Choose your font:
 Arimo
 Merriweather
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Rokkitt
 Source Sans Pro
 Login


 English 
 Français 
 Português 

[Valid RSS] RSS
bar

Database - Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR)

Description of this bibliographical database (AFAR website)
Currently 3032 records
YouTube channel (tutorial)

https://afar.info/id=2259

Created on : 16 Dec 2008
Modified on : 16 Dec 2008

 Modify this record
Do not follow this link unless you know an editor’s password!


Share: Facebook logo   Tweeter logo   Easy

Bibliographical entry (without author) :

A randomised controlled trial of routine versus restrictive use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery: a multicentre pilot study. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Volume 115 Issue 13, Pages 1695 - 1703 Published Online: 13 Nov 2008

Author(s) :

DJ Murphy, M Macleod, R Bahl, K Goyder, L Howarth, B Strachan

Year of publication :

2008

URL(s) :

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/1215096…

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

ABSTRACT
Objective To compare the maternal and neonatal outcomes of operative vaginal delivery in relation to the use of episiotomy.

Design Pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Setting Two urban maternity units in Scotland and England.

Sample Nulliparous women anticipating a singleton cephalic vaginal delivery were recruited in the antenatal period.

Methods If an operative vaginal delivery was required in the second stage of labour, women were randomised to either routine (in all cases) or restrictive (only if tearing apparent) use of episiotomy.

Main outcome measures The primary outcome was anal sphincter tearing (third or fourth degree). Secondary outcomes included postpartum haemorrhage (PPH), neonatal trauma and pelvic floor symptoms up until 10 days postpartum.

Results In a group of 317 women requiring operative vaginal delivery, 200 were randomised: 99 to routine use of episiotomy and 101 to restrictive use. There were small differences in the rates of anal sphincter tears (8.1% routine versus 10.9% restrictive, OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.28–1.87) and primary PPH (36.4% routine versus 26.7% restrictive, OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.86–2.86). Neonatal trauma was similar between the two groups (45.5% routine versus 43.6% restrictive, OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.62–1.89), as was prolonged catheterisation, urinary incontinence, faecal incontinence, perineal infection and prolonged hospital admission.

Conclusions This pilot study does not provide conclusive evidence that a policy of routine episiotomy is better or worse than a restrictive policy. A definitive RCT is feasible but will require a large sample size to inform clinical practice.

Sumário (português)  :

Comments :

Argument (français) :

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Keywords :

➡ episiotomy ; forceps delivery ; vacuum extraction (ventouse)

Author of this record :

Emmanuelle Phan — 16 Dec 2008

Discussion (display only in English)
 
➡ Only identified users



 I have read the guidelines of discussions and I accept all terms (read guidelines)

barre

New expert query --- New simple query

Creating new record --- Importing records

User management --- Dump database --- Contact

bar

This database is managed by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR, https://afar.info)
affiliated with Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, https://ciane.net).
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in documentation
(2) or financially supporting AFAR (see below)
(3) or joining the AFAR (or another society affiliated with CIANE).
Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
Contact afar.association(arobase)gmail.com for more information.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!
Donating to AFAR (click “Faire un don”) will help us to maintain and develop sites and public
databases towards the support of parents and caregivers’ informed decisions with respect to childbirth