4.4 Article

Restricted episiotomy use and maternal and neonatal injuries: a retrospective cohort study

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
卷 294, 期 6, 页码 1189-1194

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-016-4154-2

关键词

Birth injuries; Delivery; Obstetric; Episiotomy; Lacerations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is relatively little information on episiotomies in the context of restricted episiotomy use. This study sought to examine maternal and neonatal injuries with restricted episiotomy use. We performed a retrospective database analysis of vaginal deliveries at a tertiary care maternity hospital from June 2010 to June 2015. Maternal injuries (third- or fourth-degree lacerations) and neonatal injuries (birth trauma) were identified through the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes. Vaginal deliveries were classified as spontaneous, vacuum-assisted, or forceps-assisted. The associations between episiotomy and maternal and neonatal injuries were examined with stratification by parity, type of vaginal delivery, and type of episiotomy (midline or mediolateral). Adjusted-odds' ratios were calculated for maternal and neonatal injuries using a multiple logistic regression model to adjust for potential confounders. 22,800 deliveries occurred during the study interval involving 23,016 neonates. The episiotomy rate was 6.7 % overall and 22.9 % in operative vaginal deliveries. Episiotomies, both midline and mediolateral, were associated with increased risks of maternal and neonatal injuries regardless of parity (p < 0.0001). Upon stratification by the type of delivery, the association with maternal injury remained only for spontaneous vaginal deliveries (p < 0.0001). Adjusted-odds' ratios demonstrated a continued association between episiotomy and maternal [aOR 1.67 (1.39-2.05)] and neonatal injuries [aOR 1.43 (1.17-1.73)]. Episiotomy continues to be associated with increased third- and fourth-degree lacerations with restricted use, particularly in spontaneous vaginal deliveries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据