Episiotomy in modern clinical practice: friend or foe?
- 39 Downloads
The Cochrane library first published a meta-analysis in 2000 on the role of the episiotomy in modern clinical practice, which concluded that only a policy of selective episiotomy is acceptable with evidence-based improvement in maternal health compared with routine episiotomy. Many years later, however, the new version of the Cochrane meta-analysis changed the previous recommendations in that the selective use of episiotomy could not be considered beneficial in all cases. A selective policy is associated with a statistically significant reduction in severe perineal and/or vaginal trauma, whereas routine episiotomy seems to protect against these complications only after instrumental deliveries. Both in the short and the long term, selective medio-lateral episiotomy has no additional beneficial effects without clear evidence of causing harm to the mother or baby.
KeywordsAnal incontinence Episiotomy Urinary incontinence Pelvic floor dysfunction Vaginal delivery
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 1.Carroli G, Belizan J. Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000081.Google Scholar
- 2.Carroli G, Mignini L. Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1:CD000081.Google Scholar
- 3.Jiang H, Qian X, Carroli G, Garner P. Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:CD000081.Google Scholar
- 5.World Health Organization. Appropriate technology for birth. Lancet. 1985;2:436–7.Google Scholar
- 7.Third- and fourth-degree perineal tears, Management (2015) Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: Green-top Guideline No. 29.Google Scholar
- 12.Van Bavel J, Hukkelhoven CWPM, de Vries C, Papatsonis DNM, de Vogel J, Roovers JWR, et al. The effectiveness of mediolateral episiotomy in preventing obstetric anal sphincter injuries during operative vaginal delivery: a ten-year analysis of a national registry. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:407–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar