Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is it time to abandon episiotomy use? A randomized controlled trial (EPITRIAL)

International Urogynecology Journal volume 31, pages 2377–2385 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of this trial was to evaluate whether avoidance of episiotomy can decrease the risk of advanced perineal tears.

Methods

In this randomized (1:1) parallel-group superiority trial, primiparous women underwent randomization into “avoidance of episiotomy” (the study group in which episiotomy was allowed only in cases of fetal distress) or “standard care.” The primary outcome was the incidence of advanced (3rd- and 4th-degree) perineal tears.

Results

The participants were randomized into “standard care” (n = 337) vs. “no episiotomy” (n = 339) groups, not differing in any demographic or obstetric characteristics. Episiotomy rates were significantly lower in the study group (19.6%) compared with the standard care group (29.8%, p = 0.004). Five (1.5%) advanced tears were diagnosed in the study group vs. ten = 3.0% in the controls, yielding an odds ratio of 0.50 (95% CI 0.17–1.50) in favor of the “no episiotomy” group (p = 0.296). No differences were noted in any secondary outcomes. By per protocol analysis (omitting cases in which episiotomy was performed for indications other than fetal distress in the study group), a trend to decreased risk of advanced tears in the study group was noted (p = 0.0956). By per protocol analyses, no severe tears were noted in the 53 vacuum deliveries in the study group vs. 4/65 (6.2%) tears in the controls (p = 0.126).

Conclusions

Since decreased use of episiotomy was not associated with higher rates of severe tears or any other adverse outcomes, we believe this procedure can be avoided in spontaneous as well as vacuum-assisted deliveries. Trial registration no. NCT02356237.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Jiang H, Qian X, Carroli G, Garner P. Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:CD000081.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Biguzzi E, Franchi F, Ambrogi F, Ibrahim B, Bucciarelli P, Acaia B, et al. Risk factors for postpartum hemorrhage in a cohort of 6011 Italian women. Thromb Res. 2012;129(4):e1–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Amorim Francisco A, Junqueira Vasconcellos de Oliveira SM, Barbosa da Silva FM, Bick D, Gonzalez Riesco ML. Women's experiences of perineal pain during the immediate postnatal period: a cross-sectional study in Brazil. Midwifery. 2011;27(6):e254–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Espuna-Pons M, Solans-Domenech M, Sanchez E. Double incontinence in a cohort of nulliparous pregnant women. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(8):1236–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sagi-Dain L, Sagi S. Morbidity associated with episiotomy in vacuum delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;122(8):1073–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sagi-Dain L, Sagi S. The role of episiotomy in prevention and management of shoulder dystocia: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Survey. 2015;70(5):354–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 198: Prevention and Management of Obstetric Lacerations at Vaginal Delivery. Obstetrics Gynecol. 2018; 132(3):e87-e102.

  8. Kartal B, Kizilirmak A, Calpbinici P, Demir G. Retrospective analysis of episiotomy prevalence. J Turkish German Gynecol Assoc. 2017;18(4):190–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sagi-Dain L, Sagi S. Episiotomy knowledge, attitudes and practice: a crosssectional survey of four public Israeli hospitals and review of the literature. Evidence Based Midwifery. 2015;13(4):138–42.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pergialiotis V, Vlachos D, Protopapas A, Pappa K, Vlachos G. Risk factors for severe perineal lacerations during childbirth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet:Off Organ Int Federation Gynaecol Obstetrics. 2014;125(1):6–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Clesse C, Lighezzolo-Alnot J, De Lavergne S, Hamlin S, Scheffler M. Statistical trends of episiotomy around the world: comparative systematic review of changing practices. Health Care Women Int. 2018;39(6):644–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sagi-Dain L, Bahous R, Caspin O, Kreinin-Bleicher I, Gonen R, Sagi S. No episiotomy versus selective lateral/mediolateral episiotomy (EPITRIAL): an interim analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(3):415–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. MA M, Coutinho IC, Melo I, Katz L. Selective episiotomy vs. implementation of a non-episiotomy protocol: a randomized clinical trial. Reprod Health. 2017;14(1):55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ, Altman DG, Group C. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. Jama. 2012;308(24):2594–604.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rogers RG, Coates KW, Kammerer-Doak D, Khalsa S, Qualls C. A short form of the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003;14(3):164–8 discussion 8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Carroli G, Mignini L. Episiotomy for vaginal birth. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2009(1):CD000081.

  18. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Management of Third- and Fourth-Degree Perineal Tears. 2015. Accessible from https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg-29.pdf.

  19. Harvey MA, Pierce M, Alter JE, Chou Q, Diamond P, Epp A, et al. Obstetrical anal sphincter injuries (OASIS): prevention, recognition, and repair. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC =. J d'Obstet et Gynecol du Canada: JOGC. 2015;37(12):1131–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sagi-Dain L, Sagi S. Indications for episiotomy performance - a cross-sectional survey and review of the literature. J Obstet Gynaecol: J Institute Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;36(3):361–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Raisanen S, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K, Heinonen S. Need for and consequences of episiotomy in vaginal birth: a critical approach. Midwifery. 2010;26(3):348–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith LA, Price N, Simonite V, Burns EE. Incidence of and risk factors for perineal trauma: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Lund NS, Persson LK, Jango H, Gommesen D, Westergaard HB. Episiotomy in vacuum-assisted delivery affects the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;207:193–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Murphy DJ, Macleod M, Bahl R, Goyder K, Howarth L, Strachan B. A randomised controlled trial of routine versus restrictive use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery: a multicentre pilot study. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115(13):1695–702 discussion 702-3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tsakiridis I, Giouleka S, Mamopoulos A, Athanasiadis A, Daniilidis A, Dagklis T. Operative vaginal delivery: a review of four national guidelines. J Perinat Med. 2020;48(3):189–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hobson S, Cassell K, Windrim R, Cargill Y. No. 381 – Assisted vaginal birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2019;41:870–882.

  27. Sagi-Dain L, Sagi S. The correct episiotomy: does it exist? A cross-sectional survey of four public Israeli hospitals and review of the literature. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(8):1213–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carmel Medical Center, 7 Michal St., Haifa, Israel

    Lena Sagi-Dain

  2. The Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

    Lena Sagi-Dain & Ron Gonen

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bnai-Zion Medical Center, Haifa, Israel

    Inna Kreinin-Bleicher, Rabia Bahous, Noga Gur Arye, Tamar Shema, Aya Eshel, Orna Caspin, Ron Gonen & Shlomi Sagi

Authors
  1. Lena Sagi-Dain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Inna Kreinin-Bleicher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rabia Bahous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Noga Gur Arye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tamar Shema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aya Eshel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Orna Caspin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ron Gonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Shlomi Sagi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L. Sagi-Dain, S. Sagi: Project development, data collection and analysis, manuscript writing.

R. Bahous, N. Gur Arye, T. Shema, A. Eshel, O. Caspin, I. Kreinin-Bleicher, R. Gonen: Protocol development, data collection and management, manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lena Sagi-Dain.

Ethics declarations

Financial disclaimer/conflict of interest

None (for all authors).

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOC 29 kb)

ESM 2

(DOC 48 kb)

ESM 3

(DOC 41 kb)

ESM 4

(DOC 69 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sagi-Dain, L., Kreinin-Bleicher, I., Bahous, R. et al. Is it time to abandon episiotomy use? A randomized controlled trial (EPITRIAL). Int Urogynecol J 31, 2377–2385 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04332-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04332-2

Keywords

search

Navigation