Skip to main content

Passive management of labour may predispose to anal sphincter injury

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To compare anal sphincter damage in two groups of primigravid women in Sydney: one passively managed in public hospitals, the other more actively managed in adjacent private hospitals. Data from actively managed labours at the National Women’s Hospital, Dublin, served as an independent control.

Methods

We carried out a comparative study of third and fourth degree anal sphincter tears in all primiparas delivering at term in the years 2010–2015 in six Sydney public teaching hospitals with data from patients delivered in six adjacent Sydney private hospitals. A second comparator was published data from the National Women’s Hospital, Dublin, where active management is still performed under the direction of midwives. All data was publicly available from www.health.nsw.gov.au/hsnsw. The difference between the two groups: public hospitals were under MANDATORY (NSW DG’s upper case emphasis) direction from the Director General of NSW Health (PD 2010–045 File no 09/638–3) for labour to proceed without any augmentation.

Results

The study comprised 130,000 women. The mean third and fourth degree anal sphincter tear rate was 8.17% for the public hospitals and 1.52% for the private hospitals in the same period (p < 0.0003). Dublin’s rate was 2.6%. There was no significant difference in the emergency Caesarean section rate 2010–2015 (13.7% private vs 12.7% public, 7.9% in National Women’s Hospital Dublin) as well as an increase in epidurals, forceps/ventouse and lower Apgar scores.

Conclusion

Passive management of labour instituted in Sydney public hospitals by government directive seems to be associated with a higher rate of obstetric anal sphincter injuries than was observed with active management. In addition, there were more epidurals, forceps/ventouse, and lower Apgar scores. Our hypothesis of deflexion of the head causing deficient powers is logically appealing, but needs further proof.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Mandatory (NSW DG’s upper case emphasis) direction from the Director General of NSW Health (PD 2010–045 File no 09/638–3).

  2. Hals E, Oian P, Pirhonen T, Gissler M, Hjelle S, Nilsen EB, et al. A multicenter interventional program to reduce the incidence of anal sphincter tears. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(4):901–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181eda77a.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sultan AH, Monga AK, Kumar DL, Stanton SL. Primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter rupture using the overlap technique. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106:318–23.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Centre for Epidemiology and Research, NSW Department of Health New South Wales Mothers and Babies. 2006, NSW Public Health Bulletin 2007;18(s-1).

  5. Hager RM, Daltveit D, Hofoss ST, Nilsen T, Kolaas PØ, et al. Complications of cesarean deliveries: rates and risk factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:428–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Caesarean section. Clinical guideline. London: RCOG Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  7. MacDorman MF, Menacker F, Declerq E. Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends and outcomes. Clin Perinatal. 2008;35:293–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement 2007, Pathways to success: focus on normal birth and reducing Caesarean section rates, www.institute.nhs.uk

  9. Homer C, Brodie P, Leap N. Getting started: what is midwifery continuity of care. Homer C, Brodie P, Leap N (editors) Midwifery continuity of care: a practical guide. Sydney: Elsevier. 2008, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Duff E. Normal birth: ‘commonplace’, ‘according to rule’ or ‘well adjusted’? MIDIRS Midwifery Digest. 2002;12(3):313–4.

    Google Scholar 

  11. World Health Organization. Care in normal birth: a practical guide. Report of a technical working group. Maternal and Newborn Health/Safe Motherhood Unit. 1997, www.who.int/making_pregnancy_safer/ documents/who_frh_msm_9624/en/index.html.

  12. Making normal birth a reality: consensus statement from the Maternity Care Working Party, www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/uploaded-files/JointStatmentNormalBirth2007.pdf

  13. O’Driscoll K, Jackson RJA, Gallagher JT. Prevention of prolonged labour. BMJ. 1969;24:447–80.

    Google Scholar 

  14. O’Driscoll K, Meagher D. Active management of labour, vol. 9. London: Saunders; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fagerland MW, Lydersen S, Laake P. Recommended tests and confidence intervals for paired binomial proportions. Stat Med. 2014;33(16):2850–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rechberger T, Uldbjerg N, Oxlund H. Connective tissue changes in the cervix during normal pregnancy and pregnancy complicated by a cervical incompetence. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;71:563–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Petros.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All data was publicly available. Exemption for EC review was obtained. UWA EC no. RA/4/20/4507.

Conflicts of interest

Both authors declare that there are no relevant financial, personal, political, intellectual or religious interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beale, M., Petros, P. Passive management of labour may predispose to anal sphincter injury. Int Urogynecol J 31, 1943–1947 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04183-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04183-6

Keywords

  • OASIS
  • Perineal tears
  • Passive management of labour
  • Active management of labour