BACKGROUND: The influence of the restrictive use of episiotomy at perineal tears judged to be imminent on the urethral pressure profile, analmanometric, and other pelvic floor findings is unknown. METHODS: Follow-up study of a randomized controlled trial with two perineal management policies includes the use of episiotomy: (a) only for fetal indications and (b) in addition at a tear presumed to be imminent. Participants were 146 primiparous women with an uncomplicated singleton pregnancy >34 weeks of gestation. For the intention-to-treat analysis, 68 women after vaginal delivery were included who delivered a live full-term baby between January 1999 and September 2000. OUTCOME MEASURES: Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP, cmH2O), functional urethral length (mm), maximum anal pressure (MAP, mmHg), functional anal sphincter length (ASL, mmHg) at rest and during contraction, and pelvic floor muscle strength (5-grade Oxford score) are the outcome measures. The rate of dyspareunia, urinary incontinence, and anorectal incontinence was documented. RESULTS: At a mean follow up of 7.3 months, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (a versus b): mean MUCP at rest (98 versus 101 cmH2O), during contraction (95 versus 103 cmH2O), mean MAP at rest (113 versus 121 mmHg), during contraction (143 versus 166 mmHg), mean ASL at rest (50 versus 50 mmHg), during contraction (42 versus 45 mmHg), mean pelvic floor muscle strength (2.2 versus 2.6), no pain during sexual intercourse (79 versus 67%), prevalence of urinary incontinence (48 versus 27%), and anorectal incontinence (19 versus 24%). CONCLUSIONS: Episiotomy at a perineal tear presumed to be imminent does not have any advantage with regard to pelvic floor function and should be avoided.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The influence of the restrictive use of episiotomy at perineal tears judged to be imminent on the urethral pressure profile, analmanometric, and other pelvic floor findings is unknown. METHODS: Follow-up study of a randomized controlled trial with two perineal management policies includes the use of episiotomy: (a) only for fetal indications and (b) in addition at a tear presumed to be imminent. Participants were 146 primiparous women with an uncomplicated singleton pregnancy >34 weeks of gestation. For the intention-to-treat analysis, 68 women after vaginal delivery were included who delivered a live full-term baby between January 1999 and September 2000. OUTCOME MEASURES: Maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP, cmH2O), functional urethral length (mm), maximum anal pressure (MAP, mmHg), functional anal sphincter length (ASL, mmHg) at rest and during contraction, and pelvic floor muscle strength (5-grade Oxford score) are the outcome measures. The rate of dyspareunia, urinary incontinence, and anorectal incontinence was documented. RESULTS: At a mean follow up of 7.3 months, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (a versus b): mean MUCP at rest (98 versus 101 cmH2O), during contraction (95 versus 103 cmH2O), mean MAP at rest (113 versus 121 mmHg), during contraction (143 versus 166 mmHg), mean ASL at rest (50 versus 50 mmHg), during contraction (42 versus 45 mmHg), mean pelvic floor muscle strength (2.2 versus 2.6), no pain during sexual intercourse (79 versus 67%), prevalence of urinary incontinence (48 versus 27%), and anorectal incontinence (19 versus 24%). CONCLUSIONS: Episiotomy at a perineal tear presumed to be imminent does not have any advantage with regard to pelvic floor function and should be avoided.