Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 284, Issue 2, pp 275–280 | Cite as

Continuous versus interrupted episiotomy repair with monofilament or multifilament absorbed suture materials: a randomised controlled trial

  • Demet KokanalıEmail author
  • Mustafa Ugur
  • M. Kuntay Kokanalı
  • Rana Karayalcın
  • Esra Tonguc
Materno-fetal Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

To compare different repair techniques and different suture materials for episiotomy.

Methods

160 women having vertex delivery with right-mediolateral episiotomy were randomly allocated to four groups. In the groups where continuos technique was performed, vaginal mucosa, perineal muscles and the skin were sutured continuously. In the groups of interrupted technique, vaginal mucosa was sutured with continuous sutures, then muscle layers and skin were closed by interrupted sutures. Two different types of synthetic absorbed suture material were used: monofilament type is in form of polyglycolide-co-caprolactone and multifilament one is polyglactin 910-Rapide. Perineal pain during different activities on the first and tenth day postpartum and also during sexual intercourse 6 weeks after the delivery was questioned by visual analogous scale (VAS). Furthermore, repair time, amount of suture and episiotomy complications were investigated in each groups.

Results

On the first day after delivery, the perineal pain scores, the repair time, the amount of suture were statistically less in the continuous technique groups. The differences between the pain at tenth day and during sexual intercourse 6 weeks after the delivery were statistically same.

Conclusions

The continuous suturing techniques for episiotomy closure, compared to interrupted methods, are associated with less short-term pain, are quicker and also need less suture material.

Keywords

Episiotomy Repair techniques Suture materials Pain 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Thacker SB, Banta HD (1983) Benefits and risks of episiotomy: an interpretative review of the english language literature, 1860–1980. Obstet Gynecol Surv 38:322–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scott JR (2005) Episotomy and vaginal trauma. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 32:307–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hartmenn K, Viswanathan M, Palmieri R, Gartlehner G, Thorp J Jr, Lohr KN (2005) Outcomes of routine episiotomy: a systematic review. JAMA 293:2141–2148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weber AM, Meyn L (2002) Episiotomy use in the United States, 1979–1997. Obstet Gynecol 100:1177–1182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sleep J (1991) Perineal care, a series of 5 randomized controlled trials. In: Robinson S, Thomson A (eds) Midwives research and childbirth. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 199–251Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kettle C, Johanson RB (2000) Continuous versus interrupted sutures for perineal repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD000947Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kettle C, Johanson RB (2005) Absorbable synthetic versus catgut suture material for perineal repair (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, issue 2. Update Software, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kettle C, Johanson RB (2003) Continuous versus interrupted sutures for perineal repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD000947Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Isager-Sally L, Legarth J, Jacobsen B, Bostofte E (1986) Episiotomy and repair: immediate and long term sequelae—a prospective randomized study of three different methods of repair. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 93:420–425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grant A (1989) The choice of suture materials and techniques for repair of perineal trauma: an overview of the evidence from controlled trials. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 96:1281–1289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rucker MP (1930) Immediate perineorrhaphy with knotless sutures. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 38:707Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daniela P, Davide L, Sergio C, Nicola R (2006) A randomized comparison of suturing techniques for episiotomy and laceration repair after spontaneous vaginal birth. J Minim Invasive Gynaecol Sep 13(5):457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fleming N (1990) Can the suturing method make a difference in postpartum, perineal pain. J Nurse Midwifery 35:19–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kettle C, Hills RK, Jones P et al (2002) Continuous versus interrupted perineal repair with standard or rapidly absorbed sutures after spontaneous vaginal birth: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 359:2217–2223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kettle C, Hills R, Ismail K (2007) Continuous versus interrupted sutures for repair of episiotomy or second degree tears. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD000974Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Valenzuela P, Saiz Puente MS, Valero JL, Azorin R, Ortega R, Guijarro R (2009) Continuous versus interrupted sutures for repair of episiotomy or second-degree perineal tears: a randomised controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 116:436–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McElhinney BR, Glenn DR, Dornan G, Harper MA (2000) Episiotomy repair: vicryl versus vicryl rapide. Ulster Med J 69:27–29PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Demet Kokanalı
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mustafa Ugur
    • 1
  • M. Kuntay Kokanalı
    • 1
  • Rana Karayalcın
    • 1
  • Esra Tonguc
    • 1
  1. 1.Dr. Zekai Tahir Burak Woman’s Health Education and Research HospitalAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.CankayaAnkara

Personalised recommendations