Meta-Analysis Review

Influence of pelvic floor muscle training alone or as part of a general physical activity program during pregnancy on urinary incontinence, episiotomy and third- or fourth-degree perineal tear: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Authors: Dingfeng Zhang, Kari Bo, Rocío Montejo...

INTRODUCTION

The complex process of pregnancy and childbirth significantly influences the well-being of both mother and child. Today all pregnant women without medical contraindications are recommended to start or continue regular aerobic and strength training for at least 150 min per week to prevent pregnancy-related diseases and conditions. Urinary incontinence in pregnancy, episiotomy and third- or fourth-degree perineal tear during labor can greatly impact womens' health, quality of life and ability to be physically active. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) during pregnancy in the prevention of urinary incontinence, episiotomy, and third- or fourth-degree perineal tear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD42022370600) was performed. Only randomized clinical trials published between 2010 and 2023 were included. The following databases were examined: EBSCO (including Academic Search Premier, Education Resources Information Center, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus and OpenDissertations databases), Clinicaltrials.gov, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Three meta-analyses to investigate the effect of PFMT exclusively or implemented as a section within a physical activity program during pregnancy on urinary incontinence, episiotomy, and third- or fourth-degree perineal tear were conducted.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were analyzed (N = 6691). An effective preventive action of PFMT was found for urinary incontinence (z = 3.46; p < 0.0005; relative risk [RR] = 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59, 0.87, I = 59%) and third- or fourth-degree perineal tear (z = 2.89; p = 0.004; RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.80, I = 48%) but not for episiotomy (z = 0.80; p = 0.42; RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.07, I = 75%).

CONCLUSIONS

PFMT during pregnancy proves to be an effective preventive intervention for reducing the risk of urinary incontinence and the occurrence of third- or fourth-degree perineal tears. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating PFMT into antenatal care and training programs to improve maternal well-being and overall childbirth outcomes.

Topics: Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Episiotomy; Urinary Incontinence; Perineum; Pelvic Floor; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Exercise Therapy; Obstetric Labor Complications; Pregnancy Complications; Exercise; Lacerations

PubMed: 38140841
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14744

Review

Authors: Camilla Benigno Biana, Diana Cecagno, Adrize Rutz Porto...

OBJECTIVE

To identify non-pharmacological therapies applied during pregnancy and labor.

METHOD

Integrative review conducted in the databases: PubMed, ScieLO and PEDro, searching for articles from 2008 in English, Spanish and Portuguese. The descriptors used were: pregnancy, childbirth, physiotherapy, alternative and complementary medicine, alternative therapy, non-pharmacological therapy, biomechanical therapy.

RESULTS

Forty-one articles were analyzed and subdivided into ten categories of nonpharmacological therapies: massage, perineal massage, hot bath, supportive care, childbirth preparation group, breathing techniques, pelvic floor exercises, transcutaneous electrostimulation, Swiss ball and spontaneous pushing. Six articles (60%) showed a positive outcome for reduction of pain in labor and all of them had a positive outcome for different variables of labor, such as reduction of time, anxiety and pelvic floor laceration rates.

CONCLUSION

The use of non-pharmacological therapies was efficient to reduce the effects of labor and childbirth, such as pain, duration of labor, anxiety, laceration and episiotomy.

Topics: Delivery, Obstetric; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Lacerations; Massage; Perineum; Pregnancy

PubMed: 33886910
DOI: 10.1590/S1980-220X2019019703681

Review

Authors: Ryan Goh, Daryl Goh, Hasthika Ellepola...

BACKGROUND

The female perineum is the diamond-shaped inferior outlet of the pelvis. This structure is at risk of trauma during labour because of spontaneous perineal tears of varying degrees or iatrogenic episiotomies. These injuries can result in disabling immediate and long-term complications in the woman.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article is to provide general practitioners (GPs) with a good understanding of perineal tears by discussing the different classifications, immediate and long-term management, and recommendations for future deliveries.

DISCUSSION

Although the majority of perineal tears are managed by obstetricians and gynaecologists, it is important for GPs to understand their management in the event that a patient presents to general practice with concerns during the antenatal or postpartum period.

.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Lacerations; Perineum; Pregnancy; Primary Health Care; Risk Factors

PubMed: 29429318
DOI: 10.31128/AFP-09-17-4333

Meta-Analysis Review

Authors: Guillermo Carroli, Luciano Mignini

BACKGROUND

Episiotomy is done to prevent severe perineal tears, but its routine use has been questioned. The relative effects of midline compared with midlateral episiotomy are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of restrictive use of episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy during vaginal birth.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials comparing restrictive use of episiotomy with routine use of episiotomy; restrictive use of mediolateral episiotomy versus routine mediolateral episiotomy; restrictive use of midline episiotomy versus routine midline episiotomy; and use of midline episiotomy versus mediolateral episiotomy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies (5541 women). In the routine episiotomy group, 75.15% (2035/2708) of women had episiotomies, while the rate in the restrictive episiotomy group was 28.40% (776/2733). Compared with routine use, restrictive episiotomy resulted in less severe perineal trauma (relative risk (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.91), less suturing (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.81) and fewer healing complications (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.85). Restrictive episiotomy was associated with more anterior perineal trauma (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.10). There was no difference in severe vaginal/perineal trauma (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18); dyspareunia (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.16); urinary incontinence (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20) or several pain measures. Results for restrictive versus routine mediolateral versus midline episiotomy were similar to the overall comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Restrictive episiotomy policies appear to have a number of benefits compared to policies based on routine episiotomy. There is less posterior perineal trauma, less suturing and fewer complications, no difference for most pain measures and severe vaginal or perineal trauma, but there was an increased risk of anterior perineal trauma with restrictive episiotomy.

Topics: Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Parturition; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

PubMed: 19160176
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub2

Meta-Analysis Review

Authors: Vigdis Aasheim, Anne Britt Vika Nilsen, Liv Merete Reinar...

BACKGROUND

Most vaginal births are associated with trauma to the genital tract. The morbidity associated with perineal trauma can be significant, especially when it comes to third- and fourth-degree tears. Different interventions including perineal massage, warm or cold compresses, and perineal management techniques have been used to prevent trauma. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of perineal techniques during the second stage of labour on the incidence and morbidity associated with perineal trauma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (26 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating perineal techniques during the second stage of labour. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and evaluated methodological quality. We checked data for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-two trials were eligible for inclusion (with 20 trials involving 15,181 women providing data). Overall, trials were at moderate to high risk of bias; none had adequate blinding, and most were unclear for both allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. Interventions compared included the use of perineal massage, warm and cold compresses, and other perineal management techniques.Most studies did not report data on our secondary outcomes. We downgraded evidence for risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision for all comparisons. Hands off (or poised) compared to hands onHands on or hands off the perineum made no clear difference in incidence of intact perineum (average risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.12, two studies, Tau² 0.00, I² 37%, 6547 women; moderate-quality evidence), first-degree perineal tears (average RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.77, two studies, 700 women; low-quality evidence), second-degree tears (average RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.28, two studies, 700 women; low-quality evidence), or third- or fourth-degree tears (average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.26, five studies, Tau² 0.92, I² 72%, 7317 women; very low-quality evidence). Substantial heterogeneity for third- or fourth-degree tears means these data should be interpreted with caution. Episiotomy was more frequent in the hands-on group (average RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79, Tau² 0.07, I² 74%, four studies, 7247 women; low-quality evidence), but there was considerable heterogeneity between the four included studies.There were no data for perineal trauma requiring suturing. Warm compresses versus control (hands off or no warm compress)A warm compress did not have any clear effect on the incidence of intact perineum (average RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21; 1799 women; four studies; moderate-quality evidence), perineal trauma requiring suturing (average RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.66; 76 women; one study; very low-quality evidence), second-degree tears (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; 274 women; two studies; very low-quality evidence), or episiotomy (average RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.23; 1799 women; four studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether warm compress increases or reduces the incidence of first-degree tears (average RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.79; 274 women; two studies; I² 88%; very low-quality evidence).Fewer third- or fourth-degree perineal tears were reported in the warm-compress group (average RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.79; 1799 women; four studies; moderate-quality evidence). Massage versus control (hands off or routine care)The incidence of intact perineum was increased in the perineal-massage group (average RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.73, six studies, 2618 women; I² 83% low-quality evidence) but there was substantial heterogeneity between studies). This group experienced fewer third- or fourth-degree tears (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.94, five studies, 2477 women; moderate-quality evidence).There were no clear differences between groups for perineal trauma requiring suturing (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.61, one study, 76 women; very low-quality evidence), first-degree tears (average RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.05, five studies, Tau² 0.47, I² 85%, 537 women; very low-quality evidence), or second-degree tears (average RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.12, five studies, Tau² 0.32, I² 62%, 537 women; very low-quality evidence). Perineal massage may reduce episiotomy although there was considerable uncertainty around the effect estimate (average RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.03, seven studies, Tau² 0.43, I² 92%, 2684 women; very low-quality evidence). Heterogeneity was high for first-degree tear, second-degree tear and for episiotomy - these data should be interpreted with caution. Ritgen's manoeuvre versus standard careOne study (66 women) found that women receiving Ritgen's manoeuvre were less likely to have a first-degree tear (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.69; very low-quality evidence), more likely to have a second-degree tear (RR 3.25, 95% CI 1.73 to 6.09; very low-quality evidence), and neither more nor less likely to have an intact perineum (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.31; very low-quality evidence). One larger study reported that Ritgen's manoeuvre did not have an effect on incidence of third- or fourth-degree tears (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.96,1423 women; low-quality evidence). Episiotomy was not clearly different between groups (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03, two studies, 1489 women; low-quality evidence). Other comparisonsThe delivery of posterior versus anterior shoulder first, use of a perineal protection device, different oils/wax, and cold compresses did not show any effects on perineal outcomes. Only one study contributed to each of these comparisons, so data were insufficient to draw conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests that warm compresses, and massage, may reduce third- and fourth-degree tears but the impact of these techniques on other outcomes was unclear or inconsistent. Poor-quality evidence suggests hands-off techniques may reduce episiotomy, but this technique had no clear impact on other outcomes. There were insufficient data to show whether other perineal techniques result in improved outcomes.Further research could be performed evaluating perineal techniques, warm compresses and massage, and how different types of oil used during massage affect women and their babies. It is important for any future research to collect information on women's views.

Topics: Anal Canal; Delivery, Obstetric; Episiotomy; Female; Hot Temperature; Humans; Labor Stage, Second; Lacerations; Massage; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

PubMed: 28608597
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006672.pub3

Randomized Controlled Trial

Authors: Silvia Rodrigues, Paulo Silva, Fátima Rocha...

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of perineal massage and warm compresses technique on the perineum integrity during second stage of labor.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted between March 1st, 2019, and December 31st, 2020, at Hospital of Braga.

PARTICIPANTS

Women with 18 years or older, between 37 weeks and 41 weeks pregnant, in whom a vaginal birth of a fetus in the cephalic presentation was planned were recruited. Eight hundred forty-eight women were randomly assigned (Perineal massage and warm compresses group, n = 424 and control group, n = 424), and 800 women, both perineal massage and warm compresses group (n = 400) and control group (n = 400) were included in the strict per protocol analysis.

INTERVENTION

In the perineal massage and warm compresses group, women received perineal massage and warm compresses and in the control group, women received hands-on technique.

RESULTS

The incidence of intact perineum was significantly higher in the perineal massage and warm compresses group [perineal massage and warm compresses group: 47% vs control group: 26.3%; OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.86-3.45, p<0.001], whereas second-degree tears and episiotomy rate were significantly lower in this group [perineal massage and warm compresses group: 7.2% vs control group: 12.3%; OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.17-3.29, p = 0.010 and perineal massage and warm compresses group: 9.5% vs control group: 28.5%; OR 3.478, 95% CI 2.236-5.409, p<0.001, respectively]. Also, obstetric anal sphincter injury with and without episiotomy and second-degree tears with episiotomy were significantly lower in the perineal massage and warm compresses group [perineal massage and warm compresses group: 0.5% vs control group: 2.3%; OR 5.404, 95% CI 1.077-27.126, p = 0.040 and perineal massage and warm compresses group: 0.3% vs control group: 1.8%; OR 9.253, 95% CI 1.083-79.015, p = 0.042, respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

The perineal massage and warm compresses technique increased the incidence of intact perineum and reduced the incidence of second-degree tear, episiotomy and obstetric anal sphincter injury.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Perineal massage and warm compresses technique is feasible, inexpensive and reproductible. Therefore, this technique should be taught and trained to midwives students and midwives team. Thus, women should have this information and have the option to decide whether they want to receive the perineal massage and warm compresses technique in the second stage of labor.

Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Perineum; Prospective Studies; Obstetric Labor Complications; Episiotomy; Massage

PubMed: 37385009
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2023.103763

Meta-Analysis Review

Authors: Janesh K Gupta, Akanksha Sood, G Justus Hofmeyr...

BACKGROUND

For centuries, there has been controversy around whether being upright (sitting, birthing stools, chairs, squatting, kneeling) or lying down (lateral (Sim's) position, semi-recumbent, lithotomy position, Trendelenburg's position) have advantages for women giving birth to their babies. This is an update of a review previously published in 2012, 2004 and 1999.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the possible benefits and risks of the use of different birth positions during the second stage of labour without epidural anaesthesia, on maternal, fetal, neonatal and caregiver outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised controlled trials of any upright position assumed by pregnant women during the second stage of labour compared with supine or lithotomy positions. Secondary comparisons include comparison of different upright positions and the supine position. Trials in abstract form were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed trial quality. At least two review authors extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Results should be interpreted with caution because risk of bias of the included trials was variable. We included eleven new trials for this update; there are now 32 included studies, and one trial is ongoing. Thirty trials involving 9015 women contributed to the analysis. Comparisons include any upright position, birth or squat stool, birth cushion, and birth chair versus supine positions.In all women studied (primigravid and multigravid), when compared with supine positions, the upright position was associated with a reduction in duration of second stage in the upright group (MD -6.16 minutes, 95% CI -9.74 to -2.59 minutes; 19 trials; 5811 women; P = 0.0007; random-effects; I² = 91%; very low-quality evidence); however, this result should be interpreted with caution due to large differences in size and direction of effect in individual studies. Upright positions were also associated with no clear difference in the rates of caesarean section (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.81; 16 trials; 5439 women; low-quality evidence), a reduction in assisted deliveries (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86; 21 trials; 6481 women; moderate-quality evidence), a reduction in episiotomies (average RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92; 17 trials; 6148 women; random-effects; I² = 88%), a possible increase in second degree perineal tears (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.44; 18 trials; 6715 women; I² = 43%; low-quality evidence), no clear difference in the number of third or fourth degree perineal tears (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.65; 6 trials; 1840 women; very low-quality evidence), increased estimated blood loss greater than 500 mL (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.98; 15 trials; 5615 women; I² = 33%; moderate-quality evidence), fewer abnormal fetal heart rate patterns (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.93; 2 trials; 617 women), no clear difference in the number of babies admitted to neonatal intensive care (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.21; 4 trials; 2565 infants; low-quality evidence). On sensitivity analysis excluding trials with high risk of bias, these findings were unchanged except that there was no longer a clear difference in duration of second stage of labour (MD -4.34, 95% CI -9.00 to 0.32; 21 trials; 2499 women; I² = 85%).The main reasons for downgrading of GRADE assessment was that several studies had design limitations (inadequate randomisation and allocation concealment) with high heterogeneity and wide CIs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review suggest several possible benefits for upright posture in women without epidural anaesthesia, such as a very small reduction in the duration of second stage of labour (mainly from the primigravid group), reduction in episiotomy rates and assisted deliveries. However, there is an increased risk blood loss greater than 500 mL and there may be an increased risk of second degree tears, though we cannot be certain of this. In view of the variable risk of bias of the trials reviewed, further trials using well-designed protocols are needed to ascertain the true benefits and risks of various birth positions.

Topics: Anesthesia, Epidural; Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Episiotomy; Female; Hemorrhage; Humans; Labor Stage, Second; Patient Positioning; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Supine Position; Time Factors; Uterine Hemorrhage

PubMed: 28539008
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002006.pub4

Meta-Analysis Review

Authors: Hong Jiang, Xu Qian, Guillermo Carroli...

BACKGROUND

Some clinicians believe that routine episiotomy, a surgical cut of the vagina and perineum, will prevent serious tears during childbirth. On the other hand, an episiotomy guarantees perineal trauma and sutures.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on mother and baby of a policy of selective episiotomy ('only if needed') compared with a policy of routine episiotomy ('part of routine management') for vaginal births.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (14 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selective versus routine use of episiotomy, irrespective of parity, setting or surgical type of episiotomy. We included trials where either unassisted or assisted vaginal births were intended. Quasi-RCTs, trials using a cross-over design or those published in abstract form only were not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third author mediated where there was no clear consensus. We observed good practice for data analysis and interpretation where trialists were review authors. We used fixed-effect models unless heterogeneity precluded this, expressed results as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 12 studies (6177 women), 11 in women in labour for whom a vaginal birth was intended, and one in women where an assisted birth was anticipated. Two were trials each with more than 1000 women (Argentina and the UK), and the rest were smaller (from Canada, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Malaysia, Pakistan, Columbia and Saudi Arabia). Eight trials included primiparous women only, and four trials were in both primiparous and multiparous women. For risk of bias, allocation was adequately concealed and reported in nine trials; sequence generation random and adequately reported in three trials; blinding of outcomes adequate and reported in one trial, blinding of participants and personnel reported in one trial.For women where an unassisted vaginal birth was anticipated, a policy of selective episiotomy may result in 30% fewer women experiencing severe perineal/vaginal trauma (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; 5375 women; eight RCTs; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if there is a difference for blood loss at delivery (an average of 27 mL less with selective episiotomy, 95% CI from 75 mL less to 20 mL more; two trials, 336 women, very low-certainty evidence). Both selective and routine episiotomy have little or no effect on infants with Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (four trials, no events; 3908 women, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference in perineal infection (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.82, three trials, 1467 participants, low-certainty evidence).For pain, we do not know if selective episiotomy compared with routine results in fewer women with moderate or severe perineal pain (measured on a visual analogue scale) at three days postpartum (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.05, one trial, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) dyspareunia (RR1.14, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.53, three trials, 1107 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) urinary incontinence (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.44, three trials, 1107 participants, low-certainty evidence). One trial reported genital prolapse at three years postpartum. There was no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.41; 365 women; one trial, low certainty evidence). Other outcomes relating to long-term effects were not reported (urinary fistula, rectal fistula, and faecal incontinence). Subgroup analyses by parity (primiparae versus multiparae) and by surgical method (midline versus mediolateral episiotomy) did not identify any modifying effects. Pain was not well assessed, and women's preferences were not reported.One trial examined selective episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy in women where an operative vaginal delivery was intended in 175 women, and did not show clear difference on severe perineal trauma between the restrictive and routine use of episiotomy, but the analysis was underpowered.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In women where no instrumental delivery is intended, selective episiotomy policies result in fewer women with severe perineal/vaginal trauma. Other findings, both in the short or long term, provide no clear evidence that selective episiotomy policies results in harm to mother or baby.The review thus demonstrates that believing that routine episiotomy reduces perineal/vaginal trauma is not justified by current evidence. Further research in women where instrumental delivery is intended may help clarify if routine episiotomy is useful in this particular group. These trials should use better, standardised outcome assessment methods.

Topics: Apgar Score; Blood Loss, Surgical; Dyspareunia; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Pain Measurement; Parity; Parturition; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Urinary Incontinence

PubMed: 28176333
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub3

Meta-Analysis Review

Authors: Michael M Beckmann, Owen M Stock

BACKGROUND

Perineal trauma following vaginal birth can be associated with significant short-term and long-term morbidity. Antenatal perineal massage has been proposed as one method of decreasing the incidence of perineal trauma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of antenatal digital perineal massage on the incidence of perineal trauma at birth and subsequent morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (22 October 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 10), PubMed (1966 to October 2012), EMBASE (1980 to October 2012) and reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating any described method of antenatal digital perineal massage undertaken for at least the last four weeks of pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both review authors independently applied the selection criteria, extracted data from the included studies and assessed study quality. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials (2497 women) comparing digital perineal massage with control. All were of good quality. Antenatal digital perineal massage was associated with an overall reduction in the incidence of trauma requiring suturing (four trials, 2480 women, risk ratio (RR) 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 0.96), number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 15 (10 to 36)) and women practicing perineal massage were less likely to have an episiotomy (four trials, 2480 women, RR 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.95), NNTB 21 (12 to 75)). These findings were significant for women without previous vaginal birth only. No differences were seen in the incidence of first- or second-degree perineal tears or third-/fourth-degree perineal trauma. Only women who have previously birthed vaginally reported a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of pain at three months postpartum (one trial, 376 women, RR 0.45 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.87) NNTB 13 (7 to 60)). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of instrumental deliveries, sexual satisfaction, or incontinence of urine, faeces or flatus for any women who practised perineal massage compared with those who did not massage.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antenatal digital perineal massage reduces the likelihood of perineal trauma (mainly episiotomies) and the reporting of ongoing perineal pain, and is generally well accepted by women. As such, women should be made aware of the likely benefit of perineal massage and provided with information on how to massage.

Topics: Delivery, Obstetric; Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Massage; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

PubMed: 23633325
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005123.pub3