 |
|
CLINICIAN’S CORNER
Outcomes of Routine Episiotomy
A Systematic Review
Katherine Hartmann, MD, PhD;
Meera Viswanathan, PhD;
Rachel Palmieri, BS;
Gerald Gartlehner, MD, MPH;
John Thorp, Jr, MD;
Kathleen N. Lohr, PhD
JAMA. 2005;293:2141-2148.
Context Episiotomy at the time of vaginal birth is common. Practice patterns vary widely, as do professional opinions about maternal risks and benefits associated with routine use.
Objective To systematically review the best evidence available about maternal outcomes of routine vs restrictive use of episiotomy.
Evidence Acquisition We searched MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Collaboration resources and performed a hand search for English-language articles from 1950 to 2004. We included randomized controlled trials of routine episiotomy or type of episiotomy that assessed outcomes in the first 3 postpartum months, along with trials and prospective studies that assessed longer-term outcomes. Twenty-six of 986 screened articles provided relevant data. We entered data into abstraction forms and conducted a second review for accuracy. Each article was also scored for research quality.
Evidence Synthesis Fair to good evidence from clinical trials suggests that immediate maternal outcomes of routine episiotomy, including severity of perineal laceration, pain, and pain medication use, are not better than those with restrictive use. Evidence is insufficient to provide guidance on choice of midline vs mediolateral episiotomy. Evidence regarding long-term sequelae is fair to poor. Incontinence and pelvic floor outcomes have not been followed up into the age range in which women are most likely to have sequelae. With this caveat, relevant studies are consistent in demonstrating no benefit from episiotomy for prevention of fecal and urinary incontinence or pelvic floor relaxation. Likewise, no evidence suggests that episiotomy reduces impaired sexual function—pain with intercourse was more common among women with episiotomy.
Conclusions Evidence does not support maternal benefits traditionally ascribed to routine episiotomy. In fact, outcomes with episiotomy can be considered worse since some proportion of women who would have had lesser injury instead had a surgical incision.
Author Affiliations: Center for Women’s Health Research (Drs Hartmann and Thorp and Ms Palmieri), Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health (Dr Hartmann and Ms Palmieri), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine (Drs Hartmann and Thorp), and Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research (Drs Hartmann and Gartlehner), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC (Drs Viswanathan and Lohr).
RELATED ARTICLE
Childbirth
Janet M. Torpy, Cassio Lynm, and Richard M. Glass
JAMA. 2005;293(17):2180.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
A Behavioral Intervention to Improve Obstetrical Care
Althabe et al.
NEJM 2008;358:1929-1940.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Factors Contributing to Maternal Birth-Related Trauma
Roberts et al.
American Journal of Medical Quality 2007;22:334-343.
ABSTRACT
Comparison of obstetric outcomes between on-call and patients' own obstetricians
Abenhaim et al.
CMAJ 2007;177:352-356.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Maternal Race, Procedures, and Infant Birth Weight in Type 2 and Gestational Diabetes.
Nicholson et al.
Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:626-634.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Patient-Choice Vaginal Delivery?
Leeman and Plante
Ann Fam Med 2006;4:265-268.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effect of Parity on Sexual Function: An Identical Twin Study.
Botros et al.
Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:765-770.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Coding of Perineal Lacerations and Other Complications of Obstetric Care in Hospital Discharge Data
Romano et al.
Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:717-725.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Is Routine Episiotomy at Vaginal Delivery Justified?
Journal Watch Dermatology 2005;2005:12-12.
FULL TEXT
Is Routine Episiotomy at Vaginal Delivery Justified?
JWatch General 2005;2005:2-2.
FULL TEXT
What's new in the other general journals
Tonks
BMJ 2005;330:1107-1108.
FULL TEXT
|
