The effects of a severe perineal trauma prevention program in an Australian tertiary hospital: An observational study

Midwives' approach to the prevention and repair of obstetric perineal trauma in Spain

AIM

Different clinical practice guidelines include recommendations on how to prevent and repair obstetric perineal trauma, as well as the use of episiotomy. To evaluate the variability in midwives' professional practices for preventing and repairing perineal trauma, as well as the professional factors that may be associated with the restrictive use of episiotomy.

DESIGN

Observational cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Three hundred five midwives completed an anonymous questionnaire developed by the authors and distributed across various midwifery scientific societies. The main outcomes measured were the frequencies of adopting specific practices related to perineal injury prevention and repair, episiotomy technique and restrictive episiotomy use (<10%). Odds ratios (OR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals were estimated.

RESULTS

Intrapartum perineal massage was not normally used by 253 (83%) of midwives, and 186 (61%) applied compresses soaked in warm water to the perineum. Regarding episiotomy, there was a great deal of variability, noting that 129 (42.3%) adopted a restrictive use of this procedure, 125 (41%) performed it between 10% and 20%, while 51 midwives (16.7%) performed it in more than 20% of cases. In addition, 165 (54.1%) midwives followed an incision angle of 60º. Concerning tears, 155 (50.8%) usually sutured first-degree tears and 273 (89.5%) always sutured second-degree tears. Midwives attending home births (aOR = 6.5; 95% CI: 2.69-15.69), working at a teaching hospital (aOR = 3.69; 95% CI: 1.39-9.84), and the ones who recently completed their professional training (aOR = 3.58; 95% CI: 1.46-8.79) were significantly more likely to adopt a restrictive use of episiotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant variability in Spanish midwives' practices for preventing and repairing perineal tears. Moreover, the restrictive use of episiotomy is associated with midwives attending home births, working in teaching hospitals and having recent professional training.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

A pre-post implementation study of a care bundle to reduce perineal trauma in unassisted births conducted by midwives

PROBLEM

The perineal-bundle is a complex intervention widely implemented in Australian maternity care facilities.

BACKGROUND

Most bundle components have limited or conflicting evidence and the implementation required many midwives to change their usual practice for preventing perineal trauma.

AIM

To measure the effect of perineal bundle implementation on perineal injury for women having unassisted births with midwives.

METHODS

A retrospective pre-post implementation study design to determine rates of second degree, severe perineal trauma, and episiotomy. Women who had an unassisted, singleton, cephalic vaginal birth at term between two time periods: January 2011 - November 2017 and August 2018 - August 2020 with a midwife or midwifery student accoucheur. We conducted logistic regression on the primary outcomes to control for confounding variables.

FINDINGS

data from 20,155 births (pre-implementation) and 6273 (post-implementation) were analysed. After implementation, no significant difference in likelihood of severe perineal trauma was demonstrated (aOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04, p = 0.124). Nulliparous women were more likely to receive an episiotomy (aOR 1.49 95% CI 1.31-1.70 p < 0.001) and multiparous women to suffer a second degree tear (aOR 1.18 95% CI 1.09-1.27 p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

This study adds to the growing body of literature which suggests a number of bundle components are ineffective, and some potentially harmful. Why, and how, the bundle was introduced at scale without a research framework to test efficacy and safety is a key concern.

CONCLUSION

Suitably designed trials should be undertaken on all proposed individual or grouped perineal protection strategies prior to broad adoption.

Primary midwives' experiences of collegial midwifery assistance during the active second stage of labor: Data from the Oneplus trial

BACKGROUND

Collegial midwifery assistance during the active second stage of labor that involves a second midwife being present has been shown to reduce severe perineal trauma (SPT) by 30%. The aim of this study was to investigate primary midwives' experiences of collegial midwifery assistance with the purpose of preventing SPT during the active second stage of labor.

METHODS

This study uses an observational design with data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial (Oneplus). Data consist of clinical registration forms completed by the midwives after birth. Descriptive statistics as well as univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The majority of the primary midwives felt confident (61%) and were positive (56%) toward the practice. Midwives with less than 2 years' work experience were more likely to completely agree they felt confident (aOR 9.18, 95% CI: 6.28-13.41) and experience the intervention as positive (aOR 4.04, 95% CI: 2.83-5.78) than those with over 20 years' work experience. Factors such as duration of time spent in the birthing room by the second midwife, opportunity for planning and if the second midwife provided support were further associated with the primary midwife's experience of the practice as being positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that having a second midwife present during the active second stage of labor was an accepted practice, with the majority of primary midwives feeling confident and positive toward the intervention. This was especially pronounced among midwives with less than 2 years' work experience.

Which elements were significant in reducing obstetric anal sphincter injury? A prospective follow-up study

Background

To examine which elements of an obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) care bundle were protective for OASI. Several interventional trials showed that application of a care bundle involving a hands-on approach to perineal protection may reduce the risk of OASI. Previously, we found that only the element “hand on the fetal head” in itself was protective, although the risk of a type 2 error was calculated to be 50%.

Methods

A prospective follow-up study in an obstetric department in Denmark with 3200 deliveries per year. We included a cohort of 10,383 women giving birth vaginally from gestational week 22 + 0 from 2016 through 2019. We documented on a person-level the five elements of the care bundle together with maternal and obstetrical characteristics. The elements were 1) communication, 2) visible perineum, 3) hand on fetal head, 4) perineal support and 5) certification. Regression analysis was used for analysis of associations. The primary outcome measure was OASI.

Results

The total rate of OASI in vaginally delivering women was 1.9%. The incidence was 3.2% in nulliparous women giving birth vaginally. The rate of cesarean section was 16.5% and for episiotomy 2.4%. The reduction in the incidence of OASI was sustained since 2013. Hand on the fetal head and perineal support both were protective factors for OASI. In case of a nulliparous woman with a neonate weighing 3500 g giving birth spontaneously, the relative risk (RR) for OASI was 0.50 (95% CI 0.49- 0.51) with use of hand on the fetal head together with perineal support against no use. Similarly, with a nulliparous woman giving birth to a neonate of 3500 g by vacuum extraction, the RR for OASI was 0.65 (95% CI 0.62-0.68) against no use.

Conclusions

Both hand on the fetal head and perineal support were associated with a reduced risk of OASI.