxatives during the postpartum period for preventing constipation. Trials assessing educational and behavioural interventions and positions that enhance defecation are also needed. Future trials should report on the following important outcomes: pain or straining on defecation; incidence of postpartum constipation, quality of life, time to first bowel movement after delivery, and adverse effects caused by the intervention such as: nausea or vomiting, pain and flatus.
Topics: Adult; Constipation; Dietary Fiber; Female; Humans; Laxatives; Perineum; Postpartum Period; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26387487
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011625.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women around the world. However, there is a lack of synthesised information to establish whether there are differences in morbidity and mortality, effectiveness and psychosocial outcomes between midwife-led continuity models and other models of care.
OBJECTIVES
To compare midwife-led continuity models of care with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife-led continuity models of care or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 trials involving 17,674 women. We assessed the quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes (i.e., regional analgesia (epidural/spinal), caesarean birth, instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum), spontaneous vaginal birth, intact perineum, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks) and overall fetal loss and neonatal death (fetal loss was assessed by gestation using 24 weeks as the cut-off for viability in many countries) using the GRADE methodology: All primary outcomes were graded as of high quality.For the primary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience regional analgesia (average risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14; high quality), instrumental vaginal birth (average RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.97; participants = 17,501; studies = 13; high quality), preterm birth less than 37 weeks (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; participants = 13,238; studies = 8; high quality) and less overall fetal/neonatal death (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.99; participants = 17,561; studies = 13; high quality evidence). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07; participants = 16,687; studies = 12; high quality). There were no differences between groups for caesarean births or intact perineum.For the secondary outcomes, women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience amniotomy (average RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98; participants = 3253; studies = 4), episiotomy (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; participants = 17,674; studies = 14) and fetal loss/neonatal death before 24 weeks (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98; participants = 15,645; studies = 11). Women who had midwife-led continuity models of care were more likely to experience no intrapartum analgesia/anaesthesia (average RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.37; participants = 10,499; studies = 7), have a longer mean length of labour (hours) (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; participants = 3328; studies = 3) and more likely to be attended at birth by a known midwife (average RR 7.04, 95% CI 4.48 to 11.08; participants = 6917; studies = 7). There were no differences between groups for fetal loss or neonatal death more than or equal to 24 weeks, induction of labour, antenatal hospitalisation, antepartum haemorrhage, augmentation/artificial oxytocin during labour, opiate analgesia, perineal laceration requiring suturing, postpartum haemorrhage, breastfeeding initiation, low birthweight infant, five-minute Apgar score less than or equal to seven, neonatal convulsions, admission of infant to special care or neonatal intensive care unit(s) or in mean length of neonatal hospital stay (days).Due to a lack of consistency in measuring women's satisfaction and assessing the cost of various maternity models, these outcomes were reported narratively. The majority of included studies reported a higher rate of maternal satisfaction in midwife-led continuity models of care. Similarly, there was a trend towards a cost-saving effect for midwife-led continuity care compared to other care models.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that women who received midwife-led continuity models of care were less likely to experience intervention and more likely to be satisfied with their care with at least comparable adverse outcomes for women or their infants than women who received other models of care.Further research is needed to explore findings of fewer preterm births and fewer fetal deaths less than 24 weeks, and overall fetal loss/neonatal death associated with midwife-led continuity models of care.
Topics: Amnion; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Continuity of Patient Care; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Midwifery; Models, Organizational; Patient Satisfaction; Perinatal Care; Postnatal Care; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26370160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub4 -
BMJ Open Sep 2015A rise in obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) has been observed and a preventive approach, originating in Finland, has been introduced in several European... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
A rise in obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) has been observed and a preventive approach, originating in Finland, has been introduced in several European hospitals. The aim of this paper was to systematically evaluate the evidence behind the 'Finnish intervention'.
DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature conducted according to the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome was OASIS. Secondary outcomes were (perinatal): Apgar scores, pH and standard base excess in the umbilical cord, and (maternal): episiotomy, intact perineum, first and second-degree perineal lacerations, duration of second stage, birth position and women's perceptions/birth experiences.
METHODS
Multiple databases (Cochrane, Embase, Pubmed and SveMed) were systematically searched for studies published up to December 2014. Both randomised controlled trials and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies were excluded if a full-text article was not available. Studies were evaluated by use of international reporting guidelines (eg, STROBE).
RESULTS
Overall, 1042 articles were screened and 65 retrieved for full-text evaluation. Seven studies, all observational and with a level of evidence at 2c or lower, were included and consistently reported a significant reduction in OASIS. All evaluated episiotomy and found a significant increase. Three studies evaluated perinatal outcomes and reported conflicting results. No study reported on other perineal outcomes, duration of the second stage, birth positions or women's perceptions.
CONCLUSIONS
A reduction in OASIS has been contributed to the Finnish intervention in seven observational studies, all with a low level of evidence. Knowledge about the potential perinatal and maternal side effects and women's perceptions of the intervention is extremely limited and the biological mechanisms underlying the Finnish intervention are not well documented. Studies with a high level of evidence are needed to assess the effects of the intervention before implementation in clinical settings can be recommended.
Topics: Adult; Anal Canal; Episiotomy; Fecal Incontinence; Female; Finland; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Lacerations; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26369797
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008346 -
World Journal of Surgery Nov 2015Use of topical antibiotics to improve perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection (APR) is controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to determine... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Use of topical antibiotics to improve perineal wound healing after abdominoperineal resection (APR) is controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the impact of local application of gentamicin on perineal wound healing after APR.
METHODS
The electronic databases Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library were searched in January 2015. Perineal wound outcome was categorized as infectious complications, non-infectious complications, and primary perineal wound healing.
RESULTS
From a total of 582 articles, eight studies published between 1988 and 2012 were included: four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three comparative cohort studies, and one cohort study without control group. Gentamicin was administered using sponges (n = 3), beads (n = 4), and by local injection (n = 1). There was substantial heterogeneity regarding underlying disease, definition of outcome parameters and timing of perineal wound evaluation among the included studies, which precluded meta-analysis with pooling. Regarding infectious complications, three of six evaluable studies demonstrated a positive effect of local application of gentamicin: one of four RCTs and both comparative cohort studies. Only two RCTs reported on non-infectious complications, showing no significant impact of gentamicin sponge. All three comparative cohort studies demonstrated a significantly higher percentage of primary perineal wound healing after local application of gentamicin beads, but only one out of three evaluable RCTs did show a positive effect of gentamicin sponges.
CONCLUSION
Currently available evidence does not support perineal gentamicin application after APR.
Topics: Abdomen; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Gentamicins; Humans; Perineum; Rectal Neoplasms; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 26170157
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-015-3159-5 -
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 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2015More than 85% of women having a vaginal birth suffer some perineal trauma. Spontaneous tears requiring suturing are estimated to occur in at least one third of women in... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
More than 85% of women having a vaginal birth suffer some perineal trauma. Spontaneous tears requiring suturing are estimated to occur in at least one third of women in the UK and US. Perineal trauma can lead to long-term physical and psychological problems.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of different methods and materials for primary repair of first- and second-degree tears and episiotomies? What are the effects of different methods and materials for primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (third- and fourth-degree tears)? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to November 2013 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 33 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: conventional suturing; different methods and materials for primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries; non-suturing of muscle and skin (or perineal skin alone); and sutures (absorbable synthetic sutures, catgut sutures, continuous sutures, interrupted sutures).
Topics: Anal Canal; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Perineum; Pregnancy; Sutures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25752310
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014Manual rotation is commonly performed to increase the chances of normal vaginal delivery and is perceived to be safe. Manual rotation has the potential to prevent... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Manual rotation is commonly performed to increase the chances of normal vaginal delivery and is perceived to be safe. Manual rotation has the potential to prevent operative delivery and caesarean section, and reduce obstetric and neonatal complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of prophylactic manual rotation for women with malposition in labour on mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014), the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (all searched 23 February 2014), previous reviews and, references of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised clinical trials comparing prophylactic manual rotation in labour for fetal malposition versus expectant management, augmentation of labour or operative delivery. We defined prophylactic manual rotation as rotation performed without immediate assisted delivery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and quality, and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included only one small pilot study (involving 30 women). The study, which we considered to be at low risk of bias, was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital in Australia, and involved women with cephalic, singleton pregnancies. The primary outcome was operative delivery (instrumental delivery or caesarean section).In the manual rotation group, 13/15 women went on to have an instrumental delivery or caesarean section, whereas in the control group, 12/15 women had an operative delivery. The estimated risk ratio was 1.08 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.49). There were no maternal or fetal mortalities in either groupThere were no clear differences for any of the secondary maternal or neonatal outcomes reported (e.g. perineal trauma, analgesia use duration of labour).In terms of adverse events, there were no reported cases of umbilical cord prolapse or cervical laceration and a single case of a non-reassuring or pathological cardiotocograph during the procedure.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of prophylactic manual rotation early in the second stage of labour for prevention of operative delivery. One additional study is ongoing. Further appropriately designed trials are required to determine the efficacy of manual rotation.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Labor Presentation; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Pilot Projects; Pregnancy; Version, Fetal
PubMed: 25532081
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009298.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014BackgroundPubic or perineal shaving is a procedure performed before birth in order to lessen the risk of infection if there is a spontaneous perinealtear or if an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BackgroundPubic or perineal shaving is a procedure performed before birth in order to lessen the risk of infection if there is a spontaneous perinealtear or if an episiotomy is performed.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of routine perineal shaving before birth onmaternal and neonatal outcomes, according to the best available evidence.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (12 June 2014).Selection criteriaAll controlled trials (including quasi-randomised) that compare perineal shaving versus no perineal shaving.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed all potential studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data using apredesigned form. Data were checked for accuracy.Main resultsThree randomised controlled trials (1039 women) published between 1922 and 2005 fulfilled the prespecified criteria. In the earliesttrial, 389 women were alternately allocated to receive either skin preparation and perineal shaving or clipping of vulval hair only. In thesecond trial, which included 150 participants, perineal shaving was compared with the cutting of long hairs for procedures only. In thethird and most recent trial, 500 women were randomly allocated to shaving of perineal area or cutting of perineal hair. The primaryoutcome for all three trials was maternal febrile morbidity; no differences were found (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval(CI) 0.73 to 1.76). No differences were found in terms of perineal wound infection (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.70) and perinealwound dehiscence (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.00) in the most recent trial involving 500 women, which was the only trial to assessthese outcomes. In the smallest trial, fewer women who had not been shaved had Gram-negative bacterial colonisation compared withwomen who had been shaved (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98). There were no instances of neonatal infection in either group in theone trial that reported this outcome. There were no differences in maternal satisfaction between groups in the larger trial reporting this outcome (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.13). No trial reported on perineal trauma. One trial reported on side-effectsand these included irritation, redness, burning and itching.The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low (for the outcomes postpartum maternal febrile morbidity and neonatal infection)to low (for the outcome maternal satisfaction and wound infection).Authors’ conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to recommend perineal shaving for women on admission in labour.
Topics: Confidence Intervals; Female; Hair Removal; Humans; Labor, Obstetric; Odds Ratio; Patient Admission; Patient Satisfaction; Perineum; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25398160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001236.pub2