Evaluation of Accuracy of Episiotomy Incision in a Governmental Maternity Unit in Palestine: An Observational Study.

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Obstetrics and Gynecology International Pub Date : 2018-10-29 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2018/6345497
Hadil Y Ali-Masri, Sahar J Hassan, Kaled M Zimmo, Mohammed W Zimmo, Khaled M K Ismail, Erik Fosse, Hasan Alsalman, Åse Vikanes, Katariina Laine
{"title":"Evaluation of Accuracy of Episiotomy Incision in a Governmental Maternity Unit in Palestine: An Observational Study.","authors":"Hadil Y Ali-Masri,&nbsp;Sahar J Hassan,&nbsp;Kaled M Zimmo,&nbsp;Mohammed W Zimmo,&nbsp;Khaled M K Ismail,&nbsp;Erik Fosse,&nbsp;Hasan Alsalman,&nbsp;Åse Vikanes,&nbsp;Katariina Laine","doi":"10.1155/2018/6345497","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Episiotomy should be cut at certain internationally set criteria to minimize risk of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) and anal incontinence. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of cutting right mediolateral episiotomy (RMLE). An institution-based prospective cohort study was undertaken in a Palestinian maternity unit from February 1, to December 31, 2016. Women having vaginal birth at gestational weeks ≥24 or birthweight ≥1000 g and with intended RMLE were eligible (<i>n</i>=240). Transparent plastic films were used to trace sutured episiotomy in relation to the midline within 24-hour postpartum. These were used to measure incisions' distance from midline, and suture angles were used to classify the incisions into RMLE, lateral, and midline episiotomy groups. Clinical characteristics and association with OASIS were compared between episiotomy groups. A subanalysis by profession (midwife or trainee doctor) was done. Less than 30% were RMLE of which 59% had a suture angle of <40° (equivalent to an incision angle of <60°). There was a trend of higher OASIS rate, but not statistically significant, in the midline (16%, OR: 1.7, CI: 0.61-4.5) and unclassified groups (16.5%, OR: 1.8, CI: 0.8-4.3) than RMLE and lateral groups (10%). No significant differences were observed between episiotomies cut by doctors and midwives. Most of the assessed episiotomies lacked the agreed criteria for RMLE and had less than optimal incision angle which increases risk of severe complications. A well-structured training program on how to cut episiotomy is recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":19439,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics and Gynecology International","volume":"2018 ","pages":"6345497"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2018/6345497","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics and Gynecology International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6345497","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Episiotomy should be cut at certain internationally set criteria to minimize risk of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) and anal incontinence. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of cutting right mediolateral episiotomy (RMLE). An institution-based prospective cohort study was undertaken in a Palestinian maternity unit from February 1, to December 31, 2016. Women having vaginal birth at gestational weeks ≥24 or birthweight ≥1000 g and with intended RMLE were eligible (n=240). Transparent plastic films were used to trace sutured episiotomy in relation to the midline within 24-hour postpartum. These were used to measure incisions' distance from midline, and suture angles were used to classify the incisions into RMLE, lateral, and midline episiotomy groups. Clinical characteristics and association with OASIS were compared between episiotomy groups. A subanalysis by profession (midwife or trainee doctor) was done. Less than 30% were RMLE of which 59% had a suture angle of <40° (equivalent to an incision angle of <60°). There was a trend of higher OASIS rate, but not statistically significant, in the midline (16%, OR: 1.7, CI: 0.61-4.5) and unclassified groups (16.5%, OR: 1.8, CI: 0.8-4.3) than RMLE and lateral groups (10%). No significant differences were observed between episiotomies cut by doctors and midwives. Most of the assessed episiotomies lacked the agreed criteria for RMLE and had less than optimal incision angle which increases risk of severe complications. A well-structured training program on how to cut episiotomy is recommended.

巴勒斯坦政府妇产科会阴切开术切口准确性评价:一项观察性研究。
外阴切开术应按照一定的国际标准进行,以尽量减少产科肛门括约肌损伤(OASIS)和肛门失禁的风险。本研究的目的是评估切割右外阴中外侧切开术(RMLE)的准确性。2016年2月1日至12月31日,在巴勒斯坦产科病房进行了一项基于机构的前瞻性队列研究。在妊娠周≥24周阴道分娩或出生体重≥1000 g且RMLE预期的妇女入选(n=240)。术后24小时内用透明塑料膜追踪缝合后的会阴切开术与中线的关系。这些用于测量切口到中线的距离,并使用缝线角度将切口分为RMLE、外侧和中线会阴切开术组。比较两组患者的临床特点及与OASIS的关系。按职业(助产士或实习医生)进行亚分析。RMLE不到30%,其中59%缝线角度为
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
Obstetrics and Gynecology International
Obstetrics and Gynecology International OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Obstetrics and Gynecology International is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that aims to provide a forum for scientists and clinical professionals working in obstetrics and gynecology. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to obstetrics, maternal-fetal medicine, general gynecology, gynecologic oncology, uro-gynecology, reproductive medicine and infertility, reproductive endocrinology, and sexual 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