We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Operative vaginal delivery and the use of episiotomy--a survey of practice in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
OBJECTIVE: To establish the views and current practice of obstetricians with regard to operative vaginal delivery and the use of episiotomy.
STUDY DESIGN: A national survey of consultant obstetricians and specialist registrars practising in the United Kingdom and Ireland registered with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), London. A postal questionnaire was sent to all obstetricians with two subsequent reminders to non-responders. The choice of procedure for specific circumstances, instrument preference, use of episiotomy and views on the relationship between episiotomy use and anal sphincter tears at operative vaginal delivery were explored.
RESULTS: The response rate was 80.4%. Instrument preference varied according to the fetal position and station and the grade of operator. Vacuum and forceps were both used for mid-cavity non-rotational deliveries (64% and 56% reported frequent use respectively). Rotational vacuum was preferred for a mid-cavity mal-position (69%) followed by equal numbers using rotational forceps or manual rotation and forceps (34% and 36%, respectively). Inexperienced operators were more likely to proceed directly to caesarean section (35%). A restrictive approach to use of episiotomy was preferred for vacuum delivery (72%) and a routine approach for forceps (73%). Obstetricians varied greatly in their perception of the relationship between episiotomy use and anal sphincter tears at operative vaginal delivery.
CONCLUSION: There is wide variation in the use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery with uncertainty about its role in preventing anal sphincter tears. A randomised controlled trial would address this important aspect of obstetric care.
STUDY DESIGN: A national survey of consultant obstetricians and specialist registrars practising in the United Kingdom and Ireland registered with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), London. A postal questionnaire was sent to all obstetricians with two subsequent reminders to non-responders. The choice of procedure for specific circumstances, instrument preference, use of episiotomy and views on the relationship between episiotomy use and anal sphincter tears at operative vaginal delivery were explored.
RESULTS: The response rate was 80.4%. Instrument preference varied according to the fetal position and station and the grade of operator. Vacuum and forceps were both used for mid-cavity non-rotational deliveries (64% and 56% reported frequent use respectively). Rotational vacuum was preferred for a mid-cavity mal-position (69%) followed by equal numbers using rotational forceps or manual rotation and forceps (34% and 36%, respectively). Inexperienced operators were more likely to proceed directly to caesarean section (35%). A restrictive approach to use of episiotomy was preferred for vacuum delivery (72%) and a routine approach for forceps (73%). Obstetricians varied greatly in their perception of the relationship between episiotomy use and anal sphincter tears at operative vaginal delivery.
CONCLUSION: There is wide variation in the use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery with uncertainty about its role in preventing anal sphincter tears. A randomised controlled trial would address this important aspect of obstetric care.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app