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 3046 records
YouTube channel (tutorial)

https://afar.info/id=764

Created on : 13 May 2004
Modified on : 02 Dec 2007

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


Share: Facebook logo   Tweeter logo   Hard

Bibliographical entry (without author) :

Routine vs selective episiotomy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1993; 342: 1517-1518.

Author(s) :

Argentine Episiotomy Trial Collaborative Group.

Year of publication :

1993

URL(s) :

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/external_ref?access…

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

Episiotomy is a widely-done intervention in childbirth, regardless of poor scientific evidence of its benefits. This randomised controlled trial compares selective with routine use of a mediolateral episiotomy for women having first and second deliveries in 8 public maternity units in Argentina. 2606 women participated; 1555 were nulliparous (778 in the selective group and 777 in the routine group) and 1051 primiparous (520 in the selective group and 531 in the routine group). The two interventions compared were selective (limited to specified maternal or fetal indications), and routine episiotomy (following the hospital’s previous policy).

Episiotomy was done in 30.1% of deliveries in the selective, and 82.6% in the routine group. The main outcome measure was severe perineal trauma. Severe perineal trauma was uncommon in both groups but was slightly less frequent in the selective group (1.2% vs 1.5%). Anterior perineal trauma was more common in the selective group but posterior perineal surgical repair, perineal pain, healing complications, and dehiscence were all less frequent in the selective group. Routine episiotomy should be abandoned and episiotomy rates above 30% cannot be justified.

Sumário (português)  :

Comments :

Argument (français) :

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Keywords :

➡ perineal/vaginal tears ; dyspareunia ; episiotomy ; instrumental delivery ; forceps delivery

Author of this record :

Bernard Bel — 13 May 2004

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