Dillon Shena J, Nelson David B, Spong Catherine Y, McIntire Donald D, Leveno Kenneth J
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Am J Perinatol. 2024 Jan;41(1):39-43. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1739410. Epub 2021 Dec 2.
This study aimed to evaluate the rate and impact of episiotomy on maternal and newborn outcomes before and after restricted use of episiotomy.
This population-based observational study used an obstetric database of all deliveries since 1990 that has been maintained with quality checks. Inclusion criteria were vaginal deliveries at ≥37 weeks. Exclusion criteria included fetal malformations, multifetal gestations, or fetal deaths known on arrival to Labor and Delivery. The primary outcomes of interest were episiotomy, perineal lacerations, and newborn outcomes. To evaluate the impact of restrictive episiotomy, data from 1990 to 1997 (35% overall episiotomy rate) were compared with data from 2010 to 2017 (2.5% overall episiotomy rate). Univariable analysis of maternal and infant outcomes were performed comparing the two-time epochs with the Pearson's Chi-squared test.
Overall, 268,415 women met inclusion criteria and 49,089 (18.2%) had an episiotomy. The rate of episiotomy decreased from 37% of deliveries in 1990 to 2% in 2017. A total of 82,082 deliveries occurred in the 1990 to 1997 epoch and 57,183 in 2010 to 2017. Indicated use of episiotomy was associated with a significant decrease in third and fourth degree lacerations. Immediate newborn condition (5-minute Apgar's score ≤3 and umbilical artery pH <7.1) and neonatal outcomes (intraventricular hemorrhage [IVH] grade 3/4, positive culture sepsis, neonatal seizures, and neonatal demise) were not significantly different.
Selective, indicated use of episiotomy compared with routine was associated with lower rates of third/fourth-degree lacerations with no change in neonatal outcomes. The common obstetric practice of routinely performing episiotomy, presumably to prevent perineal trauma, proved untrue when analyzed over almost three decades.
· Episiotomy use decreased overtime at our institution.. · Decreased episiotomy use was associated with significant improvement in maternal outcomes.. · Neonatal outcomes were unchanged suggesting no deleterious effects with restricted episiotomy..
本研究旨在评估限制会阴切开术使用前后,会阴切开术对孕产妇和新生儿结局的发生率及影响。
这项基于人群的观察性研究使用了自1990年以来所有分娩的产科数据库,该数据库一直进行质量检查。纳入标准为孕周≥37周的阴道分娩。排除标准包括胎儿畸形、多胎妊娠或入院时已知的胎儿死亡。主要关注的结局是会阴切开术、会阴裂伤和新生儿结局。为评估限制性会阴切开术的影响,将1990年至1997年(总体会阴切开术发生率35%)的数据与2010年至2017年(总体会阴切开术发生率2.5%)的数据进行比较。采用Pearson卡方检验对两个时间段的孕产妇和婴儿结局进行单变量分析。
总体而言,268,415名女性符合纳入标准,其中49,089名(18.2%)接受了会阴切开术。会阴切开术的发生率从1990年分娩的37%降至2017年的2%。1990年至1997年期间共发生82,082次分娩,2010年至2017年期间为57,183次。有指征使用会阴切开术与三度和四度裂伤的显著减少相关。即刻新生儿状况(5分钟阿氏评分≤3分且脐动脉pH<7.1)和新生儿结局(3/4级脑室内出血[IVH]、阳性培养败血症、新生儿惊厥和新生儿死亡)无显著差异。
与常规使用相比,选择性、有指征地使用会阴切开术与较低的三度/四度裂伤发生率相关,且新生儿结局无变化。在近三十年的分析中,常规进行会阴切开术(推测是为了预防会阴创伤)这一常见的产科做法被证明是不正确的。
· 在我们机构,会阴切开术的使用随时间减少。· 会阴切开术使用的减少与孕产妇结局的显著改善相关。· 新生儿结局未改变,表明限制性会阴切开术无有害影响。