The association between sonographic fetal head circumference, obstetric anal sphincter injury and mode of delivery: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus to the implications of an increased sonographic fetal head circumference (HC) and its impact on delivery. AIM: To examine if there is any association between sonographic fetal HC, obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS) and mode of delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of term, singleton births between April 2017 and March 2019 at a large regional hospital in Australia with a third trimester ultrasound. Logistic regressions were performed investigating sonographic fetal HC and additional risk factors for OASIS. Further multinomial logistic regressions assessed the relationship between the sonographic HC and mode of delivery. Odds ratios and their 95% CIs were reported. RESULTS: Of 667 eligible women, 487 (73%) had vaginal births, with 32 (6.6%) sustaining an OASIS and 180 (27%) had caesarean sections (CS). The sonographic fetal HC did not show an association with OASIS (odds ratio 1.005; CI 0.99-1.01, P = 0.447). A statistically significant association (P < 0.05) with OASIS was found with Asian ethnicity (4.38; 1.5-11.32), prolonged second stage (≥2 h) (4.26; 1.57-10.49) and occiput posterior position (4.01; 1.08-11.92). For women with a sonographic fetal HC ≥ 90th percentile, the odds of having CS compared to a spontaneous vaginal birth are 2.77 (95% CI: 1.36, 5.62; P = 0.005) times higher than those who have a HC < 90th percentile. CONCLUSION: This study does not support the use of sonographic fetal HC in assessing a woman's risk of sustaining an OASIS. Sonographic fetal HC is associated with mode of delivery.

Perineal trauma management and follow-up: Are we meeting the standard of care?

BACKGROUND: Birth-related third- and fourth-degree perineal trauma is common and associated with short- and long-term complications. AIM: To conduct a review of clinical audits investigating management of women with perineal trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all audits undertaken in eight New Zealand public hospitals between 2005 and 2014 that investigated whether women with birth-related third- and fourth-degree perineal trauma were receiving care according to clinical guidelines. We aggregated audit results and calculated the proportion of women receiving the recommended standard of care. RESULTS: During the review period, 25 audits investigated intra-operative (n = 11), post-operative (n = 14) and outpatient care (n = 18). Baseline audits showed variation in care by site; intra-operative care (range 39-96% for repair conducted under anaesthesia, 60-96% for repair by or under supervision of a senior clinician, and 33-54% for completion of Accident Compensation Corporation forms); post-operative care (range 40-93% for prescribed antibiotics and 33-96% for stool softeners) and outpatient care (45-84% for referral to outpatient clinic and 54-78% for physiotherapy follow-up). Sustained high quality of care and improvements in adherence with recommendations were seen for most of the follow-up audits (eg 90% adherence for prescribed stool softeners over three audits; over 50% increase in prescribed antibiotics over seven years). CONCLUSIONS: These clinical audits exemplify the need to measure patient care against standards, learn from the findings, implement changes to improve patient experience and reduce life-long sequelae from perineal trauma. This review showed some progress in some care services and highlighted where further changes are needed to close evidence-practice gaps.

Perineal trauma with vaginal birth after a previous caesarean section: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information regarding perineal injuries in women who achieve vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC). AIMS: To ascertain the rate of severe perineal injuries in women achieving VBAC at a major tertiary obstetric hospital, and to determine if vaginal birth is more likely to be associated with perineal injuries in women with one previous caesarean section compared with nulliparous women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken of women with singleton pregnancies at term who delivered vaginally between 2013 and 2016. We compared nulliparous women with women who had undergone one previous caesarean section. The primary outcome analysed was the rate of third and fourth degree tears in each group. Secondary outcomes were major post-partum haemorrhage and instrumental delivery. RESULTS: Totals of 10 663 nulliparous women and 629 VBAC women achieved vaginal birth. Of the VBAC women, 418 achieved their first vaginal birth (first VBAC group). Overall, there was no significant difference in the rate of third and fourth degree tears in the VBAC group compared with the nulliparous group (6.0% vs 5.6%; P = 0.73). There was no significant increase in anal sphincter injuries in the first VBAC group compared with the nulliparous group (6.0% vs 7.4%; P = 0.25). CONCLUSION: No overall difference in the rate of severe perineal injuries between VBAC women and nulliparous women who achieve vaginal birth was observed in this study.

Diabetes Mellitus and lower genital tract tears after vaginal birth: A cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes Mellitus in pregnancy is increasing. No existing studies have examined Diabetes Mellitus as the primary exposure for lower genital tract tears after vaginal birth. The objective was to study the association between Diabetes Mellitus (all types combined), Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and lower genital tract tears after vaginal birth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A register-based cohort study of women with singleton pregnancy and without a previous cesarean section at near-term (≥ 35 + 0 weeks) and term (≥ 37 + 0 weeks) gestational age, n = 31,297 at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2012. The associations between Diabetes Mellitus and lower genital tract tears were analysed using a fixed multiple logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Approximately 32,000 women were eligible for the study; 796 women had diabetes (2.5%) and 1318 experienced anal sphincter injury (4.3%). The overall risk of lower genital tract tears was similar among women with a diagnosis of diabetes (Type1 Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus) compared to women without diabetes, except for nulliparous women with Type1 Diabetes Mellitus who experienced a higher risk of episiotomies, crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.14-3.97) and (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.21-5.10), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Women with Diabetes Mellitus without a previous cesarean section who gave birth vaginally to a single child at term or near term did not experienced an increased risk of lower genital tract tears. However, nulliparous women with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus experienced a higher risk of episiotomy. These results may be used to individualised counselling of women with Diabetes Mellitus regarding mode of birth and may reduce worries about genital tract tears in women with Diabetes Mellitus considering vaginal birth.

Obstetric anal sphincter injury and incontinence 15-23 years after vaginal delivery.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim was to study prevalence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) after normal vaginal deliveries (NVD) and operative vaginal deliveries (OVD) with a subgroup analysis of forceps (FD) vs. vacuum deliveries (VD). The secondary aim was to study the association between OASIS and anal incontinence 15-23 years later. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study including 8137 primiparous women in Trondheim, Norway, from 1990 to 1997. The outcome measure was the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for OASIS between delivery groups. A total of 1122 women responded to a postal questionnaire containing the Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI) in 2013. The aOR for anal incontinence and the difference in CRADI score between women with and without OASIS were calculated. RESULTS: OASIS prevalence was 2% for NVD and 10% for OVD (10% FD, 9% VD). aOR for OASIS was 5.01 (95%CI 3.85-6.51) comparing OVD with NVD. There was no difference between FD and VD (aOR 1.15, 95% CI 0.79-1.67). FD was associated with higher risk of fourth degree perineal tear than VD (aOR 5.08, 95% CI 1.47-17.49). OASIS was associated with increased risk of leakage of well-formed (aOR 8.61, 95% CI 3.08-24.12) and loose stool (aOR 2.75, 95% CI 1.43-5.27) and higher CRADI score (Mann-Whitney U-test, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: OVD was associated with increased risk of OASIS. FD was associated with higher risk of fourth degree perineal tear compared with VD. OASIS was associated with increased risk of anal incontinence and higher CRADI score 15-23 years later.

Risk factors for episiotomy: a case-control study / Fatores de risco para a episiotomia: um estudo de caso-controle

Objective: obtaining information on the factors associated with episiotomy will be useful in sensitizing professionals to the need to minimize its incidence. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate risk factors for episiotomy in pregnant women who had undergone vaginal delivery at a university maternity hospital in northeastern Brazil. Methods: a case-control study was conducted with pregnant women submitted to episiotomy (cases) and pregnant women not submitted to episiotomy (controls) between March 2009 and July 2010 at the Professor Fernando Figueira Integral Medicine Institute (IMIP) in Recife, Brazil, in a ratio of 1 case to 2 controls. The study variables consisted of: whether episiotomy was performed, demographic, obstetric and fetal characteristics (primiparity, analgesia, instrumental delivery, fetal distress, etc.), external factors (day and time of delivery, professional attending delivery) and factors directly related to delivery. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine the adjusted risk of episiotomy. Results: a total of 522 women (173 cases and 349 controls) were included. It was found that deliveries with episiotomy were more likely to have been attended by staff physicians (OR = 1.88; 95%CI: 1.01 - 3.48), to have required forceps (OR = 12.31; 95%CI: 4.9 - 30.1) and to have occurred in primiparas (OR = 4.24; 95%CI: 2.61 - 6.89). The likelihood of a nurse having attended the delivery with episiotomy was significantly lower (OR = 0.29; 95%CI: 0.16 - 0.55). Conclusion: episiotomy was found to be strongly associated with deliveries attended by staff physicians, with primiparity, and with instrumental delivery, and was less common in deliveries attended by nurses. .

Objetivo: avaliar os fatores de risco para a episiotomia em mulheres grávidas que passaram por parto normal em uma maternidade de uma universidade no nordeste do Brasil. Métodos: um estudo de caso-controle foi realizado com gestantes submetidas à episiotomia (casos) e mulheres grávidas não submetidas à episiotomia (controles) entre março de 2009 e julho de 2010, no Instituto de Medicina Integral Fernando Figueira (IMIP), Recife, Brasil, em uma proporção de um caso para dois controles. As variáveis do estudo foram: se episiotomia foi realizada, demográficos, obstétricos e características fetais (primiparidade, analgesia, parto instrumental, sofrimento fetal, etc.), fatores externos (dia e hora do parto, profissional que realizou o parto) e fatores diretamente relacionados ao par-to. Odds ratio (OR) e intervalos de confiança de 95% (IC 95%) foram calculados. A análise multivariada foi realizada para determinar o risco ajustado de episiotomia. Resultados: um total de 522 mulheres (173 casos e 349 controles) foi incluído. Verificou-se que os partos com episiotomia eram mais propensos a ter sido atendidos por médicos do staff (OR = 1,88, IC 95%: 1,01 - 3,48), necessidade de fórceps (OR = 12,31, IC 95%: 4,9 - 30,1) e ter ocorrido em primíparas (OR = 4,24, 95% CI: 2,61 - 6,89). A probabilidade de uma enfermeira ter assistido o parto com realização de episiotomia foi significativamente me-nor (OR = 0,29, 95% CI: 0,16 - 0,55). Conclusão: a episiotomia foi considerada fortemente associada a partos assistidos por médicos da equipe, primiparidade e a parto instrumental, e foi menos comum em partos assistidos por enfermeiros. .

Perineal outcomes on the left lateral versus vertical semi-sitting birth positions: a randomized study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perineal outcomes in unconventional birth positions. METHOD: A randomized clinical study. Conducted in a birth centre in the city of Itapecerica da Serra, Brazil. A sample of 158 nulliparas, divided randomly into the left lateral position (81 experimental) and upright half-sitting (77 - control). RESULTS: Experimental group showed less vulvar edema, 13.6 percent vs. 29.9 percent, OR 2.71 (95 percent IC 1.22 -6.02), episiotomy, 16.0 percent vs. 35.1 OR 2,46 (95 percent IC 1, 27 - 4.74), and more labial lacerations 37,0 percent vs. 19,5 percent OR 2,43 (95 percent IC 1,18 5,51). The women who adopted the upright half-sitting position had a lower risk of first-degree laceration (37,7 percent versus 56,8 percent). However, they had a higher risk of second-degree laceration and frequency of episiotomy OR 2,11 (95 percent IC 1,02 4,35). The presence of vulvar edema increased the risk of spontaneous trauma and episiotomy OR 3,99 (95 percent IC 1,80 8,85). CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirmed the hypothesis that the left lateral position offers less risk of serious perineal traumas.

OBJETIVO: Avaliar se existe associação entre o resultado perineal em posições de parto não convencionais. MÉTODOS: Estudo clínico randomizado realizado no Centro de Parto Normal da cidade de Itapecerica da Serra, São Paulo, Brasil. A amostra foi constituida por 158 nulíparas divididas aleatoriamente na posição de parto lateral esquerda (81 no grupo experimental) e vertical semi-sentada (77 no grupo controle). RESULTADOS: As mulheres do grupo experimental apresentaram menor edema vulvar - 13,6 por cento vs 29,9 por cento, OR 2.71 (95 por cento IC 1,22 -6,02), episiotomia 16,0 por cento vs 35,1 (OR 2.46 (95 por cento IC 1,27 4,74) e laceração de lábios 37,0 por cento vs 19,5 por cento OR 2,43 (95 por cento IC 1,18 5,01). Na posição vertical tiveram menor risco de laceração de 1º grau - 37,7 por cento vs 56,8 por cento. Entretanto, tiveram mais risco de laceração de 2º grau e episiotomia OR 2,11 (95 por cento 1,02 4,35). O edema vulvar aumentou o risco de trauma espontâneo e episiotomia OR 3,99 (95 por cento IC 1,80 8,85. CONCLUSÃO: Esses dados confirmam a hipótese de que a posição lateral esquerda oferece menos risco de traumas perineais graves.

OBJETIVO: Evaluar si existe asociación entre el resultado perineal en posiciones de parto no convencionales. MÉTODOS: Estudo clínico randomizado realizado en el Centro de Parto Normal de la ciudad de Itapecerica da Serra, SP, Brasil. La muestra fue de 158 nulíparas divididas aleatoriamente en la posición de parto lateral izquierdo (81 en el grupo experimental) y vertical semi-sentada (77 en el grupo control). RESULTADOS: Las mujeres del grupo experimental presentaron menor edema vulvar - 13,6 por ciento vs 29,9 por ciento, OR 2.71 (95 por ciento IC 1,22 -6,02), episiotomía 16,0 por ciento vs 35,1 (OR 2.46 (95 por ciento IC 1,27 4,74) y laceración de labios 37,0 por ciento vs 19,5 por ciento OR 2,43 (95 por ciento IC 1,18 5,01). En la posición vertical tuvieron menor riesgo de laceración de 1º grado - 37,7 por ciento vs 56,8 por ciento. Entre tanto, tuvieron más riesgo de laceración de 2º grado y episiotomía OR 2,11 (95 por ciento 1,02 4,35). El edema vulvar aumentó el riesgo de trauma espontáneo y episiotomía OR 3,99 (95 por ciento IC 1,80 8,85). CONCLUSIÓN: Esos datos confirman la hipótesis de que la posición lateral izquierda ofrece menos riesgo de traumas perineales graves.

Episiotomia seletiva: avanços baseados em evidências / Selective episiotomy: advances based on evidence

A realização de episiotomia de forma rotineira foi, durante muitos anos, um grande exemplo de prática médica adotada sem base em estudos clínicos bem conduzidos. Permanece como o segundo procedimento mais comum em obstetrícia, tendo como objetivos prevenir severos danos perineais nas mulheres submetidas ao parto normal, assim como reduzir o período expulsivo. Contudo, vários ensaios clínicos randomizados bem controlados foram publicados contestando essas verdades, além de fornecer evidências de nível I. Assim, foi realizada uma revisão da literatura de forma sistematizada, a qual incluiu estudos comparando a realização da episiotomia rotineira à seletiva. Observou-se que a realização da episiotomia rotineira não protege o assoalho pélvico, sendo causa de maior dor, sangramento e complicações intra e pós-operatórias. Baseando-se nesses resultados, não há justificativa para a manutenção da realização de episiotomia de forma rotineira. Porém, sua frequência continua sendo elevada no Brasil. Sua realização seletiva representa uma excelente oportunidade para testar a força da educação médica continuada, cientificamente embasada, e para mudar dogmas do passado. A difusão dessa prática e sua adoção nos manuais de conduta nos diferentes serviços e diretrizes das sociedades médicas é um marcador de qualidade da atenção e humanização do parto.

To perform the episiotomy as a routine way was, for many years, a medical procedure used without base in any reliable clinical trials. It remains as the second most performed procedure in obstetrics, having as goal to prevent severe damage in the perineal muscle during natural childbirth and to reduce the delivery length. However, several well-controlled randomized clinical trials has been released to refute those beliefs in addition to provide level I evidence. Therefore, a systematic literature review was made including studies that compare the routine episiotomy to the selective episiotomy. The results showed that routine episiotomy does not protect the pelvic floor causing more pain, bleeding and surgical and post-surgical complications. Based in those results, there is no reason for the use of routine episiotomy. However, its use is still common in Brazil. The selective episiotomy use is an excellent form to analyze the continuous medical education based in scientific facts and change ancients beliefs. The propagation of this practice and its presence in routine manuals are indicative of attention quality and delivery humanization.