Advertisement

Advanced age is a risk factor for higher grade perineal lacerations during delivery in nulliparous women

  • Amadeus Hornemann
  • Axel Kamischke
  • Doerte W. Luedders
  • Daniel A. Beyer
  • Klaus Diedrich
  • Michael K. Bohlmann
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To identify risk factors for the development of severe perineal lacerations and to give recommendations for their prevention in nulliparous women.

Methods

A retrospective case–control analysis of deliveries at our University Hospital was performed. Multiparae, Caesarean sections, twin pregnancies, fetal breech position and preterm deliveries were excluded. Univariate and multivariate step forward regression analyses were performed; correlations between contributors were further analyzed by Spearman Rank Correlation. Differences between the degree of lacerations and maternal age were further analyzed with Friedman ANOVA followed by Dunn’s Multiple Comparison Test.

Results

A total of 2,967 deliveries fitted our inclusion criteria, 50 (1.7%) mothers had higher-grade lacerations. Mediolateral and median episiotomy, advanced maternal age, vaginal operative delivery, higher fetal birth weight and abnormal cephalic presentation were associated with severe lacerations.

Conclusions

Advanced maternal age plays an important role in the development of anal sphincter tears in nulliparous women. Episiotomy and operative vaginal deliveries should be restrictively performed when possible. To identify further preventive approaches in patients with accumulated risk factors prospective randomized studies are needed.

Keywords

Vaginal delivery Perineal laceration Risk factors Advanced maternal age 

References

  1. 1.
    Poen AC, Felt-Bersma RJ, Dekker GA, Devillé W, Cuesta MA, Meuwissen SG (1997) Third degree obstetric perineal tears: risk factors and the preventive role of mediolateral episiotomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:563–566PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burrows LJ, Meyn LA, Weber AM (2004) Maternal morbidity associated with vaginal versus cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 103:907–912PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caughey AB, Stotland NE, Washington AE, Escobar GJ (2007) Maternal and obstetric complications of pregnancy are associated with increasing gestational age at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196:155.e1–155.e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brubaker L, Handa VL, Bradley CS, Connolly A, Moalli P, Brown MB, Weber A, Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (2008) Sexual function 6 months after first delivery. Obstet Gynecol 111:1040–1044PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baumann P, Hammoud AO, McNeeley SG, DeRose E, Kudish B, Hendrix S (2007) Factors associated with anal sphincter laceration in 40, 923 primiparous women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:985–990. doi: 10.1007/s00192-006-0274-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Altman D, Ragnar I, Ekström A, Tydén T, Olsson SE (2007) Anal sphincter lacerations and upright delivery postures—a risk analysis from a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:141–146. doi: 10.1007/s00192-006-0123-9 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lunenfeld B (2008) An aging world-demographics and challenges. Gynecol Endocrinol 24:1–3. doi: 10.1080/09513590701718364 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement (2006) Cesarean delivery on maternal request. Obstet Gynecol 107:1386–1397Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ecker JL, Frigoletto FD Jr (2007) Cesarean delivery and the risk-benefit calculus. N Engl J Med 356:885–888. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp068290 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Surkan PJ, Hsieh C-C, Johansson ALV, Dickman PW, Cnattingius S (2004) Reasons for increasing trends in large for gestational age births. Obstet Gynecol 104:720–726PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ben-Haroush A, Hadar E, Chen R, Hod M, Yogev Y (2009) Maternal obesity is a major risk factor for large-for-gestational-infants in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes. Arch Gynecol Obstet 279:539–543. doi: 10.1007/s00404-008-0767-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kramer MS, Morin I, Yang H, Platt RW, Usher R, McNamara H, Joseph KS, Wen SW (2002) Why are babies getting bigger? Temporal trends in fetal growth and its determinants. J Pediatr 141:538–542. doi: 10.1067/mpd.2002.128029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Odlind V, Haglund B, Pakkanen M, Otterblad Olausson P (2003) Deliveries, mothers and newborn infants in Sweden, 1973–2000. Trends in obstetrics as reported to the Swedish medical birth register. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 82:516–528. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2003.00112.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lewis C, Williams AM, Rogers RG (2008) Postpartum anal sphincter lacerations in a population with minimal exposure to episiotomy and operative vaginal delivery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:41–45. doi: 10.1007/s00192-007-0402-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nakai A, Yoshida A, Yamaguchi S, Kawabata I, Hayashi M, Yokota A, Isozaki T, Takeshita T (2006) Incidence and risk factors for severe perineal laceration after vaginal delivery in Japanese patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 274:222–226. doi: 10.1007/s00404-006-0168-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sheiner E, Levy A, Walfisch A, Hallak M, Mazor M (2005) Third degree perineal tears in a university medical center where midline episiotomies are not performed. Arch Gynecol Obstet 271:307–310. doi: 10.1007/s00404-004-0610-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ziadeh SM (2002) Maternal and perinatal outcome in nulliparous women aged 35 and older. Gynecol Obstet Invest 54:6–10. doi: 10.1159/000064689 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Voigt M, Rochow N, Zygmunt M, Straube S, Schneider KT, Briese V (2008) Risks of pregnancy and birth, birth presentation, and mode of delivery in relation to the age of primiparous women. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 212:206–210. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1098732 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uyar Y, Erbay G, Demir BC, Baytur Y (2009) Comparison of the Bishop score, body mass index and transvaginal cervical length in predicting the success of labor induction. Arch Gynecol Obstet [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gülmezoglu AM, Crowther CA, Middleton P (2006) Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004945Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amadeus Hornemann
    • 1
  • Axel Kamischke
    • 1
  • Doerte W. Luedders
    • 1
  • Daniel A. Beyer
    • 1
  • Klaus Diedrich
    • 1
  • Michael K. Bohlmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity Hospital of Schleswig-HolsteinLuebeckGermany

Personalised recommendations