Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cutting an episiotomy at 60 degrees: how good are we?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Episiotomy is regarded as the most common maternal obstetric surgical procedure. It is associated with a significant increase in blood loss, lower pelvic floor muscle strength, dyspareunia, and perineal pain compared with a perineal tear. We tested the hypothesis that all doctors and midwives can perform an episiotomy when prompted to, specifically cut at 60° from the midline (in a simulation model).

Methods

Doctors and midwives attending the BMFMS Annual Meeting (2014), Croydon Perineal Trauma Course and staff at Poole General Hospital were invited to cut a paper replica of the perineum with a commonly used episiotomy incision pad. Participants were prompted to cut an episiotomy at 60° to the perineal midline with the anus as a reference point. The angles and distances were measured using protractors and rulers. A 58–62° band was deemed acceptable to account for measurement errors.

Results

A total of 106 delegates participated. Only 15 % of doctors and midwives cut an episiotomy between 58 and 62°. Over one third (36 %) cut the episiotomy between 55 and 65° (inclusive). Nearly two thirds either underestimated the angle (<55°; 44 %), or overestimated the angle (>66°; 18 %). Thirty-six and 7.5 % of episiotomies were cut at <50 and >70° respectively. The origination point of the episiotomy was 5 mm away from the midline (IQR 1–8 mm).

Conclusions

This original observational study shows that doctors and midwives were poor at cutting at the prompted episiotomy angle of 60°. This highlights the need to develop structured training programmes to improve the visual accuracy of estimating angles or the use of fixed angle devices to help improve the ability to estimate the desired angle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

OASIs:

Obstetric anal sphincter injuries

NICE:

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

References

  1. De Leeuw JW, de Wit C, Kuijken JP, Bruinse HW (2008) Mediolateral episiotomy reduces the risk for anal sphincter injury during operative vaginal delivery. BJOG 115(1):104–108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01554.x

  2. Seijmonsbergen-Schermers AE, Geerts CC, Prins M, van Diem MT, Klomp T, Lagro-Janssen AL, de Jonge A (2013) The use of episiotomy in a low-risk population in the Netherlands: a secondary analysis. Birth 40(4):247–255. doi:10.1111/birt.12060

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carroli G, Mignini L (2009) Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1, CD000081. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fodstad K, Staff AC, Laine K (2014) Effect of different episiotomy techniques on perineal pain and sexual activity 3 months after delivery. Int Urogynecol J. doi:10.1007/s00192-014-2401-2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Coats PM, Chan KK, Wilkins M, Beard RJ (1980) A comparison between midline and mediolateral episiotomies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 87(5):408–412

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bliss DZMA, Whitehead WE, Chiarioni G, Emmanuel A, Santoro GA, Zbar A, Peden-McAlpine C, Northwood M, Slieker-Ten Hove M, Berghmans B, Mimura T (2013) Assessment and conservative management of faecal incontinence and quality of life in adults. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A (eds) Incontinence, 5th edn. International Consultation on Urological Diseases and European Association of Urology, Paris, pp 1444–1485

    Google Scholar 

  7. Madoff RD, Laurberg S, Lehur P, Matzel KE, Mellgren AF, Mimura T, O’Connell PR, Varma MG (2013) Surgery for faecal incontinence. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A (eds) Incontinence. 5th edn. International Consultation on Urological Diseases and European Association of Urology, Paris, pp 1487–1526

    Google Scholar 

  8. Andrews V, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Jones PW (2005) Are mediolateral episiotomies actually mediolateral? BJOG 112(8):1156–1158. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00645.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eogan M, Daly L, O’Connell PR, O’Herlihy C (2006) Does the angle of episiotomy affect the incidence of anal sphincter injury? BJOG 113(2):190–194. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00835.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stedenfeldt M, Pirhonen J, Blix E, Wilsgaard T, Vonen B, Oian P (2012) Episiotomy characteristics and risks for obstetric anal sphincter injuries: a case–control study. BJOG 119(6):724–730. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03293.x

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kalis V, Karbanova J, Horak M, Lobovsky L, Kralickova M, Rokyta Z (2008) The incision angle of mediolateral episiotomy before delivery and after repair. Intl J Gynaecol Obstet 103(1):5–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.05.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kalis V, Landsmanova J, Bednarova B, Karbanova J, Laine K, Rokyta Z (2011) Evaluation of the incision angle of mediolateral episiotomy at 60 degrees. Intl J Gynaecol Obstet 112(3):220–224. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.09.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Freeman RM, Hollands HJ, Barron LF, Kapoor DS (2014) Cutting a mediolateral episiotomy at the correct angle: evaluation of a new device, the Episcissors-60. Med Devices (Auckl) 7:23–28. doi:10.2147/MDER.S60056

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Patel RP, Ubale SM (2014) Evaluation of the angled Episcissors-60((R)) episiotomy scissors in spontaneous vaginal deliveries. Med Devices (Auckl) 7:253–256. doi:10.2147/MDER.S66901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wong KW, Ravindran K, Thomas JM, Andrews V (2014) Mediolateral episiotomy: are trained midwives and doctors approaching it from a different angle? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 174:46–50. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.12.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tincello DG, Williams A, Fowler GE, Adams EJ, Richmond DH, Alfirevic Z (2003) Differences in episiotomy technique between midwives and doctors. BJOG 110(12):1041–1044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fodstad K, Laine K, Staff AC (2013) Different episiotomy techniques, postpartum perineal pain, and blood loss: an observational study. Int Urogynecol J 24(5):865–872. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1960-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. NICE (2007) Intrapartum care—care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth, vol CG55. NICE, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  19. Silf K, Woodhead N, Kelly J, Fryer A, Kettle C, Ismail KM (2015) Evaluation of accuracy of mediolateral episiotomy incisions using a training model. Midwifery. 31(1):197–200. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2014.08.009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Eliashiv OGS, Weiner E, Sadan O, Golan A, Condrea A (2013) Mediolateral episiotomy—is the angle of incision performed at crowning the correct and desired one? Int Urogynecol J 24(1):S68

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

M. Naidu, S. Evans, L. Vinayakrao, A.H. Sultan, R. Thakar: none. D.S. Kapoor: co-inventor of the EPISCISSORS-60 episiotomy scissors. He is a shareholder of Medinvent Ltd, the company that owns the commercial rights to the scissors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Croydon University Hospital, 530, London Road, Croydon, CR7 7YE, UK

    Madhu Naidu, Ranee Thakar & Abdul H. Sultan

  2. The Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust, Bournemouth, UK

    Dharmesh S. Kapoor

  3. Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Poole, UK

    Sarah Evans & Latha Vinayakarao

Authors
  1. Madhu Naidu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dharmesh S. Kapoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Latha Vinayakarao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ranee Thakar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abdul H. Sultan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdul H. Sultan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Naidu, M., Kapoor, D.S., Evans, S. et al. Cutting an episiotomy at 60 degrees: how good are we?. Int Urogynecol J 26, 813–816 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2625-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2625-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation