International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 1279–1285 | Cite as

Hands on or hands off the perineum: a survey of care of the perineum in labour (HOOPS)

  • Ruben TrochezEmail author
  • Malcolm Waterfield
  • Robert M. Freeman
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

There seems to be a temporal association between increasing use of “hands off” the perineum in labour and reduced use of episiotomy with an increasing rate of anal sphincter injuries. We aimed to determine how common the practice of “hands off” the perineum is.


An observational postal questionnaire study of 1,000 midwives in England in which the main objective was to obtain an estimate of the number of midwives practising either “hands on” or “hands off” was conducted.


Six hundred and seven questionnaires were returned; 299 (49.3%, 95% CI 45.2–53.3%) midwives prefer the “hands-off” method. Less-experienced midwives were more likely to prefer the “hands off” (72% vs. 41.4%, p < 0.001). A higher proportion of midwives in the “hands-off” group would never do an episiotomy (37.1% vs. 24.4%, p = 0.001) for indications other than fetal distress.


The “hands off” the perineum technique is prevalent in the management of labour. We hypothesise that a possible consequence might be an increased incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injury.


Episiotomy Hands off the perineum Obstetric anal sphincter injury Perineal support Third-degree tears 



We thank all the midwives who participated in the survey and Paula Brockman and Angela King for their help with data input.

Details of ethics approval

Approval for the study was sought and obtained from the Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust R&D Department, who deemed it exempt from Ethics Committee approval.


The study was funded by the Plymouth Urogynaecology Research Fund.

Conflict of interest

RM Freeman is editor of the International Urogynecology Journal and Lead for the Peninsula Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (PenCLAHRC). M Waterfield and R Trochez have no conflict of interest to declare.


  1. 1.
    Laine K, Pirhonen T, Rolland R, Pirhonen J (2008) Decreasing the incidence of anal sphincter tears during delivery. Obstet Gynecol 111:1053–1057PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Revicky V, Nirmal D, Mukhopadhyay S, Morris E, Nieto J (2010) Could a mediolateral episiotomy prevent obstetric anal sphincter injury? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150:142–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Raisanen S, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K, Gissler M, Heinonen S (2009) The increased incidence of obstetric anal sphincter rupture – an emerging trend in Finland. Prev Med 49:535–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Laine K, Gissler M, Pirhonen J (2009) Changing incidence of anal sphincter tears in four Nordic countries through the last decades. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 146:71–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Dillen J, Spaans M, van Keijsteren W et al (2010) A prospective multicenter audit of labour-room episiotomy and anal sphincter injury assessment in the Netherlands. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 108:97–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mous M, Muller SA, de Leeuw JW (2008) Long term effects of anal sphincter rupture during vaginal delivery: faecal incontinence and sexual complaints. BJOG 115:234–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nordenstam J, Mellgren A, Altman D et al (2008) Immediate or delayed repair of obstetric anal sphincter tears – a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 115:857–865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fernando RJ, Sultan AH, Kettle C, Radley S, Jones P, O’Brien PM (2006) Repair techniques for obstetric anal sphincter injuries: a randomised controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 107:1261–1268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richter HE, Fielding JR, Bradley CS et al (2006) Endoanal ultrasound findings and fecal incontinence symptoms in women with and without recognised anal sphincter tears. Obstet Gynecol 108:1394–1401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aukee P, Sundstrom H, Kairaluoma M (2006) The role of mediolateral episiotomy during labour: analysis of risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter tears. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85:856–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jander C, Lyrenas S (2001) Third and fourth degree perineal tears – predictor factors in a referral hospital. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80:229–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dahl C, Kjolhede P (2006) Obstetric anal sphincter rupture in older primiparous women: a case-control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85:1252–1258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sheiner E, Levy A, Walfisch A, Hallak M, Mazor M (2005) Third degree perineal tears in a university medical centre where midline episiotomies are not performed. Arch Gynecol Obstet 271:307–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spydslaug A, Trogstad L, Skrondal A, Eskild A (2005) Recurrent risk of anal sphincter laceration among women with vaginal deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 105:307–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Samarasekera D, Bekhit M, Preston J, Speakman C (2009) Risk factors for anal sphincter disruption during childbirth. Langenbecks Arch Surg 394:535–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Leeuw J, Struijk P, Vierhout M, Wallenburg H (2001) Risk factors for third degree perineal ruptures during delivery. BJOG 108:383–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Williams A (2003) Third degree perineal tears: risk factors and outcome after primary repair. J Obstet Gynaecol 23:611–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Andrews V, Sultan A, Thakar R, Jones P (2006) Risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury: a prospective study. Birth 33:117–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pirhonen J, Grenman S, Haadem K et al (1998) Frequency of anal sphincter rupture at delivery in Sweden and Finland – result of difference in manual help to the baby’s head. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 77:974–977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parnell C, Langhoff-Roos J, Moller H (2001) Conduct of labour and rupture of the sphincter ani. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80:256–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Samuelsson E, Ladfors L, Wennerholm U, Gareberg B, Nyberg K, Hagberg H (2000) Anal sphincter tears: prospective study of obstetric risk factors. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 107:926–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2007) CG55 Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. RCOG, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Munro J, Jokinen M (2008) Midwifery practice guideline: care of the perineum. RCM evidence based guidelines for midwifery-led care in labour, 4th edn. Royal College of Midwives, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCandlish R, Bowler U, van Asten H et al (1998) A randomised controlled trial of care of the perineum during second stage of normal labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105:1262–1272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mayerhofer K, Bodner-Adler B, Bodner K et al (2002) Traditional care of the perineum during birth: a prospective, randomised, multicenter study of 1076 women. J Reprod Med 47:477–482PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hals E, Oian P, Pirhonen T et al (2010) A multicenter interventional programme to reduce the incidence of anal sphincter tears. Obstet Gynecol 116:901–908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carroli G, Mignini L (2009) Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, issue 1. Art. no.:CD000081. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub2
  28. 28.
    Andrews V, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Jones PW (2005) Are mediolateral episiotomies actually mediolateral? BJOG 112:1156–1158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eogan M, Daly L, O’Connell PR, O’Herlihy C (2006) Does the angle of episiotomy affect the incidence of anal sphincter injury? BJOG 113:190–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kalis V, Karbanova J, Horak M, Lobovsky L, Kralickova M, Rokyta Z (2008) The incision angle of mediolateral episiotomy before delivery and after repair. Int J Gynecol Obstet 103:5–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nakash RA, Hutton JL, Jorstad-Stein EC, Gates S, Lamb SE (2006) Maximising response to postal questionnaires – a systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:5. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, et al (2009) Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, issue 3. Art. no.: MR000008. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruben Trochez
    • 1
    Email author
  • Malcolm Waterfield
    • 2
  • Robert M. Freeman
    • 3
  1. 1.The Chilterns, Women’s HealthSouthmead HospitalBristolUK
  2. 2.Maternity Unit, Level 7Derriford HospitalPlymouth PL6 8DHUK
  3. 3.Locality Lead for Peninsula Collaboration for Applied Health Research and CareNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Plymouth PL6 8DHUK

Personalised recommendations