Levator Ani Muscle Avulsion After Vaginal Delivery Comparing Routine Versus Restrictive Episiotomy: A Pilot Study.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
International Urogynecology Journal Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-06 DOI:10.1007/s00192-024-05883-4
Teerayut Temtanakitpaisan, Suvit Bunyavejchevin, Pranom Buppasiri, Chompilas Chongsomchai
{"title":"Levator Ani Muscle Avulsion After Vaginal Delivery Comparing Routine Versus Restrictive Episiotomy: A Pilot Study.","authors":"Teerayut Temtanakitpaisan, Suvit Bunyavejchevin, Pranom Buppasiri, Chompilas Chongsomchai","doi":"10.1007/s00192-024-05883-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>The objective was to compare the rate of levator ani muscle avulsion following vaginal birth after routine and restrictive episiotomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study consists of two cohorts of pregnant women prospectively enrolled between September 2015 and December 2017 at a university hospital. The pregnant women were subject to a randomized controlled trial, in which participants received a restrictive episiotomy protocol versus a routine episiotomy protocol for vaginal delivery. Levator ani avulsion was evaluated by four-dimensional ultrasound screening.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-one post-partum primipara women were enrolled in our study. Thirty-two women (52.5%) had undergone routine episiotomy whereas 29 women (47.5%) had gone through restrictive episiotomy. Right mediolateral episiotomies were performed in all cases. The rate of anal sphincter tear was 12.5% in the routine episiotomy group versus 13.8% in the restrictive episiotomy group (p = 1.00). Levator ani avulsion was detected in 9.4% of the routine episiotomy group (only on the right side) and in 10.3% of the restrictive episiotomy group (p = 1.00). No bilateral levator avulsion was detected in either of the groups. There were no statistical differences in the distances of the bladder neck descent, cystocele descent, uterine descent, rectocele descent, and the ballooning of the genital hiatus area between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In our pilot study, there was no reduction of the rate of levator ani avulsion in women with restrictive episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy. There were no differences in pelvic floor ultrasound parameters between the two groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05883-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: The objective was to compare the rate of levator ani muscle avulsion following vaginal birth after routine and restrictive episiotomy.

Methods: This study consists of two cohorts of pregnant women prospectively enrolled between September 2015 and December 2017 at a university hospital. The pregnant women were subject to a randomized controlled trial, in which participants received a restrictive episiotomy protocol versus a routine episiotomy protocol for vaginal delivery. Levator ani avulsion was evaluated by four-dimensional ultrasound screening.

Results: Sixty-one post-partum primipara women were enrolled in our study. Thirty-two women (52.5%) had undergone routine episiotomy whereas 29 women (47.5%) had gone through restrictive episiotomy. Right mediolateral episiotomies were performed in all cases. The rate of anal sphincter tear was 12.5% in the routine episiotomy group versus 13.8% in the restrictive episiotomy group (p = 1.00). Levator ani avulsion was detected in 9.4% of the routine episiotomy group (only on the right side) and in 10.3% of the restrictive episiotomy group (p = 1.00). No bilateral levator avulsion was detected in either of the groups. There were no statistical differences in the distances of the bladder neck descent, cystocele descent, uterine descent, rectocele descent, and the ballooning of the genital hiatus area between the groups.

Conclusions: In our pilot study, there was no reduction of the rate of levator ani avulsion in women with restrictive episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy. There were no differences in pelvic floor ultrasound parameters between the two groups.

Abstract Image

阴道分娩后的提肛肌撕裂:常规与限制性外阴切开术的比较:一项试点研究。
引言和假设:目的是比较常规外阴切开术和限制性外阴切开术后阴道分娩的提上肛肌撕裂率:本研究由 2015 年 9 月至 2017 年 12 月期间在一家大学医院前瞻性注册的两组孕妇组成。这些孕妇接受了随机对照试验,其中参与者在阴道分娩时分别接受了限制性外阴切开术方案和常规外阴切开术方案。通过四维超声筛查评估了阴道松弛情况:61名产后初产妇参加了我们的研究。32名产妇(52.5%)接受了常规外阴切开术,29名产妇(47.5%)接受了限制性外阴切开术。所有病例都进行了右内外侧切开术。常规外阴切开术组的肛门括约肌撕裂率为 12.5%,而限制性外阴切开术组为 13.8%(P = 1.00)。在常规外阴切开术组中,9.4%(仅右侧)和限制性外阴切开术组中的 10.3%(P = 1.00)发现了肛提肌撕裂。两组均未发现双侧提上睑肌撕脱。两组间膀胱颈下降、膀胱阴道下降、子宫下降、直肠阴道下降的距离以及生殖器裂孔区域的气球大小均无统计学差异:在我们的试点研究中,与常规外阴切开术相比,采用限制性外阴切开术的产妇的提上睑肌撕脱率没有降低。两组妇女的盆底超声参数没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
406
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信