Antepartum use of Epi-No birth trainer for preventing perineal trauma: systematic review
- 1.4k Downloads
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.
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.
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.
Epi-No birth trainer is a device that did not reduce episiotomy rates and had no influence on reducing perineal tears.
KeywordsPerineal trauma Systematic review Epi-No Episiotomy
We would like to thank Nieck Pouwels for helping us with the German translation of the Hillebrenner data.
Conflicts of interest
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
The authors declare that no funding was provided to perform this systematic review.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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