Episcissors-60™ and obstetrics anal sphincter injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury After Episiometer-Guided Versus Conventional Episiotomy in Instrumental Deliveries: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Guidelines recommend episiotomy for instrumental vaginal delivery with an optimal incision angle of 60° to protect the anal sphincter. The "Episiometer" is a new device promising a 60° incision angle. We compared the incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) and post-repair suture angle of episiotomies made with conventional "eyeballing" versus Episiometer guided during instrumental delivery.

METHODS

We conducted this randomized controlled trial in a tertiary care teaching institute in southern India after ethical committee approval, trial registration, and informed consent. We randomized (block) 328 pregnant women aged 18 years and above with term, singleton fetuses delivered by instruments into Episiometer-guided (164) or conventional episiotomy (164) groups (allocation concealed). We compared the OASI (identified clinically) and the suture angle measured from the midline (assessor blinded) in the two groups. We followed up on the subjects at 6 and 12 weeks to assess perineal pain and fecal/flatus incontinence.

RESULTS

The incidence of OASI of 0.61% in the Episiometer group was significantly lower compared with 4.88% in the eyeballing group (Chi-squared = 5.6; p = 0.02; adjusted risk ratio = 5.9; CI 0.7-46.1; p = 0.09). A significantly higher proportion of subjects (59.1%) in the Episometer group had a post-suture angle between 36 and 40° compared with 36.6% in the eyeballing group (Chi-squared = 21.8, p < 0.001). We found no significant difference in the perineal pain or Wexner score during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The Episiometer-guided episiotomy during instrumental delivery resulted in a significantly higher suture angle and lower obstetric anal sphincter injuries than with conventional eyeballing.

Episiotomy: Are Indian Obstetricians Getting the Angle Right?

Background

A mediolateral episiotomy is recommended when indicated at a 60° angle at crowning, to avoid obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIs) by episiotomies angled too close or distant to the anus. This study surveyed obstetricians in India regarding the recommended episiotomy angle and their ability to correctly draw the angle.

Methods

Workshops were conducted in India to share knowledge in the prevention and repair of OASIs. A questionnaire was distributed prior to the workshop. Participants were asked to describe the recommended episiotomy angle and to draw this on a paper replica of the perineum. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the inter-rater reliability between the angle stated and drawn. A 2° difference was deemed acceptable. Standard errors of measurement (SEM) were calculated to measure the range of error of each measurement.

Results

One hundred and forty doctors participated. 47.9% described the angle of an episiotomy to be 60°. Only 2.2% drew an angle of 60°, but 8.7% (n = 12) drew between 58 and 62°. Only 5.8% (n = 6) of doctors correctly drew the episiotomy angle they described. There was poor agreement ICC = 0.18 (- 0.01 to 0.36) with a SEM of ± 12.2°.

Conclusions

Knowledge surrounding the recommended episiotomy angle is lacking. Doctors are failing to estimate their desired episiotomy angle. This highlights the need for national guidelines, the creation and validation of structured training programmes to improve accuracy, or using fixed-angle devices such as the EPISCISSORS-60 or other proven measurement aids to minimise preventable harm due to human error.

Episiotomy practice in France and prevention of high-grade perineal tears at the time of operative vaginal delivery: a prospective multicentre ancillary cohort study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Evidence suggests that episiotomies reduce the risk for obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIs) in operative vaginal deliveries (OVDs). However, there is limited evidence on the importance of episiotomy technique in this context. The primary objective of this study was to assess if an episiotomy suture angle >45° from the median line would be associated with a lower risk for OASIs at the time of OVD.

METHODS

This was an ancillary study from the multicentre prospective cohort INSTRUMODA study. Of the 2,620 patients who had an OVD with a concomitant episiotomy between April 2021 and March 2022, a total of 219 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Post-suturing photographs were used to assess episiotomy characteristics.

RESULTS

Based on suture angles of ≤45° and >45° the study cohort was categorized into groups A (n = 155) and B (n = 64) respectively. The groups had comparable demographic and birth-related characteristics. The mean episiotomy length was significantly longer in group A than in group B (3.21 cm vs 2.84 cm; p = 0.009). Senior obstetricians performed more acute angled episiotomies than junior residents (p = 0.016). The total prevalence of OASIS was 2.3%, with no significant difference in rate of OASI between the two study groups. Birthweight was significantly higher in OASI births (p = 0.018) and spatula-assisted births were associated with higher risk for OASIs than ventouse or forceps (p = 0.0039).

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not demonstrate a significant reduction in risk for OASI at the time of OVD when the episiotomy suture angle was >45° from the median line. However, these results should be interpreted with caution owing to the low prevalence of OASIs in our cohort.

Implementation of Episcissors-60 for Prevention of Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries (OASIS) in a Centre with Low Episiotomy Rates

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether introduction of Episcissors-60 into a labour and birth unit would decrease the incidence of Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injuries (OASIS).

METHODS

A before-and-after quality improvement study was conducted between April 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021. All patients who had a vaginal delivery were included in this study. All healthcare providers who perform vaginal deliveries were offered an educational session. Episcissors-60 were then introduced into a labour and birth unit. The primary outcome measure was the change in incidence of OASIS before and after introduction of Episcissors-60. Secondary outcome measures were episiotomy rates before and after introduction of Episcissors-60, device-related adverse events, and provider satisfaction and feedback. Data was analyzed using chi-square tests, independent t-tests, and Mann-Whitney tests.

RESULTS

A total of 1383 vaginal deliveries occurred prior and 1254 vaginal deliveries after introduction of Episcissors-60. There was a decrease in the total OASIS rate from 7.37% of all vaginal deliveries prior to 5.37% after introduction of Episcissors-60 (P = .037). The episiotomy rate was 11.42% prior to and 9.97% after introduction of Episcissors-60 (P = .228). OASIS rate in women who had an episiotomy was 12.02% before and 13.60% after introduction of Episcissors-60 (P = .421).

CONCLUSION

Although introduction of Episcissors-60 was associated with a statistically significant decrease in total OASIS rate, there was no difference in OASIS rates within the subgroup that received an episiotomy. Therefore, reduction in the total OASIS rate in this study cannot be attributed to the use of Episcissors-60.

Attitudes and knowledge regarding episiotomy use and technique in vacuum extraction: A web-based survey among doctors in Sweden

OBJECTIVES

Correct episiotomy use and technique may prevent obstetric anal sphincter injuries. We aimed to explore the attitudes, use, and technique regarding episiotomy among doctors in Sweden, and their willingness to contribute to a randomized controlled trial of lateral episiotomy or no episiotomy in vacuum extraction in nulliparous women.

STUDY DESIGN

A web-based survey was sent to members of the Swedish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (n = 2140). The survey included 31 questions addressing personal characteristics, use of episiotomy, a two-dimensional picture on which the respondents drew an episiotomy, and questions regarding attitudes towards episiotomy and participation in a randomized controlled trial. We calculated the proportion of supposedly protective episiotomies (fulfilling criteria of a lateral or mediolateral episiotomy and a length ≥ 30 mm). We compared the results between obstetricians, gynecologists, and residents using Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests for differences between groups, and logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of drawing a protective episiotomy.

RESULTS

We received 432 responses. Doctors without a vacuum delivery in the past year were excluded, leaving 384 respondents for further analyses. In all, 222 (57.8%) doctors reported use of episiotomy in<50% of vacuum extractions. We obtained 308 illustrated episiotomies with a median angle of 53°, incision point distance from the midline of 21 mm, and length of 36 mm, corresponding to a lateral episiotomy. Few doctors combined these parameters correctly resulting in 167 (54.2%) incorrectly drawn episiotomies. Residents drew shorter episiotomies than obstetricians and gynecologists. Doctors ranked episiotomy the least important intervention to prevent obstetric anal sphincter injuries in vacuum extraction. Doctors contributing to an ongoing randomized controlled trial of lateral episiotomy or no episiotomy in vacuum extraction were more able to draw a protective episiotomy (OR 3.69, 95% confidence interval 1.94-7.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors in Sweden reported restrictive use of episiotomy in vacuum extraction and depicted lateral type episiotomies, although the majority were incorrectly drawn. Preventive episiotomy was ranked of low importance. Our results imply a need for education, training, and guidelines to increase uptake of correct episiotomy technique, which could result in improved prevention of obstetric anal sphincter injuries.

Obstetric anal sphincter injury events prior and after Episcissors-60 implementation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of Episcissors-60 upon obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) reduction in nulliparous women.

STUDY DESIGN

Independent literature search for relevant studies was performed up to 30th May 2021 on five databases: Embase (OVID), MEDLINE (R) (OVID), CAB Abstracts (OVID), ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar. The primary outcome was to assess OASIS events prior and after Epi-60 implementation in clinical practice in natural births (NB), whilst secondary outcomes included overall operative vaginal delivery (OVD) %/spontaneous vaginal deliveries (SVD) % deliveries, episiotomy rates and operator satisfaction. All included studies (retrospective, prospective and time-series) examined the effect of Episcissors-60 implementation upon observed OASIS %.

RESULTS

A total of 14,027 nulliparous females were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, study heterogeneity was high at I²: 79% with collectively fair quality of studies, as assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Overall, this analysis highlights significant differences of OASIS events that might suggest their implementation as standard practice [RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.00; P = 0.03].

CONCLUSION

The present analysis highlights significant differences of OASIS events pre- and post- Epi-60, that may suggest Episcissors-60 implementation as standard practice. Nonetheless, to ensure data integrity, well reported observational studies and robust randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are required prior to introduction of Epi-60 as standard episiotomy technique in clinical practice.

Obstetric anal sphincter injury after episiotomy in vacuum extraction: an epidemiological study using an emulated randomised trial approach

OBJECTIVE

To emulate a randomised controlled trial investigating whether lateral or mediolateral episiotomy compared with no episiotomy reduces the prevalence of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS) in nulliparous women delivered with vacuum extraction.

DESIGN

A population-based observational study.

SETTING

Sweden.

POPULATION

63 654 nulliparous women delivered with vacuum extraction derived from the Swedish Medical Birth Register 2000-2011, with a live singleton baby with no known malformations in cephalic presentation in gestational week ≥34⁺⁰ , and subject to lateral or mediolateral episiotomy or no episiotomy.

METHODS

The effect of episiotomy was calculated using a causal doubly robust estimation method based on propensity scores. Results are presented as the average treatment effect and numbers needed to treat (NNT).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

OASIS (third- and fourth-degree perineal injury) in nulliparous women delivered with vacuum extraction.

RESULTS

Episiotomy was associated with a reduction in OASIS from 15.5% to 11.8%, average treatment effect of -3.66% (95% CI -4.31 to -3.01) and NNT 27. Third-degree perineal injuries were reduced from 14.0% to 10.9% (-3.08, 95% CI -3.71 to -2.42) with NNT 32. Fourth-degree perineal injuries were reduced from 1.6% to 1.0 % (-0.58%, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.37) with NNT 172.

CONCLUSIONS

Lateral or mediolateral episiotomy reduced the prevalence of OASIS in nulliparous women delivered with vacuum extraction, compared to women with no episiotomy.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

To prevent one case of OASIS in first-time mothers delivered with vacuum, 27 episiotomies had to be performed.

Incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries after implementing the Triepi-45 tool to improve episiotomy angle in instrumental deliveries

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of Triepi-45-a tool that enables an episiotomy angle of 45° to be marked on the perineum at rest-on the incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) during operative vaginal delivery (OVD).

METHOD

A retrospective-prospective cohort study was performed among successive women who underwent OVD at Complejo Asistencial Universitario de de León, Spain, between 2011 and 2013 (preintervention cohort, n=986) and between 2014 and 2016 (intervention cohort, n=986) after implementation of an interventional programme in 2013 to improve the episiotomy angle, including use of Triepi-45, in OVD.

RESULTS

The intervention cohort had a lower incidence of OASIS than the preintervention cohort (70/986 [7.1%] vs 93/986 [9.4%]), but the difference was not significant, owing to the low use of Triepi-45 in the intervention cohort (n=375). However, the OASIS incidence was significantly lower in the Triepi-45 cohort than in the preintervention cohort (18/375 [4.8%] vs 93/986 [9.4%]; odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.86).

CONCLUSION

Use of Triepi-45 had a positive impact on reducing OASIS in OVD. It remains essential to raise obstetricians' awareness of the importance of the episiotomy angle and to implement the systematic use of tools to reduce the incidence of OASIS.