Cargando…

Selective episiotomy vs. implementation of a non-episiotomy protocol: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Despite all the evidence corroborating the selective use of episiotomy and although routine use of the procedure is contraindicated, there are no evidences corroborating if episiotomy is necessary in any circumstance. The present clinical randomized trial was performed to compare materna...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: M. Amorim, M., Coutinho, Isabela Cristina, Melo, Inês, Katz, Leila
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5402639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28438209
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-017-0315-4
_version_ 1783231266170077184
author M. Amorim, M.
Coutinho, Isabela Cristina
Melo, Inês
Katz, Leila
author_facet M. Amorim, M.
Coutinho, Isabela Cristina
Melo, Inês
Katz, Leila
author_sort M. Amorim, M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite all the evidence corroborating the selective use of episiotomy and although routine use of the procedure is contraindicated, there are no evidences corroborating if episiotomy is necessary in any circumstance. The present clinical randomized trial was performed to compare maternal and perinatal outcomes in women submitted to a non-episiotomy protocol versus one of selective episiotomy. METHODS: An open-labelled, randomized clinical trial was carried out in a tertiary teaching hospital in Recife, Northeastern Brazil. Women in labor with a full-term live foetus, dilatation of 6 to 8 cm and cephalic presentation (vertex position) were included. Exclusion criteria consisted of bleeding disorders and an indication for a caesarean section. After signing the consent form, 241 women were randomized to a non-episiotomy protocol (the experimental group) or to a selective episiotomy group (the control group). No episiotomies were to be performed in the experimental group except under exceptional circumstances. In the control group, selective episiotomies were to be performed in accordance with the healthcare professionals’ clinical judgement. Maternal and perinatal outcomes were evaluated. Ratio Risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for our outcomes. RESULTS: The analysis include 115 women assigned to a non-episiotomy protocol and 122 to selective episiotomy. There was no difference between the two groups with respect to maternal or perinatal outcomes. The episiotomy rate was similar (two cases in each group, about 1.7%), as was the duration of the second stage of labor, the frequency of perineal tears, severe perineal trauma, need for perineal suturing and blood loss at delivery. CONCLUSIONS: A non-episiotomy protocol appears to be safe for mother and child, and highlights the need to investigate whether there is, in fact, any indication for this procedure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under reference number (NCT02178111).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5402639
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54026392017-04-27 Selective episiotomy vs. implementation of a non-episiotomy protocol: a randomized clinical trial M. Amorim, M. Coutinho, Isabela Cristina Melo, Inês Katz, Leila Reprod Health Research BACKGROUND: Despite all the evidence corroborating the selective use of episiotomy and although routine use of the procedure is contraindicated, there are no evidences corroborating if episiotomy is necessary in any circumstance. The present clinical randomized trial was performed to compare maternal and perinatal outcomes in women submitted to a non-episiotomy protocol versus one of selective episiotomy. METHODS: An open-labelled, randomized clinical trial was carried out in a tertiary teaching hospital in Recife, Northeastern Brazil. Women in labor with a full-term live foetus, dilatation of 6 to 8 cm and cephalic presentation (vertex position) were included. Exclusion criteria consisted of bleeding disorders and an indication for a caesarean section. After signing the consent form, 241 women were randomized to a non-episiotomy protocol (the experimental group) or to a selective episiotomy group (the control group). No episiotomies were to be performed in the experimental group except under exceptional circumstances. In the control group, selective episiotomies were to be performed in accordance with the healthcare professionals’ clinical judgement. Maternal and perinatal outcomes were evaluated. Ratio Risk (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for our outcomes. RESULTS: The analysis include 115 women assigned to a non-episiotomy protocol and 122 to selective episiotomy. There was no difference between the two groups with respect to maternal or perinatal outcomes. The episiotomy rate was similar (two cases in each group, about 1.7%), as was the duration of the second stage of labor, the frequency of perineal tears, severe perineal trauma, need for perineal suturing and blood loss at delivery. CONCLUSIONS: A non-episiotomy protocol appears to be safe for mother and child, and highlights the need to investigate whether there is, in fact, any indication for this procedure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under reference number (NCT02178111). BioMed Central 2017-04-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5402639/ /pubmed/28438209 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-017-0315-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
M. Amorim, M.
Coutinho, Isabela Cristina
Melo, Inês
Katz, Leila
Selective episiotomy vs. implementation of a non-episiotomy protocol: a randomized clinical trial
title Selective episiotomy vs. implementation of a non-episiotomy protocol: a randomized clinical trial
title_full Selective episiotomy vs. implementation of a non-episiotomy protocol: a randomized clinical trial
title_fullStr Selective episiotomy vs. implementation of a non-episiotomy protocol: a randomized clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Selective episiotomy vs. implementation of a non-episiotomy protocol: a randomized clinical trial
title_short Selective episiotomy vs. implementation of a non-episiotomy protocol: a randomized clinical trial
title_sort selective episiotomy vs. implementation of a non-episiotomy protocol: a randomized clinical trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5402639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28438209
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-017-0315-4
work_keys_str_mv AT mamorimm selectiveepisiotomyvsimplementationofanonepisiotomyprotocolarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT coutinhoisabelacristina selectiveepisiotomyvsimplementationofanonepisiotomyprotocolarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT meloines selectiveepisiotomyvsimplementationofanonepisiotomyprotocolarandomizedclinicaltrial
AT katzleila selectiveepisiotomyvsimplementationofanonepisiotomyprotocolarandomizedclinicaltrial