International urogynecology journal · 2022
Episiotomy in vacuum extraction, do we cut the levator ani muscle? A prospective cohort study.
Рандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ankarcrona Victoria, Karlström Sofie, Sylvan Sissela, Starck Marianne, Jonsson Maria, Wendel Sophia Brismar
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vaginal delivery may lead to levator ani muscle (LAM) injury or avulsion. Episiotomy may reduce obstetric anal sphincter injury in operative vaginal delivery, but may increase the risk of LAM injury. Our aim was to assess whether lateral episiotomy in vacuum extraction (VE) in primiparous women causes LAM injury.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 58 primiparous women with episiotomy nested within an ongoing multicenter randomized controlled trial of lateral episiotomy versus no episiotomy in VE (EVA trial) was carried out in Sweden. LAM injury was evaluated using 3D endovaginal ultrasound 6-12 months after delivery and Levator Ani Deficiency (LAD) score. Episiotomy scar properties were measured. Characteristics were described and compared using Chi-squared tests. We stipulated that if a lateral episiotomy cuts the LAM, ≥50% would have a LAM injury. Among those, ≥50% would be side specific. We compared the observed prevalence with a test of one proportion.
RESULTS: Twelve (20.7%, 95% CI 10.9-32.9) of 58 women had a LAD (p < 0.001, compared with the stipulated 50%). Six (50.0%, 95% CI 21.1% to 78.9%) of 12 women had a LAD on the episiotomy side, including those with bilateral LAD (p = 1.00). Two (16.7%, 95% CI 2.1% to 48.4%) of 12 women had a LAD exclusively on the episiotomy side (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no excessive risk of cutting the LAM while performing a lateral episiotomy. LAD was not seen in women with episiotomies shorter than 18 mm.
METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 58 primiparous women with episiotomy nested within an ongoing multicenter randomized controlled trial of lateral episiotomy versus no episiotomy in VE (EVA trial) was carried out in Sweden. LAM injury was evaluated using 3D endovaginal ultrasound 6-12 months after delivery and Levator Ani Deficiency (LAD) score. Episiotomy scar properties were measured. Characteristics were described and compared using Chi-squared tests. We stipulated that if a lateral episiotomy cuts the LAM, ≥50% would have a LAM injury. Among those, ≥50% would be side specific. We compared the observed prevalence with a test of one proportion.
RESULTS: Twelve (20.7%, 95% CI 10.9-32.9) of 58 women had a LAD (p < 0.001, compared with the stipulated 50%). Six (50.0%, 95% CI 21.1% to 78.9%) of 12 women had a LAD on the episiotomy side, including those with bilateral LAD (p = 1.00). Two (16.7%, 95% CI 2.1% to 48.4%) of 12 women had a LAD exclusively on the episiotomy side (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no excessive risk of cutting the LAM while performing a lateral episiotomy. LAD was not seen in women with episiotomies shorter than 18 mm.