Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 300, Issue 1, pp 67–77 | Cite as

Obstetric perineal tears: risk factors, wound infection and dehiscence: a prospective cohort study

  • Ditte GommesenEmail author
  • Ellen Aagaard Nohr
  • Henrik Christian Drue
  • Niels Qvist
  • Vibeke Rasch
Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • 115 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To assess risk factors for perineal tears, wound infection and dehiscence among primiparous women.

Methods

A prospective cohort study at four Danish hospitals (Odense, Esbjerg, Aarhus and Kolding) among 603 primiparous women sampled in three groups: 203 with none/labia/1st degree, 200 with 2nd degree, and 200 with 3rd/4th degree tears included between July 2015 and January 2018. Baseline data were obtained and a clinical examination of perineal wound healing was performed 11–21 days postpartum. Main outcome measurements were as follows: degree of perineal tear, 1st to 4th, analyzed with a case–control approach, infection (purulent drainage or wound abscess), and wound dehiscence (a gap between wound edges > 0.5 cm).

Results

Instrumental delivery and birthweight > 4000 g increased the risk of 3rd/4th degree tears (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 13.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.48–34.1 and aOR 3.27, 95% CI 1.52–7.04, respectively). BMI > 35 kg/m2 increased the risk of wound infection and dehiscence (aOR 7.66, 95% CI 2.13–27.5 and aOR 3.46, 95% CI 1.10–10.9, respectively). Episiotomy tripled the risk of infection (aOR 2.97, 95% CI 1.05–8.41). Treatment with antibiotics during delivery and postpartum seemed to decrease the risk of dehiscence (aOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15–0.70).

Conclusions

Instrumental delivery and high birth weight increased the risk of perineal tears. Severe obesity and episiotomy increased the risk of perineal wound complications. More focus on these women may be warranted postpartum. The use of prophylactic antibiotics among women in high risk of wound complications should be further investigated in interventional studies.

Keywords

Birth trauma Perineal trauma Perineal care Wound infection Wound dehiscence 

Notes

Author contributions

DG, VR, HD, NQ and EAN contributed to the design of this study. DG performed the data collection and conducted the analyses and DG, VR, NQ and EAN contributed to the interpretation of data. DG drafted the manuscript and DG, VR, HD, NQ and EAN critically revised the manuscript and approved the version to be published.

Funding

The study was funded by A.P. Møller and wife Chastine Mc-Kinney Møllers foundation, Odense University hospitals research foundation, The Region of Southern Denmark’s research foundation and The Danish Association of Midwives. A one-year PhD fellowship was assigned from University of Southern Denmark. Another year was assigned from the Research Foundations PhD pool at Region of Southern Denmark and a year assigned from the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Odense University hospital. None of the funders played any role in conducting research or writing the paper. The study was funded by Odense University hospitals research foundation, The Region of Southern Denmark, University of Southern Denmark, the department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Odense University hospital, A.P. Møller and wife Chastine Mc-Kinney Møllers foundation and The Danish Association of Midwives

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

All procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. The study was approved by the Scientific Ethics Committee for the Region of Southern Denmark (S-20120213, 14.5.2013) and by the Danish Data Protection Agency (ID-2008-58-0035, 14.1.2015).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Smith LA, Price N, Simonite V, Burns EE (2013) Incidence of and risk factors for perineal trauma: a prospective observational study. BMC pregnancy and childbirth 13:59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fernando RJSAH, Freeman RM, Williams AA, Adams EJ (2015) The management of third- and fourth-degree perineal tears. In: RCOG Green-top Guideline No 29. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kindberg S, Stehouwer M, Hvidman L, Henriksen TB (2008) Postpartum perineal repair performed by midwives: a randomised trial comparing two suture techniques leaving the skin unsutured. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol 115(4):472–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buhling KJ, Schmidt S, Robinson JN, Klapp C, Siebert G, Dudenhausen JW (2006) Rate of dyspareunia after delivery in primiparae according to mode of delivery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 124(1):42–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McDonald EA, Gartland D, Small R, Brown SJ (2015) Dyspareunia and childbirth: a prospective cohort study. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol 122(5):672–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baydock SA, Flood C, Schulz JA, MacDonald D, Esau D, Jones S, Hiltz CB (2009) Prevalence and risk factors for urinary and fecal incontinence four months after vaginal delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada, JOGC = Journal d’obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada: JOGC 31(1):36–41Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown SJ, Gartland D, Donath S, MacArthur C (2012) Fecal incontinence during the first 12 months postpartum: complex causal pathways and implications for clinical practice. Obstet Gynecol 119(2 Pt 1):240–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen TF, Milsom I (2013) The prevalence of urinary incontinence 20 years after childbirth: a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol 120(2):144–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buppasiri P, Lumbiganon P, Thinkhamrop J, Thinkhamrop B (2014) Antibiotic prophylaxis for third- and fourth-degree perineal tear during vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:Cd005125Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duggal N, Mercado C, Daniels K, Bujor A, Caughey AB, El-Sayed YY (2008) Antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of postpartum perineal wound complications: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111(6):1268–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bek KMSB, Cvetanovska E, Due U, Gimbel H, Glavind-Kristensen M, Kindberg S, Kolster D, Ring C, Rørby C, Raaberg L, Sakse A, Storgaard L, Sørensen R, Westergaard HB (2011) Sphincterruptur ved vaginal fødsel: behandling og opfølgning. In: Denmark: Dansk Selskab for obstetrik og GynækologiGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yokoe DS, Christiansen CL, Johnson R, Sands KE, Livingston J, Shtatland ES, Platt R (2001) Epidemiology of and surveillance for postpartum infections. Emerg Infect Dis 7(5):837–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Macleod M, Strachan B, Bahl R, Howarth L, Goyder K, Van de Venne M, Murphy DJ (2008) A prospective cohort study of maternal and neonatal morbidity in relation to use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol 115(13):1688–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lewicky-Gaupp C, Leader-Cramer A, Johnson LL, Kenton K, Gossett DR (2015) Wound complications after obstetric anal sphincter injuries. Obstet Gynecol 125(5):1088–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stock L, Basham E, Gossett DR, Lewicky-Gaupp C (2013) Factors associated with wound complications in women with obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). Am J Obstet Gynecol 208(4):327.e321–327.e326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dudley L, Kettle C, Ismail K (2013) Prevalence, pathophysiology and current management of dehisced perineal wounds following childbirth. Br J Midwifery 21(3):160–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson A, Thakar R, Sultan AH (2012) Obstetric perineal wound infection: is there underreporting? Br J Nurs (Mark Allen Publishing) 21(5):S28, s30, s32–25Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Williams MK, Chames MC (2006) Risk factors for the breakdown of perineal laceration repair after vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195(3):755–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dansk K (2016) valitetsdatabase for Fødsler, Kommenteret årsrapportGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG (2009) Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42(2):377–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Horan TC, Hughes JM (1988) CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 16(3):128–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Textor J, Hardt J, Knuppel S (2011) DAGitty: a graphical tool for analyzing causal diagrams. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass) 22(5):745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stata Statistical Software: Release 15Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hauck YL, Lewis L, Nathan EA, White C, Doherty DA (2015) Risk factors for severe perineal trauma during vaginal childbirth: a Western Australian retrospective cohort study. Women Birth: J Aust Coll Midwives 28(1):16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leeman L, Rogers R, Borders N, Teaf D, Qualls C (2016) The effect of perineal lacerations on pelvic floor function and anatomy at 6 months postpartum in a prospective cohort of nulliparous women. Birth (Berkeley, Calif) 43(4):293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simic M, Cnattingius S, Petersson G, Sandstrom A, Stephansson O (2017) Duration of second stage of labor and instrumental delivery as risk factors for severe perineal lacerations: population-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 17(1):72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    ACOG Practice Bulletin No 156 (2015) Obesity in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 126(6):e112–126Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ye J (2011) Adipose tissue vascularization: its role in chronic inflammation. Curr DiabRep 11(3):203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Allen DB, Maguire JJ, Mahdavian M, Wicke C, Marcocci L, Scheuenstuhl H, Chang M, Le AX, Hopf HW, Hunt TK (1997) Wound hypoxia and acidosis limit neutrophil bacterial killing mechanisms. Arch Surg (Chicago, Ill: 1960) 132(9):991–996Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Greif R, Akca O, Horn EP, Kurz A, Sessler DI (2000) Supplemental perioperative oxygen to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med 342(3):161–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hopf HW, Hunt TK, West JM, Blomquist P, Goodson WH, 3rd, Jensen JA, Jonsson K, Paty PB, Rabkin JM, Upton RA et al (1997) Wound tissue oxygen tension predicts the risk of wound infection in surgical patients. Arch Surg (Chicago, Ill: 1960) 132(9):997–1004 (discussion 1005) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Baugh N, Zuelzer H, Meador J, Blankenship J (2007) Wounds in surgical patients who are obese. AJN Am J Nurs 107(6):40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    (NICE) NIfHaCE (2006) Postnatal care up to 8 weeks after birth: NICE clinical guideline no 37. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    (WHO) WHO (2013) WHO recommendations on postnatal care of the mother and newborn. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Clinical ResearchUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Gynaecology and ObstetricsOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Gastroenterological SurgeryOdense University HospitalOdense CDenmark

Personalised recommendations