Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(01): 039-043
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739410
Original Article

Episiotomy: Evolution of a Common Obstetric Practice at a Public Hospital

Shena J. Dillon 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
David B. Nelson
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Catherine Y. Spong
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Donald D. McIntire
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Kenneth J. Leveno
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the rate and impact of episiotomy on maternal and newborn outcomes before and after restricted use of episiotomy.

Study Design This population-based observational study used an obstetric database of all deliveries since 1990 that has been maintained with quality checks. Inclusion criteria were vaginal deliveries at ≥37 weeks. Exclusion criteria included fetal malformations, multifetal gestations, or fetal deaths known on arrival to Labor and Delivery. The primary outcomes of interest were episiotomy, perineal lacerations, and newborn outcomes. To evaluate the impact of restrictive episiotomy, data from 1990 to 1997 (35% overall episiotomy rate) were compared with data from 2010 to 2017 (2.5% overall episiotomy rate). Univariable analysis of maternal and infant outcomes were performed comparing the two-time epochs with the Pearson's Chi-squared test.

Results Overall, 268,415 women met inclusion criteria and 49,089 (18.2%) had an episiotomy. The rate of episiotomy decreased from 37% of deliveries in 1990 to 2% in 2017. A total of 82,082 deliveries occurred in the 1990 to 1997 epoch and 57,183 in 2010 to 2017. Indicated use of episiotomy was associated with a significant decrease in third and fourth degree lacerations. Immediate newborn condition (5-minute Apgar's score ≤3 and umbilical artery pH <7.1) and neonatal outcomes (intraventricular hemorrhage [IVH] grade 3/4, positive culture sepsis, neonatal seizures, and neonatal demise) were not significantly different.

Conclusion Selective, indicated use of episiotomy compared with routine was associated with lower rates of third/fourth-degree lacerations with no change in neonatal outcomes. The common obstetric practice of routinely performing episiotomy, presumably to prevent perineal trauma, proved untrue when analyzed over almost three decades.

Key Points

  • Episiotomy use decreased overtime at our institution.

  • Decreased episiotomy use was associated with significant improvement in maternal outcomes.

  • Neonatal outcomes were unchanged suggesting no deleterious effects with restricted episiotomy.

Keywords

episiotomy - third- and fourth-degree lacerations - neonatal outcomes


Publication History

Received: 10 November 2020

Accepted: 03 October 2021

Article published online:
02 December 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Williams JW. Obstetrics: A Text-book for the Use of Students and Practitioners. Appleton and Co, New York, New York 1903
    Google Scholar
  • 2 DeLee JB. The prophylactic forceps operation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1920; 1: 34-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Williams JW, Eastman NJ, Hellman LM. Williams Obstetrics. 13th ed.. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1966
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Nygaard I. New directions in understanding how the pelvic floor prepares for and recovers from vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213 (02) 121-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hartmann K, Viswanathan M, Palmieri R, Gartlehner G, Thorp Jr. J, Lohr KN. Outcomes of routine episiotomy: a systematic review. JAMA 2005; 293 (17) 2141-2148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jiang H, Qian X, Carroli G, Garner P. Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 2 (02) CD000081
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 LaCross A, Groff M, Smaldone A. Obstetric anal sphincter injury and anal incontinence following vaginal birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Midwifery Womens Health 2015; 60 (01) 37-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Leveno KJ, McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Sibley MR, Anderson RJ. Decreased preterm births in an inner-city public hospital. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (03) 578-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. Practice bulletin no. 165: prevention and management of obstetric lacerations at vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128 (01) e1-e15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kozak LJ, Owings MF, Hall MJ. National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2001 annual summary with detailed diagnosis and procedure data. Vital Health Stat 13 2004; (156) 1-198
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Declercq ED, Sakala C, Corry MP, Applebaum S, Risher P. Listening to mothers: report of the first national U.S. survey of women's childbearing experiences. New York, NY: Maternity Center Association; Accessed October 25, 2021 at: https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/health-care/maternity/listening-to-mothers-i_2002.pdf
    Google Scholar