Download PDF
Am J Perinatol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2716-2056
Original Article

Perineal Lacerations and Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries in Diet-Controlled Gestational Diabetes: A Large Cohort Study

Authors

  • Tamar Eshkoli 

    1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

  • Karin Amit

    1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

  • Adva Bugaiski-Shaked

    1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

  • Liane Stein

    1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

  • Yael Baumfeld 

    1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

  • Adi Y. Weintraub

    1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Soroka University Medical Center, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel

  • Reut Rotem 

    2   Department of Urogynaecology, Cork University Maternity Hospital, Cork, Ireland
    3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, affiliated with the Hebrew University School of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel
Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Objective

Perineal lacerations are a common obstetric complication influenced by maternal and intrapartum factors. While gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes, the impact of diet-controlled GDM (GDMA1) on perineal injury remains unclear. This study explores the relationship between GDMA1 and perineal lacerations in vaginal deliveries.

Study Design

A population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary medical center (1988–2016), including all vaginal deliveries beyond 24 weeks gestation. Women with GDMA1 were compared with those without diabetes. The primary outcomes were the rates and severity of perineal lacerations. Univariate analysis was followed by multivariable analysis, adjusting for relevant confounders.

Results

Among 250,171 deliveries, 9,640 (3.8%) were in women with GDMA1. Women with GDMA1 were significantly older and delivered earlier than non-diabetic women, although both groups delivered at term. Rates of instrumental deliveries and episiotomy were significantly higher in the GDMA1 group, and newborns were significantly larger. Perineal lacerations occurred more frequently in women with GDMA1 compared with non-diabetic women (21.2 vs. 18.8%; p < 0.001), with first-degree tears accounting for most of the difference. In multivariate analysis, GDMA1 was independently associated with an increased risk of perineal tears (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06–1.17), while mediolateral episiotomy was associated with a reduced risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS; OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53–0.87).

Conclusion

GDMA1 is associated with a modestly increased risk of perineal lacerations, predominantly first-degree tears, but does not significantly impact severe perineal trauma. These findings suggest that women with GDMA1 can be reassured regarding the risk of severe perineal trauma. Nonetheless, individualized risk assessment remains important in guiding delivery management, particularly in the presence of other contributing risk factors.

Key Points

  • GDMA1 mildly increases perineal tear risk, mainly first-degree lacerations.

  • GDMA1 is not independently linked to a higher risk of OASIS.

  • Women with GDMA1 can be reassured; individualized delivery planning is key.

Keywords

gestational diabetes mellitus - perineal laceration - obstetric anal sphincter injury - mediolateral episiotomy - vaginal birth

Data Availability Statement

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software, version 23.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL).


Data are available upon request.


Contributors' Statement

T.E.: protocol development, data collection and management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing; K.A.: protocol development, data collection and management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing; A.B.-S.: data collection and management, manuscript writing/editing; L.S.: data collection and management, manuscript writing/editing; Y.B.: data collection and management, manuscript writing/editing; A.Y.W.: protocol development, manuscript writing/editing; R.R.: data collection and management, manuscript writing/editing.


Ethical Approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board of Soroka University Medical Center (approval number: 0275–19-SOR).


Informed Consent

Consent to Participate: As the study was based on patient records, informed consent was waived.


Consent for Publication: As the study was based on patient records, informed consent was waived.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 09 July 2025

Accepted: 02 October 2025

Article published online:
16 October 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA