INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There seems to be a temporal association between increasing use of "hands off" the perineum in labour and reduced use of episiotomy with an increasing rate of anal sphincter injuries. We aimed to determine how common the practice of "hands off" the perineum is. METHODS: An observational postal questionnaire study of 1,000 midwives in England in which the main objective was to obtain an estimate of the number of midwives practising either "hands on" or "hands off" was conducted. RESULTS: Six hundred and seven questionnaires were returned; 299 (49.3%, 95% CI 45.2-53.3%) midwives prefer the "hands-off" method. Less-experienced midwives were more likely to prefer the "hands off" (72% vs. 41.4%, p < 0.001). A higher proportion of midwives in the "hands-off" group would never do an episiotomy (37.1% vs. 24.4%, p = 0.001) for indications other than fetal distress. CONCLUSIONS: The "hands off" the perineum technique is prevalent in the management of labour. We hypothesise that a possible consequence might be an increased incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injury.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There seems to be a temporal association between increasing use of "hands off" the perineum in labour and reduced use of episiotomy with an increasing rate of anal sphincter injuries. We aimed to determine how common the practice of "hands off" the perineum is. METHODS: An observational postal questionnaire study of 1,000 midwives in England in which the main objective was to obtain an estimate of the number of midwives practising either "hands on" or "hands off" was conducted. RESULTS: Six hundred and seven questionnaires were returned; 299 (49.3%, 95% CI 45.2-53.3%) midwives prefer the "hands-off" method. Less-experienced midwives were more likely to prefer the "hands off" (72% vs. 41.4%, p < 0.001). A higher proportion of midwives in the "hands-off" group would never do an episiotomy (37.1% vs. 24.4%, p = 0.001) for indications other than fetal distress. CONCLUSIONS: The "hands off" the perineum technique is prevalent in the management of labour. We hypothesise that a possible consequence might be an increased incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injury.
Authors: Elisabeth Hals; Pål Øian; Tiina Pirhonen; Mika Gissler; Sissel Hjelle; Elisabeth Berge Nilsen; Anne Mette Severinsen; Cathrine Solsletten; Tom Hartgill; Jouko Pirhonen Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Magdalena Jansova; Vladimir Kalis; Zdenek Rusavy; Robert Zemcik; Libor Lobovsky; Katariina Laine Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Posy Bidwell; Nick Sevdalis; Louise Silverton; James Harris; Ipek Gurol-Urganci; Alexandra Hellyer; Robert Freeman; Jan van der Meulen; Ranee Thakar Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Debra E Bick; Khaled M Ismail; Sue Macdonald; Peter Thomas; Sue Tohill; Christine Kettle Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2012-06-25 Impact factor: 3.007