Suppr超能文献

一种评估会阴切开术实践的新分类方法:在勃艮第围产期网络中的应用。

A novel classification for evaluating episiotomy practices: application to the Burgundy perinatal network.

机构信息

CHRU Dijon, Department of gynecology, obstetrics, fetal medicine and infertility, Dijon, France.

Obstetrical, Perinatal, and Pediatric Epidemiology Team, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Research Center (U1153), INSERM, Paris, France, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.

出版信息

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Aug 16;19(1):300. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2424-2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Though the rate of episiotomy has decreased in France, the overall episiotomy rate was 20% in the 2016 national perinatal survey. We aimed to develop a classification to facilitate the analysis of episiotomy practices and to evaluate whether episiotomy is associated with a reduction in the rate of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) for each subgroup.

METHODS

This population-based study included all the deliveries that occurred in the Burgundy Perinatal Network from 2011 to 2016. The main outcome was episiotomy, which was identified thanks to the French Common Classification of Medical Procedures. An ascending hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to build the classification. A clinical audit using the classification was conducted yearly in all obstetric units. The episiotomy rates were described throughout the study period for each subgroup of the classification. The OASIS rates were evaluated by subgroup and the association between mediolateral episiotomy and OASIS was investigated for each subgroup.

RESULTS

Our analyses included 81,290 pregnant women. The classification comprised 7 subgroups: nulliparous single cephalic at term, nulliparous single cephalic at term with instrumental delivery, multiparous single cephalic at term, multiparous single cephalic at term with instrumental delivery, all preterm deliveries (< 37 weeks gestation), all breech deliveries, all multiple deliveries. Episiotomy rates ranged from 6.2% in Group 3 to 40.9% in Group 2. From 2011 to 2016, every group except breech deliveries experienced a significant decrease in episiotomy rates, ranging from - 28.1 to - 61.0%. The prevalence of OASIS was the highest in Groups 2 (3.0%) and 4 (2.2%). Overall OASIS rates did not significantly differ with episiotomy use (P = 0.25). However, we found that the use of episiotomy was associated with a reduction in OASIS rates in Groups 1 and 2 (odds ratio 0.6 [95% CI 0.4-0.9] and 0.4 [0.3-0.5], respectively). This reduction was only observed in Group 4 with forceps delivery (odds ratio 0.4 [0.1-0.9]).

CONCLUSION

We developed the first classification for the evaluation of episiotomy practices based on 7 clinically relevant subgroups. This easy-to-use tool can help obstetricians and midwives improve their practices through self-assessment.

摘要

背景

尽管法国的会阴切开率有所下降,但在 2016 年全国围产期调查中,会阴切开率总体仍为 20%。我们旨在制定一种分类方法,以方便分析会阴切开术的实践,并评估会阴切开术是否与每个亚组的产科肛门括约肌损伤(OASIS)发生率降低有关。

方法

这项基于人群的研究纳入了 2011 年至 2016 年勃艮第围产期网络中的所有分娩。主要结局是会阴切开术,通过法国共同医疗程序分类来确定。采用升序层次聚类分析来构建分类。在所有产科单位每年进行一次基于分类的临床审核。描述了整个研究期间分类每个亚组的会阴切开率。评估了 OASIS 发生率,并按亚组进行评估,以及调查正中会阴切开术与 OASIS 之间的关系。

结果

我们的分析纳入了 81290 名孕妇。该分类包括 7 个亚组:足月初产妇、足月初产妇伴器械分娩、足月经产妇、足月经产妇伴器械分娩、所有早产(<37 周妊娠)、所有臀位分娩、所有多胎分娩。会阴切开率从第 3 组的 6.2%到第 2 组的 40.9%不等。2011 年至 2016 年,除臀位分娩外,每个组的会阴切开率均显著下降,范围为-28.1%至-61.0%。OASIS 的患病率在第 2 组(3.0%)和第 4 组(2.2%)中最高。总体 OASIS 率与会阴切开术使用无显著差异(P=0.25)。然而,我们发现会阴切开术与第 1 组和第 2 组 OASIS 率的降低有关(比值比 0.6[95%CI 0.4-0.9]和 0.4[0.3-0.5])。仅在第 4 组(产钳分娩)中观察到这种降低(比值比 0.4[0.1-0.9])。

结论

我们基于 7 个临床相关亚组制定了第一个会阴切开术实践评估分类。这种易于使用的工具可以帮助产科医生和助产士通过自我评估来改善他们的实践。

相似文献

1
A novel classification for evaluating episiotomy practices: application to the Burgundy perinatal network.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Aug 16;19(1):300. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2424-2.
2
Obstetric anal sphincter injury rates among primiparous women with different modes of vaginal delivery.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 Dec;131(3):260-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.06.025. Epub 2015 Aug 29.
5
Risk and protective factors for obstetric anal sphincter injuries: A retrospective nationwide study.
Birth. 2018 Dec;45(4):409-415. doi: 10.1111/birt.12346. Epub 2018 Mar 14.
6
Classification and evaluation of episiotomy practices from 2004 to 2020 and association with OASIS.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022 Oct;159(1):237-245. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14091. Epub 2022 Feb 4.
7
Risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) and the role of episiotomy: A retrospective series of 496 cases.
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019 Oct;48(8):657-662. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.07.004. Epub 2019 Jul 2.
8
Is episiotomy worthwile to prevent obstetric anal sphincter injury during operative vaginal delivery in nulliparous women?
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 Jan;232:60-64. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.11.014. Epub 2018 Nov 14.
9
Risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury after a successful multicentre interventional programme.
BJOG. 2014 Jan;121(1):83-91. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12274. Epub 2013 May 20.
10
Does the implementation of a restrictive episiotomy policy for operative deliveries increase the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury?
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Jul;300(1):87-94. doi: 10.1007/s00404-019-05174-0. Epub 2019 May 5.

引用本文的文献

1
Mediolateral episiotomy and obstetric anal sphincter injuries in nullipara: a propensity score matching study.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025 Jan 27;25(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12884-025-07184-0.
4
Influence of the maternity unit and region of delivery on episiotomy practice in France: a nationwide population-based study.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023 Apr;102(4):438-449. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14522. Epub 2023 Feb 27.
6
A nationwide cross-sectional survey of episiotomy practice in China.
Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2021 Dec 12;19:100345. doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2021.100345. eCollection 2022 Feb.
7
Episiotomy practices in France: epidemiology and risk factors in non-operative vaginal deliveries.
Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 19;10(1):20208. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-70881-7.

本文引用的文献

1
[Perineal prevention and protection in obstetrics: CNGOF Clinical Practice Guidelines (short version)].
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018 Dec;46(12):893-899. doi: 10.1016/j.gofs.2018.10.032. Epub 2018 Oct 31.
2
[Fetal expulsion: Which interventions for perineal prevention? CNGOF Perineal Prevention and Protection in Obstetrics Guidelines].
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2018 Dec;46(12):937-947. doi: 10.1016/j.gofs.2018.10.029. Epub 2018 Oct 28.
3
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 198 Summary: Prevention and Management of Obstetric Lacerations at Vaginal Delivery.
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Sep;132(3):795-797. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002842.
5
How did episiotomy rates change from 2007 to 2014? Population-based study in France.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Jun 4;18(1):208. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-1747-8.
6
Risk and protective factors for obstetric anal sphincter injuries: A retrospective nationwide study.
Birth. 2018 Dec;45(4):409-415. doi: 10.1111/birt.12346. Epub 2018 Mar 14.
7
Statistical trends of episiotomy around the world: Comparative systematic review of changing practices.
Health Care Women Int. 2018 Jun;39(6):644-662. doi: 10.1080/07399332.2018.1445253. Epub 2018 Apr 2.
9
Trends in perinatal health in metropolitan France from 1995 to 2016: Results from the French National Perinatal Surveys.
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017 Dec;46(10):701-713. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.09.002. Epub 2017 Oct 11.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验