[Pelvic floor disorders four years after first delivery: a comparative study of restrictive versus systematic episiotomy].

OBJECTIVE

To compare two policies for episiotomy: restrictive and systematic.

PATIENTS AND

METHODS

It is a quasi-randomised comparative study between two French university hospitals with contrasting episiotomy policies: one using it restrictively and the second routinely. Population included 774 nulliparous women delivered during 1996 of a singleton in cephalic presentation at a term of 37-41 weeks. A questionnaire was mailed four years after delivery. Sample size was calculated to allow showing a 10% difference in the prevalence of urinary incontinence with 80% power. Main outcome measures were urinary incontinence, anal incontinence, perineal pain and pain during intercourse.

RESULTS

We received 627 responses (81%), 320 from women delivered under the restrictive policy, 307 from women delivered under the routine policy. In the restrictive group, 186 (49%) deliveries included mediolateral episiotomies and in the routine group, 348 (88%). Four years after the first delivery, the groups did not differ in the prevalence of urinary incontinence (26% versus 32%), perineal pain (6% versus 8%), or pain during intercourse (18% versus 21%). Anal incontinence was less prevalent in the restrictive group (11% versus 16%). The difference was significant for flatus (8% versus 13%) but not for faecal incontinence (3% for both groups). Logistic regression confirmed that a policy of routine episiotomy was associated with a risk of anal incontinence nearly twice as high as the risk associated with a restrictive policy (OR=1.84, 95 % CI :1.05-3.22).

DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSION

A policy of routine episiotomy does not protect against urinary or anal incontinence four years after first delivery.