Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 1429–1436 | Cite as

Antepartum use of Epi-No birth trainer for preventing perineal trauma: systematic review

  • Luiz Gustavo Oliveira BritoEmail author
  • Cristine Homsi Jorge Ferreira
  • Geraldo Duarte
  • Antonio Alberto Nogueira
  • Alessandra Cristina Marcolin
Review Article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

In this systematic review we aimed to assess if the Epi-No birth trainer used during antepartum could prevent perineal trauma in nulliparous women.

Methods

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scielo, and Conference abstracts, looking for randomized controlled studies (RCT). High heterogeneity (i2 > 50 %) was corrected with random models. All studies were analyzed according to their quality and risk of bias. Nulliparous women or women whose previous pregnancy ended before 21 weeks’ gestation were included and the main outcome measures were: episiotomy rates, perineal tears, severe (3rd/4th) perineal tears, and intact perineum.

Results

Five studies were included (1,369 participants) for systematic review and two of them (932 participants) were eligible for meta-analysis. Epi-No did not reduce episiotomy rates (RR 0.92 [95%CI 0.75–1.13], n = 710, p =0.44; two studies; fixed model) and second stage of labor (MD −12.50 [95%CI −29.62, –4.62], n = 162, p = 0.54; one study; fixed model), and did not increase intact perineum (RR 1.15 [95 % CI 0.81–1.64], n = 705, p = 0.43; two studies; random model). No influence of Epi-No on reducing all perineal tears (RR 0.99 [95%CI 0.84–1.17], n = 705, p = 0.93, two studies; fixed model) or severe (3rd/4th) perineal tears (RR 1.31 [95%CI 0.72–2.37], n = 705, p = 0.38, two studies; fixed model). Mean birthweight of the Epi-No group was higher than that of the control group in both studies, with no statistical significance.

Conclusion

Epi-No birth trainer is a device that did not reduce episiotomy rates and had no influence on reducing perineal tears.

Keywords

Perineal trauma Systematic review Epi-No Episiotomy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Nieck Pouwels for helping us with the German translation of the Hillebrenner data.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Authors’ participation

L.G. Brito: project development, data collection/analysis, manuscript writing/editing; A.C. Marcolin: project development, data collection, manuscript editing; C.H. Ferreira: manuscript writing/editing; G. Duarte, and A.A. Nogueira: project development, manuscript editing

Funding

The authors declare that no funding was provided to perform this systematic review.

References

  1. 1.
    Oliveira LS, Brito LG, Quintana SM, Duarte G, Marcolin AC (2014) Perineal trauma after vaginal delivery in healthy pregnant women. Sao Paulo Med J 132(4):227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borrelo-France D, Burgio KL, Richter HE et al (2006) Fecal and urinary incontinence in primiparous women. Obstet Gynecol 108(4):863–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carroli G, Mignini L (2009) Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD000081PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Christianson LM, Bovberg VE, McDavitt EC, Hullfish KL (2003) Risk factors for perineal injury during delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:255–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krause HG, Natukunda H, Singasi I, Hicks SS, Goh JT (2014) Treatment-seeking behaviour and social status of women with pelvic organ prolapse, 4th-degree obstetric tears, and obstetric fistula in western Uganda. Int Urogynecol J 25(11):1555–1559 doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2442-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beckmann MM, Stock OM (2013) Antenatal perineal massage for reducing perineal trauma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD005123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Assheim V, Nilsen AB, Lukasse M, Reinar LM (2011) Perineal techniques during the second stage of labour for reducing perineal trauma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD006672Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hillebrenner J, Wagenpfeil S, Schuchardt R, Schelling M, Schneider KT (2001) Initial experiences with primiparous women using a new kind of Epi-no labor trainer. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 205(1):12–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moher C, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ruckhaberle E, Jundt K, Bauerle M et al (2009) Prospective randomized multicenter trial with the birth trainer EPI-NO for the prevention of perineal trauma. ANZOG 49:478–483Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shek KL, Chantarasorn V, Langer S, Phipps H, Dietz HP (2011) Does the Epi-No birth trainer reduce levator trauma? A randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 22:1521–1528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dietz HP, Langer S, Kamisan Atan I, Shek KL, Caudwell-Hall J, Guzman Rojas R (2014) Does the Epi-No prevent pelvic floor trauma? A multicentre randomised controlled trial. ICS Abstracts. Available at: http://www.ics.org/Abstracts/Publish/218/000394.pdf
  13. 13.
    Kok J, Tan KH, Koh S et al (2004) Antenatal use of a novel vaginal birth training device by term primiparous women in Singapore. Singap Med J 45(7):318–323Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kovacs GT, Health P, Healther C (2004) First Australian trial of the birth-training device Epi-No: a highly significantly increased chance of an intact perineum. ANZJOG 44:347–348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (2011) Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org
  16. 16.
    Nakamura MU, Sass N, Elito Junior J et al (2014) Parturient perineal distensibility tolerance assessed by EPI-No: an observational study. Einstein 12(1):22–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kubotani JS, Moron AF, Araujo-Junior E, Zanetti MR, Soares VC, Elito-Junior J (2014) Perineal distensibility using Epi-No in twin pregnancies: comparative study with singleton pregnancies. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2014:124206. doi: 10.1155/2014/124206 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Edozien L, Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell D et al (2014) Impact of third- and fourth-degree perineal tears at first birth on subsequent pregnancy outcomes: a cohort study. BJOG 121(13):1695–1703. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12886 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pergialiotis V, Vlachos D, Protopapas A, Pappa K, Vlachos G (2014) Risk factors for severe perineal lacerations during childbirth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 125(1):6–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Manzanares S, Cobo D, Moreno-Martinez MD, Sanchez-Gila M, Pineda A (2013) Risk of episiotomy and perineal lacerations recurring after first delivery. Birth 40(4):307–311CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cristine Homsi Jorge Ferreira
    • 2
  • Geraldo Duarte
    • 1
  • Antonio Alberto Nogueira
    • 1
  • Alessandra Cristina Marcolin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ribeirão Preto School of MedicineUniversity of Sao PauloRibeirão PretoBrazil
  2. 2.Physical Therapy Course, Ribeirão Preto School of MedicineUniversity of Sao PauloRibeirao PretoBrazil

Personalised recommendations