A randomized clinical trial comparing primary overlap with approximation repair of third-degree obstetric tears. How to repair an anal sphincter injury after vaginal delivery: results of a randomised controlled trial.
We compared, in a prospective, randomized clinical trial, the subjective and objective outcomes after primary anal sphincter overlap or approximation repair of third-degree obstetric tears.
                In a prospective, randomized clinical trial at our university teaching hospital, we studied 112 primiparous women who sustained a third-degree tear during a 1-year period (July 1998-June 1999); they were randomly selected, at diagnosis, to receive either an overlap or an approximation repair. Obstetric personnel, trained in both methods, carried out the repairs immediately after delivery. Fifty-five women underwent an overlap procedure, and 57 women underwent an approximation repair. Outcome measures assessed were symptoms of fecal incontinence, abnormal findings on anal manometry, and abnormal findings on endoanal ultrasonography at 3 months post partum.
                Obstetric factors, including mode of delivery, birth weight, duration of labor, and episiotomy incidence, did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Experience of the operator, analgesia used, and place of repair were similar in both groups. The median incontinence scores were 0/20 after overlap repair and 2/20 after approximation repair (difference not significant). Eleven women (20%) complained of fecal urgency after overlap repair, in comparison with 17 (30%) after approximation repair (difference not significant). There were no significant differences in either anal manometry or endoanal ultrasonographic results between the 2 groups. Six women (11%) had a significant (>1 quadrant) anal sphincter defect after primary overlap repair, compared with 3 (5%) after approximation repair (difference not significant). Overall, 66% of women had ultrasonographic evidence of a residual full-thickness defect in the external anal sphincter after primary repair.
                The outcome after primary repair of third-degree obstetric tear was similar whether an approximation or an overlap technique was used. Overall symptomatic outcome was good, although two thirds of women had ultrasonographic evidence of residual anal sphincter damage irrespective of the method of repair. To compare two surgical techniques and two types of suture material for anal sphincter repair after childbirth-related injury.
                Factorial randomised controlled trial.
                Tertiary referral maternity unit.
                Women with an anal sphincter injury sustained during childbirth.
                Women were randomised into four groups: overlap repair with polyglactin (Vicryl); end-to-end repair with polyglactin (Vicryl); overlap repair with polydioxanone (PDS); and end-to-end repair with PDS. All repairs were completed as a primary procedure by staff trained in both methods.
                Suture-related morbidity at six weeks. Bowel symptoms at 3, 6 and 12 months. Anorectal physiology at three months. Quality of life scores at 3 and 12 months.
                One hundred and fifty women (1.5% of deliveries) were eligible and 112 (75%) were randomised. One hundred and three (92%) attended follow up visit at 6 weeks, 89 (80%) at 3 months, 79 (71%) at 6 months and 60 (54%) at 12 months. At six weeks, there was no difference in suture-related morbidity between groups (P=0.11) and 70% patients were completely asymptomatic. Incidence of bowel symptoms and quality of life disturbances were low, with no differences between the four groups.
                Obstetric anal sphincter repair carried out by appropriately trained staff is associated with low morbidity, irrespective of the suture material and repair method used.
The limited data available show that compared to immediate primary end-to-end repair of OASIS, early primary overlap repair appears to be associated with lower risks for faecal urgency and anal incontinence symptoms. As the experience of the surgeon is not addressed in the three studies reviewed, it would be inappropriate to recommend one type of repair in favour of another.
[Note: The six citations in the awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.]