Episiotomy in the United States: has anything changed? REPLY

Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Womens Hospital, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
American journal of obstetrics and gynecology (Impact Factor: 3.97). 03/2009; 200(5):573.e1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.11.022
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of the study was to describe episiotomy rates in the United States following recommended changes in clinical practice.
The National Hospital Discharge Survey, a federal data set sampling inpatient hospitals, was used to obtain data based on International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification, 9th revision, diagnosis and procedure codes from 1979 to 2004. Age-adjusted rates of term, singleton, vertex, live-born spontaneous vaginal delivery, operative vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery, episiotomy, and anal sphincter laceration were calculated. Census data for 1990 for women 15-44 years of age was used for age adjustment. Regression analysis was used to evaluate trends in episiotomy.
The rate of episiotomy with all vaginal deliveries decreased from 60.9% in 1979 to 24.5% in 2004. Anal sphincter laceration with spontaneous vaginal delivery declined from 5% in 1979 to 3.5% in 2004. Rates of anal sphincter laceration with operative delivery increased from 7.7% in 1979 to 15.3% in 2004. The age-adjusted rate of operative vaginal delivery declined from 8.7 in 1979 to 4.6 in 2004, whereas cesarean delivery rates increased from 8.3 in 1979 to 17.2 per 1000 women in 2004.
Routine episiotomy has declined since liberal usage has been discouraged. Anal sphincter laceration rates with spontaneous vaginal delivery have decreased, likely reflecting the decreased usage of episiotomy. The decline in operative vaginal delivery corresponds to a sharp increase in cesarean delivery, which may indicate that practitioners are favoring cesarean delivery for difficult births.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Over the last >30 years, obstetricians and midwives around the world keep asking continuously significance of episiotomy. Methods: Concise review of relevant and recently published articles in the field of obstetric perineal trauma, and short analysis of annual rate of episiotomy and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) in Clinical Hospital “Sveti Duh”, Zagreb, in ten years period (2005-2014). Results: Routine (liberal) episiotomy is excluded from clinical practice worldwide, and full affirmation got restrictive (selective) episiotomy, based on strict medical indications. Lateralisation of episiotomy, slowing of the expulsion of the fetal head, and manual perineal protection represent important set of preventive interventions for avoiding of OASIS. Implementation of restrictive episiotomy in Clinical Hospital “Sveti Duh”, Zagreb, appeared during the year 2010. Discussion: For successful restrictive approach to episiotomy in Clinical Hospital “Sveti Duh”, Zagreb, several measures were important: 1) episiotomy strictly upon medical indication; 2) individual patient assessment; 3) patience in the second stage of labor; 4) critical judgement of both obstetrician and midwife, experienced and skillful midwife, compliance of the parturient women; 5) education of all attendees in labor. Nowadays, it is necessary to find a balance (in mediolateral or lateral episiotomy settings) between the optimal total episiotomy rate < 30 % (primiparas: < 50 %, multiparas: < 10 %) and related total OASIS rate up to 1 %. Keywords: episiotomy, obstetric anal sphincter injuries, manual perineal protection
    International scientific conference "Midwifery in the international context: challenges and visions for the future", Ljubljana, Slovenia; 05/2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Midwifery offers concepts and techniques for intrapartum care that could be integrated into the practice of a family physician. Normal birth has virtually been replaced by a medicalized model of maternity care in the American health care system, despite research indicating that many interventions are not necessary and even harmful. A low-tech, high-touch approach to low-risk women in labor is evidence based and results in improved perinatal outcomes as well as higher patient satisfaction with the birth experience.
    Primary care 03/2012; 39(1):189-206. DOI:10.1016/j.pop.2011.12.001 · 0.83 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine the patterns and predictors of third-degree and fourth-degree laceration in women undergoing vaginal delivery. We identified a population-based cohort of women in the United States who underwent a vaginal delivery between 1998 and 2010 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Multivariable log-linear regression models were developed to account for patient, obstetric, and hospital factors related to lacerations. Between-hospital variability of laceration rates was calculated using generalized log-linear mixed models. Among 7,096,056 women who underwent vaginal delivery in 3,070 hospitals, 3.3% (n=232,762) had a third-degree laceration and 1.1% (n=76,347) had a fourth-degree laceration. In an adjusted model for fourth-degree lacerations, important risk factors included shoulder dystocia and forceps and vacuum deliveries with and without episiotomy. Other demographic, obstetric, medical, and hospital variables, although statistically significant, were not major determinants of lacerations. Risk factors in a multivariable model for third-degree lacerations were similar to those in the fourth-degree model. Regression analysis of hospital rates (n=3,070) of lacerations demonstrated limited between-hospital variation. Risk of third-degree and fourth-degree laceration was most strongly related to operative delivery and shoulder dystocia. Between-hospital variation was limited. Given these findings and that the most modifiable practice related to lacerations would be reduction in operative vaginal deliveries (and a possible increase in cesarean delivery), third-degree and fourth-degree laceration rates may be a quality metric of limited utility. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: II.
    Obstetrics and Gynecology 03/2015; 125(4). DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000720 · 4.37 Impact Factor