Episiotomy and perineal tears presumed to be imminent: randomized controlled trial. Is routine episiotomy necessary?
The indication of the restricted use of episiotomy at tears presumed to be imminent is not clear.
                Randomized controlled trial with two perineal management policies. Use of episiotomy: (a). only for fetal indications and (b). in addition at a tear presumed to be imminent. Participants: 146 primiparous women with an uncomplicated singleton pregnancy at >34 weeks of gestation. For the intention-to-treat analysis those 109 women were included who vaginally delivered a live full-term baby between January 1999 and September 2000: 49 women in group a, 60 in group b.
                Reduction of episiotomies, increase of intact perinea or only minor perineal trauma (intact perineum and first-degree tears), third-degree tears, anterior perineal trauma, perineal pain in the postpartum period, pH of the umbilical artery, Apgar scores, maternal blood loss.
                Episiotomy rates were 41% in group a and 77% in group b (p < 0.001). Women in the restrictive policy group had a greater chance of an intact perineum (29% vs. 10%; p = 0.023) or only minor perineal trauma (39% vs. 13%; p = 0.003) and had significant lower pain scores postpartum at different activities. There were no statistically significant differences with regard to third-degree tears, anterior trauma, pre- and postpartum hemoglobin concentrations, Apgar scores and pH of the umbilical artery.
                Avoiding episiotomy at tears presumed to be imminent increases the rate of intact perinea and the rate of only minor perineal trauma, reduces postpartum perineal pain and does not have any adverse effects on maternal or fetal morbidity. One hundred and eighty one primigravid women delivering vaginally in July and August 1982 in the Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, were randomly allocated to one of two groups. Patients in one group were to undergo episiotomy. Those in the other group were not to undergo episiotomy unless it was considered to be essential. The outcome was compared with that of the clinical practice over the previous six months at the hospital. Of the 92 patients allocated not to undergo episiotomy, seven (8%) had one done for medical reasons compared with 507 (89%) in the previous six months. First degree tears occurred in 23 (25%) and second degree tears in 43 (47%). Nineteen (21%), however, retained an intact perineum compared with only 35 (6%) of the women who had delivered in the preceding six months. Assessments of perineal pain, bruising, swelling, and healing and records of ingestion of analgesics were made for the first four days after delivery, and again at a check up six weeks after delivery, in patients who had had spontaneous vertex deliveries. Forty patients who underwent episiotomy and 37 who sustained a second degree tear formed two comparable groups. There was no difference in outcome between them. Data were also evaluated for 19 women who retained an intact perineum, 22 who sustained a first degree tear, and 11 who underwent episiotomy and epidural anaesthesia; all 52 of these women had spontaneous vertex deliveries. Despite severe soft tissue injury in two patients those who fared best were those who retained an intact perineum. First degree tears were associated with symptoms similar to those associated with second degree tears. Those who fared worst were women who underwent episiotomy after epidural anaesthesia. The value of routine episiotomy in primigravid patients is questioned, but the final decision can be made only by the accoucheur at the time of imminent delivery.
Restrictive episiotomy policies appear to have a number of benefits compared to policies based on routine episiotomy. There is less posterior perineal trauma, less suturing and fewer complications, no difference for most pain measures and severe vaginal or perineal trauma, but there was an increased risk of anterior perineal trauma with restrictive episiotomy.