The effect of antenatal vaginal dilators on perineal trauma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Samantha G Zambuto, Adrienne K Scott, Angela Hardi, Michelle L Oyen, Siobhan Sutcliffe, Jerry L Lowder
{"title":"The effect of antenatal vaginal dilators on perineal trauma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Samantha G Zambuto, Adrienne K Scott, Angela Hardi, Michelle L Oyen, Siobhan Sutcliffe, Jerry L Lowder","doi":"10.1002/ijgo.70096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vaginal dilators use inflatable balloons that can be gently increased in size to dilate the vagina at a controlled rate before or during delivery.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The primary objective of this study was to assess if antenatal use of vaginal dilator devices reduces the incidence of the following outcomes: episiotomy, perineal lacerations, anal sphincter injury, and levator ani avulsion.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>We identified studies using Embase, Ovid-Medline All, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 28, 2024. We searched for concepts of vaginal dilators or birth training devices, episiotomy, and injuries to the vagina, perineum, pelvic floor musculature, or obstetric anal sphincter.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomized and non-randomized studies that reported outcomes of interest in participants who used any vaginal dilator device during pregnancy/delivery compared to those who did not. Inclusion criteria were: (1) original clinical research, (2) use of any vaginal dilator device during pregnancy compared to a non-dilator control group and (3) provision of data on at least one of the four outcomes. Exclusion criteria were: (1) publications in languages other than English and French, (2) not peer-reviewed original research and (3) studies that combined dilator use with a second intervention. For meta-analyses, studies were included in each subgroup if they included relevant data.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Two independent readers screened studies for inclusion/exclusion criteria and independently performed data extraction. Primary outcomes included episiotomies, perineal lacerations, anal sphincter injury, and levator ani avulsion. These outcomes were analyzed separately and combined. The Cochrane Q Test and Higgin's I<sup>2</sup> were used to assess study heterogeneity. Random effects models were used to obtain pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Subanalyses were also performed limited to higher-quality studies (i.e., randomized controlled trials with or without birth attendant and outcome assessor blinding) and for each device separately.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Of 64 screened studies, six were included in the meta-analyses. Antenatal vaginal dilator device reduced incidence of episiotomy compared to no treatment in all studies combined (n = 1262; pooled risk ratio = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.69, 0.98]), but not higher-quality studies (n = 862; pooled risk ratio = 0.90 [95% CI: 0.73, 1.11]). No associations were observed for perineal lacerations, obstetric anal sphincter injury, and levator ani injury in all studies combined or in higher-quality studies. No association was also observed when all outcomes were combined.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results from our systematic review and meta-analysis do not support a protective effect of antenatal vaginal dilator device use on perineal trauma, especially when limited to the highest-quality studies. However, as our findings were based on the results of only two randomized controlled trials that included birth attendant blinding, additional rigorous studies including birth attendant and outcome assessor blinding are warranted to address this question conclusively.</p>","PeriodicalId":14164,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.70096","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Vaginal dilators use inflatable balloons that can be gently increased in size to dilate the vagina at a controlled rate before or during delivery.

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to assess if antenatal use of vaginal dilator devices reduces the incidence of the following outcomes: episiotomy, perineal lacerations, anal sphincter injury, and levator ani avulsion.

Search strategy: We identified studies using Embase, Ovid-Medline All, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 28, 2024. We searched for concepts of vaginal dilators or birth training devices, episiotomy, and injuries to the vagina, perineum, pelvic floor musculature, or obstetric anal sphincter.

Selection criteria: We included randomized and non-randomized studies that reported outcomes of interest in participants who used any vaginal dilator device during pregnancy/delivery compared to those who did not. Inclusion criteria were: (1) original clinical research, (2) use of any vaginal dilator device during pregnancy compared to a non-dilator control group and (3) provision of data on at least one of the four outcomes. Exclusion criteria were: (1) publications in languages other than English and French, (2) not peer-reviewed original research and (3) studies that combined dilator use with a second intervention. For meta-analyses, studies were included in each subgroup if they included relevant data.

Data collection and analysis: Two independent readers screened studies for inclusion/exclusion criteria and independently performed data extraction. Primary outcomes included episiotomies, perineal lacerations, anal sphincter injury, and levator ani avulsion. These outcomes were analyzed separately and combined. The Cochrane Q Test and Higgin's I2 were used to assess study heterogeneity. Random effects models were used to obtain pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Subanalyses were also performed limited to higher-quality studies (i.e., randomized controlled trials with or without birth attendant and outcome assessor blinding) and for each device separately.

Main results: Of 64 screened studies, six were included in the meta-analyses. Antenatal vaginal dilator device reduced incidence of episiotomy compared to no treatment in all studies combined (n = 1262; pooled risk ratio = 0.82 [95% CI: 0.69, 0.98]), but not higher-quality studies (n = 862; pooled risk ratio = 0.90 [95% CI: 0.73, 1.11]). No associations were observed for perineal lacerations, obstetric anal sphincter injury, and levator ani injury in all studies combined or in higher-quality studies. No association was also observed when all outcomes were combined.

Conclusions: Results from our systematic review and meta-analysis do not support a protective effect of antenatal vaginal dilator device use on perineal trauma, especially when limited to the highest-quality studies. However, as our findings were based on the results of only two randomized controlled trials that included birth attendant blinding, additional rigorous studies including birth attendant and outcome assessor blinding are warranted to address this question conclusively.

产前阴道扩张器对会阴创伤的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:阴道扩张器使用充气气球,其大小可以在分娩前或分娩过程中以可控的速度扩张阴道。目的:本研究的主要目的是评估产前使用阴道扩张器是否能降低以下结果的发生率:会阴切开、会阴撕裂、肛门括约肌损伤和提肛肌撕脱伤。检索策略:我们使用Embase、Ovid-Medline All、Scopus、Web of Science和ClinicalTrials.gov检索从成立到2024年8月28日的研究。我们检索了阴道扩张器或分娩训练装置、会阴切开术、阴道、会阴、盆底肌肉组织或产科肛门括约肌损伤的概念。选择标准:我们纳入了随机和非随机研究,这些研究报告了在怀孕/分娩期间使用阴道扩张器的参与者与未使用阴道扩张器的参与者的结果。纳入标准为:(1)原始临床研究;(2)与未使用阴道扩张器的对照组相比,妊娠期间使用任何阴道扩张器;(3)提供四种结局中至少一种的数据。排除标准是:(1)非英语和法语的出版物,(2)非同行评审的原始研究,(3)联合使用扩张器和第二次干预的研究。对于荟萃分析,如果研究包含相关数据,则将其纳入每个亚组。数据收集和分析:两名独立读者筛选研究纳入/排除标准,并独立进行数据提取。主要结果包括外阴切开术、会阴撕裂、肛门括约肌损伤和提肛肌撕脱伤。这些结果分别分析和合并分析。采用Cochrane Q检验和Higgin’s I2来评估研究的异质性。随机效应模型用于获得合并风险比和95%置信区间。亚分析也仅限于高质量的研究(即随机对照试验,有或没有助产士和结果评估者盲法),并单独针对每种设备进行。主要结果:64项筛选研究中,6项纳入meta分析。在所有的研究中,与没有治疗相比,产前阴道扩张器降低了会阴切开术的发生率(n = 1262;合并风险比= 0.82 [95% CI: 0.69, 0.98]),但没有更高质量的研究(n = 862;合并风险比= 0.90 [95% CI: 0.73, 1.11])。在所有综合研究或高质量研究中,未观察到会阴撕裂伤、产科肛门括约肌损伤和提肛肌损伤之间的关联。当所有结果合并时,也没有观察到关联。结论:我们的系统综述和荟萃分析的结果不支持产前阴道扩张器使用对会阴创伤的保护作用,特别是当仅限于最高质量的研究时。然而,由于我们的研究结果仅基于两项随机对照试验的结果,包括助产士盲法和结果评估盲法,因此有必要进行其他严格的研究,包括助产士盲法和结果评估盲法,以最终解决这个问题。
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
5.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
493
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics publishes articles on all aspects of basic and clinical research in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology and related subjects, with emphasis on matters of worldwide interest.
×
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