Episiotomy in vacuum extraction, do we cut the levator ani muscle? A prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vaginal delivery may lead to levator ani muscle (LAM) injury or avulsion. Episiotomy may reduce obstetric anal sphincter injury in operative vaginal delivery, but may increase the risk of LAM injury. Our aim was to assess whether lateral episiotomy in vacuum extraction (VE) in primiparous women causes LAM injury. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 58 primiparous women with episiotomy nested within an ongoing multicenter randomized controlled trial of lateral episiotomy versus no episiotomy in VE (EVA trial) was carried out in Sweden. LAM injury was evaluated using 3D endovaginal ultrasound 6-12 months after delivery and Levator Ani Deficiency (LAD) score. Episiotomy scar properties were measured. Characteristics were described and compared using Chi-squared tests. We stipulated that if a lateral episiotomy cuts the LAM, ≥50% would have a LAM injury. Among those, ≥50% would be side specific. We compared the observed prevalence with a test of one proportion. RESULTS: Twelve (20.7%, 95% CI 10.9-32.9) of 58 women had a LAD (p < 0.001, compared with the stipulated 50%). Six (50.0%, 95% CI 21.1% to 78.9%) of 12 women had a LAD on the episiotomy side, including those with bilateral LAD (p = 1.00). Two (16.7%, 95% CI 2.1% to 48.4%) of 12 women had a LAD exclusively on the episiotomy side (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: There was no excessive risk of cutting the LAM while performing a lateral episiotomy. LAD was not seen in women with episiotomies shorter than 18 mm.

Attitudes and knowledge regarding episiotomy use and technique in vacuum extraction: A web-based survey among doctors in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: Correct episiotomy use and technique may prevent obstetric anal sphincter injuries. We aimed to explore the attitudes, use, and technique regarding episiotomy among doctors in Sweden, and their willingness to contribute to a randomized controlled trial of lateral episiotomy or no episiotomy in vacuum extraction in nulliparous women. STUDY DESIGN: A web-based survey was sent to members of the Swedish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (n = 2140). The survey included 31 questions addressing personal characteristics, use of episiotomy, a two-dimensional picture on which the respondents drew an episiotomy, and questions regarding attitudes towards episiotomy and participation in a randomized controlled trial. We calculated the proportion of supposedly protective episiotomies (fulfilling criteria of a lateral or mediolateral episiotomy and a length ≥ 30 mm). We compared the results between obstetricians, gynecologists, and residents using Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests for differences between groups, and logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of drawing a protective episiotomy. RESULTS: We received 432 responses. Doctors without a vacuum delivery in the past year were excluded, leaving 384 respondents for further analyses. In all, 222 (57.8%) doctors reported use of episiotomy in<50% of vacuum extractions. We obtained 308 illustrated episiotomies with a median angle of 53°, incision point distance from the midline of 21 mm, and length of 36 mm, corresponding to a lateral episiotomy. Few doctors combined these parameters correctly resulting in 167 (54.2%) incorrectly drawn episiotomies. Residents drew shorter episiotomies than obstetricians and gynecologists. Doctors ranked episiotomy the least important intervention to prevent obstetric anal sphincter injuries in vacuum extraction. Doctors contributing to an ongoing randomized controlled trial of lateral episiotomy or no episiotomy in vacuum extraction were more able to draw a protective episiotomy (OR 3.69, 95% confidence interval 1.94-7.02). CONCLUSIONS: Doctors in Sweden reported restrictive use of episiotomy in vacuum extraction and depicted lateral type episiotomies, although the majority were incorrectly drawn. Preventive episiotomy was ranked of low importance. Our results imply a need for education, training, and guidelines to increase uptake of correct episiotomy technique, which could result in improved prevention of obstetric anal sphincter injuries.

Lateral episiotomy versus no episiotomy to reduce obstetric anal sphincter injury in vacuum-assisted delivery in nulliparous women: study protocol on a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS) occurs in 5%-7% of normal deliveries and increases with vacuum extraction (VE) to 12%-14% in nulliparous women in Sweden. Lateral/mediolateral episiotomy may reduce the prevalence of OASIS at VE in nulliparous women. The current use of episiotomy is restrictive. The protective effect and consequences are uncertain. This trial will investigate if lateral episiotomy can reduce the prevalence of OASIS and assess short-term and long-term effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial of lateral episiotomy versus no episiotomy in nulliparous women with a singleton, live fetus, after gestational week 34+0 with indication for VE. A lateral episiotomy of 4 cm is cut at crowning, 1-3 cm from the midline, at a 60° angle. The primary outcome is OASIS by clinical diagnosis analysed according to intention to treat. To demonstrate a 50% reduction in OASIS prevalence (from 12.4% to 6.2%), 710 women will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio. Secondary outcomes are pain, blood loss, other perineal injuries, perineal complications, Apgar score, cord pH and neonatal complications. Web-based questionnaires at baseline, 2 months, 1 and 5 years will be used to assess pain, incontinence, prolapse, sexual function, quality of life and childbirth experience. A subset of women will receive follow-up by pelvic floor sonography and pelvic examination. Mode of delivery and recurrence of OASIS/episiotomy in subsequent pregnancies will be assessed at 5 and 10 years using register data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is open for enrolment. The trial has received ethical approval from the Regional Ethical Review Board of Stockholm and full funding from the Swedish Research Council. Women are interested in participation. The predominant restrictive view on episiotomy may limit recruitment. Results are of global interest and will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at international congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02643108; Pre-results.

Delivery outcome after trial of labor in nulliparous women 40 years or older-A nationwide population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: The number of women postponing childbirth until an advanced age is increasing. Our aim was to study the outcome of labor in nulliparous women ≥40 years, compared with women 25-29 years, after both spontaneous onset and induction of labor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The nationwide population-based Swedish Medical Birth Register was used to study the perinatal outcome in nulliparous women with a singleton, term (gestational weeks 37-44), live fetus in cephalic presentation and a planned vaginal delivery from 1992 to 2011. We included 7796 nulliparous women ≥40 years and 264 262 nulliparous women 25-29 years. Prevalence and risk of intrapartum cesarean section, operative vaginal delivery, obstetric anal sphincter injury and a 5-minute Apgar score <7 were calculated for women ≥40 years stratified for spontaneous onset and induction of labor, using women 25-29 years as the reference in both strata. Crude and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were calculated by unconditional logistic regression and presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Overall, 79% of women ≥40 years with a trial of labor reached a vaginal delivery. After spontaneous onset, intrapartum cesarean section was performed in 15.4% of women ≥40 years compared with 5.4% of women 25-29 years (aOR 3.07, 95% CI 2.81-3.35). Operative vaginal delivery was performed in 22.3% of women ≥40 years compared with 14.2% of women 25-29 years (aOR 1.71, 95% CI 1.59-1.85). After induction of labor, an intrapartum cesarean section was performed in 37.2% women ≥40 years compared with 20.2% women 25-29 years (aOR 2.51, 95% CI 2.24-2.81). Operative vaginal delivery was performed in 22.6% of women ≥40 years compared with 18.4% women 25-29 years (aOR 1.45, 95% CI 1.28-1.65). The risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury or a 5-minute Apgar score <7 was not increased in women ≥40 years, regardless of onset of labor. CONCLUSIONS: Trial of labor ended in vaginal delivery in 79% of nulliparous women ≥40 years. The risks of intrapartum cesarean section and operative vaginal delivery were higher in women ≥40 years compared with women 25-29 years, after both spontaneous onset and induction of labor. The risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury or a 5-minute Apgar score <7 was not increased.