International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 12, pp 1621–1627 | Cite as

National survey of perineal trauma and its subsequent management in the United Kingdom

  • G. Thiagamoorthy
  • A. Johnson
  • R. Thakar
  • A. H. Sultan
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

Perineal trauma affects approximately 350,000 women per annum in the United Kingdom (UK) and is associated with considerable morbidity. Symptoms are most severe following obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) compared with other grades of perineal trauma. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) guidelines indicate that the rate of OASIS is 1 % of vaginal deliveries. In 2011, the RCOG implemented the “Maternity Dashboard” so that units could benchmark their performance against national standards of which OASIS is a component. Our primary objective was to establish the national rate of OASIS and audit variations in incidence and management of obstetric perineal trauma.


We carried out a questionnaire-based survey auditing national practice. Every UK maternity unit was contacted regarding perineal outcomes after all deliveries between January 2009 and January 2010.


215 of the 265 units in the UK responded (81 %). 692,259 of the 790,197 deliveries in the UK for the same period were sampled (88 %). 75 % delivered vaginally. The median national OASIS rate was 2.85 % (0–8 %). 20.2 % of women delivering vaginally had episiotomies; none were midline. 12.4 % of second-degree tears were not repaired in low-risk units compared with 5.9 % in high-risk units. 57.1 % of units used the perineal trauma classification of the RCOG.


This study provides comprehensive data regarding the incidence and management of perineal trauma across the UK. Clinicians and policy-makers, both local and at the RCOG, can devise up-to-date realistic guidelines on the anticipated rate of OASIS and help to assess the compliancy of units with guidelines on the appropriate management of perineal trauma.


OASIS Perineal trauma Third-degree tears Midwives Obstetricians 



We would like to thank Dr van Delft and Miss Sivasubramaniam.

Ethical approval

This study did not need ethical approval as it was a survey of hospital maternity statistics.



Conflict of interest

G. Thiagamoorthy: has received funding from Astellas to attend conferences and an IUGA FRN grant to set up a multicentre research project; A. Johnson: none; R. Thakar: speaker for Astellas and Pfizer; A.H. Sultan: speaker for Astellas and Pfizer.


  1. 1.
    Kettle C, Hills RK, Jones P, Darbya L, Gray R, Johanson R (2002) Continuous versus interrupted perineal repair with standard or rapidly absorbed sutures after spontaneous vaginal birth: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 359:2217–2223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Signorello L, Harlow B, Chekos A, Repke J (2001) Postpartum sexual functioning and its relationship to perineal trauma: A retrospective cohort study of primiparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:881–890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fenner DE, Genberg B, Brahma P, Marek L, DeLancey JOL, Rogers R (2003) Fecal and urinary incontinence after vaginal delivery with anal sphincter disruption in an obstetrics unit in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(6):1543–1550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Macarthur AJ, Macarthur C (2004) Incidence, severity and determinants of perineal pain after vaginal delivery: a prospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(4):1199–1204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Bartram CI (1994) Third degree obstetric anal sphincter tears: risk factors and outcome of primary repair. BMJ 308(6933):887–891PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dudding TC, Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA (2005) Obstetric anal sphincter injury: incidence, risk factors, and management. Ann Surg 247(2):224–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andrews V, Sultan AH, Thakar R, Jones P (2000) Occult anal sphincters—myth or reality? Br J Obstet Gynecol 113:195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Institute of Health and Clinical excellence (2007) Intrapartum care: care of health women and their babies during childbirth. NICE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2007) Management of third and fourth degree perineal tears. Green Top Guidelines, no. 29. RCOG, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2008) Maternity dashboard clinical performance and governance and score card. Good Practice, no. 7. RCOG, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Department of Health (2007) On the state of public health: annual report of the chief medical officer 2006. Chapter 6: Intrapartum-related deaths: 500 missed opportunities. Stationery Office
  12. 12.
    Office for National Statistics (2012) Available at: Accessed 30 April 2013
  13. 13.
    Laine K, Skjeldestad F, Sandvik L, Staff A (2012) Incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries after training to protect the perineum: cohort study. BMJ Open 2:e001649PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Groutz A, Hasson J, Wengier A, Gold R, Skornick-Rapaport A, Lessing J, Gordon D (2011) Third- and fourth-degree perineal tears: prevalence and risk factors in the third millennium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(4):347.e1–347.e4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Andrews V, Sultan AH, Thakar R, Jones PW (2006) Occult anal sphincter injuries—myth or reality? BJOG 113(2):195–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Andrews V, Thakar R, Sultan AH (2009) Structured hands-on training in repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS): an audit of clinical practice. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20(11):1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laine K, Skjeldestad FE, Sanda B, Horne H, Spydslaug A, Staff A (2011) Prevalence and risk factors for anal incontinence after obstetric anal sphincter rupture. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 90(4):319–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malouf AJ, Norton CS, Engel AF, Nicholls RJ, Kamm MA (2000) Long term results of overlapping anterior anal-sphincter repair for obstetric trauma. Lancet 355:260–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brown HW, Wexner SD, Lukacz ES (2013) Factors associated with care seeking among women with accidental bowel leakage. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 19(2):66–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fleming VE, Hagen S, Niven C (2003) Does perineal suturing make a difference? The suns trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 110(7):684–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Norton C, Christiansen J, Butler U et al (2002) Anal incontinence. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury R, Wein A (eds). Incontinence, 2nd edn. Health Publications, Plymouth, pp 985–1044Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roos AM, Thakar R, Sultan AH (2010) Outcome of primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS): does the grade of tear matter? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36(3):368–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mahony R, Behan M, Daly L et al (2007) Internal anal sphincter defect influences continence outcome following obstetric anal sphincter injury. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196(3):217.e1–217.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Leeuw JW, Vierhout ME, Struijk PC et al (2001) Anal sphincter damage after vaginal delivery: functional outcome and risk factors for fecal incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80(9):830–834PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reinbold D, Eboue C, Morello R et al (2011) From the impact of French guidelines to reduce episiotomy’s rate. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 41(1):62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Asch D, Jedrziewski M, Christakis N (1997) Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 50:1129–1136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cook J, Dickinson H, Eccles M (2009) Response rates in postal surveys of health care professionals between 1996 and 2005: an observational study. Bio Med Cent Health Serv Res 9:160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Treece E, Treece J (1986) Elements of research in nursing. Mosby, St. Louis, MOGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bowling A (2004) Data collection methods in quantitative research: questionnaires, interviews and their response rates. In: Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. Open University Press, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sultan AH, Stanton SL (1996) Preserving the pelvic floor and perineum during childbirth—elective caesarean section? BJOG 103:731–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Thiagamoorthy
    • 1
  • A. Johnson
    • 1
  • R. Thakar
    • 1
  • A. H. Sultan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyCroydon University HospitalCroydonUK

Personalised recommendations