Childbirth Acquired Perineal Trauma study (CHAPTER): a UK prospective cohort study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Childbirth-related perineal trauma (CRPT) is the most common complication of childbirth affecting 80% of women overall after vaginal birth. There remains a lack of comprehensive evidence relating to the prevalence of subsequent health problems. Current evidence is related to short-term outcomes, for example, pain, but there is less known about longer-term outcomes such as infection, wound dehiscence, pelvic floor function and psychological outcomes. This is a protocol for a cohort study assessing outcomes of women after CRPT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, prospective UK cohort study aiming to include 1000 women. All women who have sustained CRPT will be eligible for inclusion and will be followed-up for 12 months after childbirth. The primary outcome will be perineal infection at 6 weeks post-birth. Secondary outcomes will include antibiotic use for perineal infection, wound breakdown, use of analgesia, the requirement for admission or surgical intervention, urinary and faecal incontinence, anxiety and depressive symptoms, sexual function and impact on daily activities. Outcomes will be measured at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months post partum, with some outcomes being measured at all time points and others at selected most appropriate time points only. Outcome data will be obtained from a review of clinical notes and from patient questionnaires. Simple descriptive statistics will be used to summarise characteristics and outcomes, with categorical variables expressed as percentages and continuous variables as mean averages, alongside the corresponding standard deviatons. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Research Ethics Council with reference 23/WA/0169. Data collected from the Childbirth Acquired Perineal Trauma (CHAPTER) cohort study will highlight the prevalence and type of complications after CRPT and which women are more at risk. After the conclusion of this study, findings will be used to work with governmental organisations and Royal Colleges to target resources and ultimately improve care.

Labor induction information leaflets-Do women receive evidence-based information about the benefits and harms of labor induction?

Objectives: To determine the extent to which a sample of NHS labor induction leaflets reflects evidence on labor induction. Setting: Audit of labor induction patient information leaflets-local from WILL trial (When to Induce Labor to Limit risk in pregnancy hypertension) internal pilot sites or national-level available online. Methods: Descriptive analysis [n = 21 leaflets, 19 (one shared) in 20 WILL internal pilot sites and 2 NHS online] according to NHS "Protocol on the Production of Patient Information" criteria: general information (including indications), why and how induction is offered (including success and alternatives), and potential benefits and harms. Results: All leaflets described an induction indication. Most leaflets (n = 18) mentioned induction location and 16 the potential for delays due to delivery suite workloads and competing clinical priorities. While 19 leaflets discussed membrane sweeping (17 as an induction alternative), only 4 leaflets mentioned balloon catheter as another mechanical method. Induction success (onset of active labor) was presented by a minority of leaflets (n = 7, 33%), as "frequent" or in the "majority", with "rare" or "occasional" failures. Benefits, harms and outcomes following induction were not compared with expectant care, but rather with spontaneous labor, such as for pain (n = 14, with nine stating more pain with induction). Potential benefits of induction were seldom described [n = 7; including avoiding stillbirth (n = 4)], but deemed to be likely. No leaflet stated vaginal birth was more likely following induction, but most stated Cesarean was not increased (n = 12); one leaflet stated that Cesarean risks were increased following induction. Women's satisfaction was rarely presented (n = 2). Conclusion: Information provided to pregnant women regarding labor induction could be improved to better reflect women's choice between induction and expectant care, and the evidence upon which treatment recommendations are based. A multiple stakeholder-involved and evidence-informed process to update guidance is required.

Perineal care.

INTRODUCTION: Over 85% of women having a vaginal birth suffer some perineal trauma. Spontaneous tears requiring suturing are estimated to occur in at least a third of women in the UK and US, with anal sphincter tears in 0.5% to 7% of women. 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 intrapartum surgical and non-surgical interventions on rates of perineal trauma? 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 March 2010 (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 38 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational 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: active pushing, spontaneous pushing, and sustained breath-holding (Valsalva) method of pushing; continuous support during labour; conventional suturing; different methods and materials for primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries; episiotomies (midline and mediolateral incisions); epidural analgesia; forceps; methods of delivery ("hands-on" method, "hands poised"); water births; non-suturing of muscle and skin (or perineal skin alone); passive descent in the second stage of labour; positions (supine or lithotomy positions, upright position during delivery); restrictive or routine use of episiotomy; sutures (absorbable synthetic sutures, catgut sutures, continuous sutures, interrupted sutures); and vacuum extraction.

Perineal care.

INTRODUCTION: Over 85% of women having a vaginal birth suffer some perineal trauma. Spontaneous tears requiring suturing are estimated to occur in at least a third of women in the UK and USA, with anal sphincter tears in 0.5% to 7% of women. 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 intrapartum surgical and non-surgical interventions on rates of perineal trauma? 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 April 2007 (BMJ 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 38 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational 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: active pushing, spontaneous pushing, and sustained breath-holding (Valsalva) method of pushing; continuous support during labour; conventional suturing; different methods and materials for primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries; episiotomies (midline and mediolateral incisions); epidural analgesia; forceps; methods of delivery ("hands-on" method, "hands poised"); water births; non-suturing of muscle and skin (or perineal skin alone); passive descent in the second stage of labour; positions (supine or lithotomy positions, upright position during delivery); restrictive or routine use of episiotomy; sutures (absorbable synthetic sutures, catgut sutures, continuous sutures, interrupted sutures); and vacuum extraction.