Literature DB >> 25831995

The correct episiotomy: does it exist? A cross-sectional survey of four public Israeli hospitals and review of the literature.

Lena Sagi-Dain1, Shlomi Sagi.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our objective was to assess episiotomy technique used in Israeli hospitals, to determine factors influencing incision parameters, and to review relevant up-to-date professional literature.
METHODS: Using anonymous questionnaires, a survey was conducted among obstetricians and midwives in the four public hospitals in northern Israel over a 1-year period commencing in October 2013. In addition to demographic and professional data, the accoucheurs were asked to describe the technique they usually use to perform an episiotomy (length, angle, and distance of initiation point from midperineum).
RESULTS: Overall, 84 obstetricians and 32 midwives participated in the survey. Only 37.6% reported performing a mediolateral episiotomy, while the rest described the lateral type, placing the initiation point at an average distance of 2.45 ± 0.88 cm from the fourchette. Compared with midwives, obstetricians reported performing a significantly longer episiotomy (3.53 ± 1.01 vs. 2.73 ± 0.81 cm, p = 0.0002).
CONCLUSIONS: According to our study and relevant literature review, the technique of episiotomy varies significantly between health professionals and is not uniformly congruent with international practice guidelines. In part, this is derived from unclear literature evidence and lack of consensus definition for proper technique of this procedure by the national guidelines. Thus, further higher-quality research, uniform protocols, and educational programs are needed to guide episiotomy practice.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25831995     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-015-2680-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  24 in total

Review 1.  Classification of episiotomy: towards a standardisation of terminology.

Authors:  V Kalis; K Laine; J W de Leeuw; K M Ismail; D G Tincello
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2012-02-03       Impact factor: 6.531

2.  Are mediolateral episiotomies actually mediolateral?

Authors:  Vasanth Andrews; Ranee Thakar; Abdul H Sultan; Peter W Jones
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 6.531

3.  The incision angle of mediolateral episiotomy before delivery and after repair.

Authors:  Vladimir Kalis; Jaroslava Karbanova; Miroslav Horak; Libor Lobovsky; Milena Kralickova; Zdenek Rokyta
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 3.561

4.  Risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury: a prospective study.

Authors:  Vasanth Andrews; Abdul H Sultan; Ranee Thakar; Peter W Jones
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.689

5.  Comparison between two incision angles of mediolateral episiotomy in primiparous women: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Adel S S El-Din; Magdy M Kamal; Malaka A Amin
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Res       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.730

6.  Evaluation of the incision angle of mediolateral episiotomy at 60 degrees.

Authors:  Vladimir Kalis; Jana Landsmanova; Barbora Bednarova; Jaroslava Karbanova; Katariina Laine; Zdenek Rokyta
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2011-01-17       Impact factor: 3.561

7.  A prospective multicenter audit of labor-room episiotomy and anal sphincter injury assessment in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Jeroen van Dillen; Maaike Spaans; Wilma van Keijsteren; Marieke van Dillen; Corla Vredevoogd; Marloes van Huizen; Annemieke Middeldorp
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 3.561

8.  Trigonometric characteristics of episiotomy and risks for obstetric anal sphincter injuries in operative vaginal delivery.

Authors:  E Gonzalez-Díaz; L Moreno Cea; A Fernández Corona
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-09-17       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  Evaluation of the angled Episcissors-60(®) episiotomy scissors in spontaneous vaginal deliveries.

Authors:  Rajnish P Patel; Sunita M Ubale
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2014-07-31

10.  Cutting a mediolateral episiotomy at the correct angle: evaluation of a new device, the Episcissors-60.

Authors:  R M Freeman; H J Hollands; L F Barron; D S Kapoor
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2014-02-21
View more
  6 in total

1.  The correct episiotomy: Does it exist?

Authors:  Roberto Merletti; Diego Riva; Corrado Cescon; Vita Zacesta
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  The optimal angle of the mediolateral episiotomy at crowning of the head during labor.

Authors:  Shimon Ginath; Osnat Elyashiv; Eran Weiner; Ron Sagiv; Jacob Bar; Joseph Menczer; Michal Kovo; Alexander Condrea
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Is it time to abandon episiotomy use? A randomized controlled trial (EPITRIAL).

Authors:  Lena Sagi-Dain; Inna Kreinin-Bleicher; Rabia Bahous; Noga Gur Arye; Tamar Shema; Aya Eshel; Orna Caspin; Ron Gonen; Shlomi Sagi
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-05-24       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  No episiotomy versus selective lateral/mediolateral episiotomy (EPITRIAL): an interim analysis.

Authors:  Lena Sagi-Dain; Rabia Bahous; Orna Caspin; Inna Kreinin-Bleicher; Ron Gonen; Shlomi Sagi
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 5.  Modern Theories of Pelvic Floor Support : A Topical Review of Modern Studies on Structural and Functional Pelvic Floor Support from Medical Imaging, Computational Modeling, and Electromyographic Perspectives.

Authors:  Yun Peng; Brandi D Miller; Timothy B Boone; Yingchun Zhang
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  A novel classification for evaluating episiotomy practices: application to the Burgundy perinatal network.

Authors:  Thomas Desplanches; Emilie Szczepanski; Jonathan Cottenet; Denis Semama; Catherine Quantin; Paul Sagot
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2019-08-16       Impact factor: 3.007

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.