Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Que reste-t-il de l’épisiotomie systématique chez la primipare ?

  • Éditorial / Editorial
  • Published:
Pelvi-périnéologie

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Références

  1. Ould F (1742) Treatise of midwifery. Dublin: Nelson and Connor

    Google Scholar 

  2. Diethelm MW (1938) Episiotomy: technique of repair. Ohio Med J 34: 1107

    Google Scholar 

  3. Pomeroy RH (1918) Shall we cut and reconstruct the perineum for every primipara? Am J Obstet Dis Women Child 78: 211

    Google Scholar 

  4. DeLee JB (1920) The prophylactic forceps operation? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1: 34

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wagner M (1999) Episiotomy; a form of genital mutilation. Lancet 353: 1977

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Thacker SB, Banta HD (1983) Benefits and risks of episiotomy: an interpretative review of the English language literature, 1860–1980. Obstet Gynecol Surv 38: 322–338

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Woolley RJ (1995) Benefits and risks of episiotomy: a review of the English language literature since 1980. Obstet Gynecol Surv 50: 806–835

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Blondel B, Kaminski M (1985) Episiotomy and third-degree tears. BJOG 92: 1297–1298

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Shiono P, Klebanoff M, Carey C (1990) Midline episiotomies: more harm than good? Obstet Gynecol 75: 765–769

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Anthony S, Buitendijk SE, Zondervan KT, et al. (1994) Episiotomies and the occurrence of severe perineal lacerations. BJOG 101: 1064–1067

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fritel X, Pigné A (1997) La controverse sur l’épisiotomie ou faut-il continuer à prévenir les déchirures périnéales ? In: 27es Journées nationales de médecine périnatale (Vichy 1997), Arnette Paris pp. 211–214

  12. Fritel X, Schaal JP, Bertrand V, et al. Pelvic floor disorders 4 years after first delivery, a comparative study of restrictive versus systematic episiotomy. Accepted in BJOG

  13. Hartmann K, Viswanathan M, Palmieri R, et al. (2005) Outcome of routine episiotomy, a systematic review. Jama 293: 2141–2148

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Épisiotomie: recommandations du CNGOF pour la pratique clinique. Gynecol Obstet Fertil (2006) 34: 275–279

    Google Scholar 

  15. ACOG practice bulletin (2006) Episiotomy. Obstet Gynecol 107: 957–962

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de Gynécologie et Obstétrique, CHD Félix-Guyon, F-97405, Saint-Denis cedex, France

    X. Fritel & A. Pigné

Authors
  1. X. Fritel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Pigné
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to X. Fritel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fritel, X., Pigné, A. Que reste-t-il de l’épisiotomie systématique chez la primipare ?. Pelv Perineol 2, 215–216 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11608-007-0140-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11608-007-0140-2

Search

Navigation