Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Soroka University Medical Center, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O Box 151, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Dec;286(6):1369-73. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2460-x. Epub 2012 Jul 19.
To investigate whether episiotomy prevents 3rd or 4th degree perineal tears in critical conditions such as shoulder dystocia, instrumental deliveries (vacuum or forceps), persistent occiput-posterior position, fetal macrosomia (>4,000 g), and non-reassuring fetal heart rate (NRFHR) patterns.
A retrospective study comparing 3rd and 4th degree perineal tears during vaginal deliveries with or without episiotomy, in selected critical conditions was performed. Multiple gestations, preterm deliveries (<37 weeks' gestation) and cesarean deliveries were excluded from the analysis. Stratified analysis (using the Mantel-Haenszel technique) was used to obtain the weighted odds ratio (OR), while controlling for these variables.
During the study period, there were 168,077 singleton vaginal deliveries. Of those, 188 (0.1%) had 3rd or 4th degree perineal tears. Vaginal deliveries with episiotomy had statistically significant higher rates of 3rd or 4th degree perineal tears than those without episiotomy (0.2 vs. 0.1%; P<0.001). The association between episiotomy and severe perineal tears remained significant even in the critical conditions. Stratified analysis revealed that the adjusted ORs for 3rd or 4th degree perineal tears in these critical conditions (Macrosomia OR=2.3; instrumental deliveries OR=1.8; NRFHR patterns OR=2.1; occipito-posterior position OR=2.3; and shoulder dystocia OR=2.3) were similar to the crude OR (OR=2.3).
Mediolateral episiotomy is an independent risk factor for 3rd or 4th degree perineal tears, even in critical conditions such as shoulder dystocia, instrumental deliveries, occiput-posterior position, fetal macrosomia, and NRFHR. Prophylactic use of episiotomy in these conditions does not seem beneficial if performed to prevent 3rd or 4th degree perineal tears.
探讨在肩难产、器械分娩(吸引或产钳)、持续性枕后位、胎儿巨大儿(>4000g)和非胎儿心率监护(NRFHR)模式等危急情况下会阴侧切是否能预防三度或四度会阴撕裂。
本研究为回顾性队列研究,比较了危急情况下行会阴侧切与不行会阴侧切的阴道分娩产妇中三度和四度会阴撕裂的发生情况。本研究排除了多胎妊娠、早产(<37 周)和剖宫产。采用分层分析(Mantel-Haenszel 技术),在控制上述变量的情况下,获得加权比值比(OR)。
研究期间,共有 168077 例单胎阴道分娩。其中,188 例(0.1%)发生三度或四度会阴撕裂。行会阴侧切的阴道分娩产妇发生三度或四度会阴撕裂的比例显著高于未行会阴侧切者(0.2% vs. 0.1%;P<0.001)。即使在危急情况下,会阴侧切与严重会阴撕裂之间仍存在关联。分层分析显示,在这些危急情况下,三度或四度会阴撕裂的校正比值比(巨大儿 OR=2.3;器械分娩 OR=1.8;NRFHR 模式 OR=2.1;枕后位 OR=2.3;肩难产 OR=2.3)与粗比值比(OR=2.3)相似。
会阴侧切是三度或四度会阴撕裂的独立危险因素,即使在肩难产、器械分娩、枕后位、胎儿巨大儿和 NRFHR 等危急情况下也是如此。如果会阴侧切是为了预防三度或四度会阴撕裂,那么在这些情况下预防性使用会阴侧切似乎并不能带来益处。