How time influences episiotomy utilization and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS).

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Journal of Perinatal Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-14 Print Date: 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1515/jpm-2024-0254
Eiman Shalabna, Soaad Nassar, Ariel Zilberlicht, Benjamin Feiner, Lena Sagi-Dain
{"title":"How time influences episiotomy utilization and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS).","authors":"Eiman Shalabna, Soaad Nassar, Ariel Zilberlicht, Benjamin Feiner, Lena Sagi-Dain","doi":"10.1515/jpm-2024-0254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) pose significant challenges for young women following childbirth. The association between mediolateral episiotomy and OASIS remains a subject of debate and uncertainty. This study seeks to fill this gap.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study was performed using electronic database of obstetrics department at a tertiary medical center. All vaginal deliveries and vacuum-assisted deliveries at term, with a singleton live fetus at cephalic presentation between 2015 and 2021, were included. A comparison of the rates of mediolateral episiotomy and OASIS was conducted between the periods 2015-2017 and 2018-2021. Subgroup analysis was carried out based on parity and the mode of delivery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, the study included 18,202 women. Between 2015 and 2017, episiotomy was performed in 1,272 cases (17.5 %), compared to 1,241 cases (11.4 %) between 2018 and 2021 (p<0.0001). Conversely, a significant increase in OASIS was observed, rising from 0.3 % during 2015-2017 to 0.6 % during 2018-2021 (p=0.012). Multivariable analysis unveiled two factors significantly linked to OASIS: the temporal cohort studied, indicating an increasing trend in recent years, and the utilization of epidural analgesia, which exhibited a protective effect, while episiotomy was not associated with OASIS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings indicate a marked decline in the utilization of episiotomy over the study period, accompanied by an increase in OASIS incidence. Nevertheless, our analysis found no statistically significant link between episiotomy use and OASIS incidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":16704,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Perinatal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"67-72"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Perinatal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2024-0254","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) pose significant challenges for young women following childbirth. The association between mediolateral episiotomy and OASIS remains a subject of debate and uncertainty. This study seeks to fill this gap.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed using electronic database of obstetrics department at a tertiary medical center. All vaginal deliveries and vacuum-assisted deliveries at term, with a singleton live fetus at cephalic presentation between 2015 and 2021, were included. A comparison of the rates of mediolateral episiotomy and OASIS was conducted between the periods 2015-2017 and 2018-2021. Subgroup analysis was carried out based on parity and the mode of delivery.

Results: Overall, the study included 18,202 women. Between 2015 and 2017, episiotomy was performed in 1,272 cases (17.5 %), compared to 1,241 cases (11.4 %) between 2018 and 2021 (p<0.0001). Conversely, a significant increase in OASIS was observed, rising from 0.3 % during 2015-2017 to 0.6 % during 2018-2021 (p=0.012). Multivariable analysis unveiled two factors significantly linked to OASIS: the temporal cohort studied, indicating an increasing trend in recent years, and the utilization of epidural analgesia, which exhibited a protective effect, while episiotomy was not associated with OASIS.

Conclusions: Our findings indicate a marked decline in the utilization of episiotomy over the study period, accompanied by an increase in OASIS incidence. Nevertheless, our analysis found no statistically significant link between episiotomy use and OASIS incidence.

时间如何影响外阴切开术的使用和产科肛门括约肌损伤 (OASIS)。
目的:产科肛门括约肌损伤(OASIS)给产后的年轻女性带来了巨大的挑战。内外侧切开术与 OASIS 之间的关系仍存在争议和不确定性。本研究旨在填补这一空白:这项回顾性队列研究是利用一家三级医疗中心产科的电子数据库进行的。研究纳入了 2015 年至 2021 年间所有阴道分娩和真空助产的足月分娩,头位呈单胎活产。对2015-2017年和2018-2021年期间内外侧切开术和OASIS的发生率进行了比较。根据胎次和分娩方式进行了分组分析:研究共纳入了 18 202 名产妇。在 2015 年至 2017 年期间,有 1272 例(17.5%)产妇进行了外阴切开术,而在 2018 年至 2021 年期间,有 1241 例(11.4%)产妇进行了外阴切开术(P结论:我们的研究结果表明,在研究期间,外阴切开术的使用率明显下降,同时 OASIS 发生率上升。尽管如此,我们的分析并未发现外阴切开术的使用与 OASIS 发生率之间存在统计学意义上的显著联系。
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
Journal of Perinatal Medicine
Journal of Perinatal Medicine 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
183
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Perinatal Medicine (JPM) is a truly international forum covering the entire field of perinatal medicine. It is an essential news source for all those obstetricians, neonatologists, perinatologists and allied health professionals who wish to keep abreast of progress in perinatal and related research. Ahead-of-print publishing ensures fastest possible knowledge transfer. The Journal provides statements on themes of topical interest as well as information and different views on controversial topics. It also informs about the academic, organisational and political aims and objectives of the World Association of Perinatal Medicine.
×
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