OASI2: a cluster randomised hybrid evaluation of strategies for sustainable implementation of the Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury Care Bundle in maternity units in Great Britain

Caesarean section and anal incontinence in women after obstetric anal sphincter injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% women who give birth after obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) develop anal incontinence (AI) over their lifetime.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate current evidence for a protective benefit of planned caesarean section (CS) to prevent AI after OASI.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase 1974-2024, CINAHL and Cochrane to 7 February 2024 (PROSPERO CRD42022372442).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All studies reporting outcomes after OASI and a subsequent birth, by any mode.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eighty-six of 2646 screened studies met inclusion criteria, with nine studies suitable to meta-analyse the primary outcome of 'adjusted AI' after OASI and subsequent birth. Subgroups: short-term AI, long-term AI, AI in asymptomatic women.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

total AI, quality of life, satisfaction/regret, solid/liquid/flatal incontinence, faecal urgency, AI in women with and without subsequent birth, change in AI pre- to post- subsequent birth.

MAIN RESULTS

There was no evidence of a difference in adjusted AI after subsequent vaginal birth compared with CS after OASI across all time periods (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.72-1.20; 9 studies, 2104 participants, I2 = 0% p = 0.58), for subgroup analyses or secondary outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference in AI in women with or without subsequent birth (OR = 1.00 95% CI 0.65-1.54; 10 studies, 970 participants, I2 = 35% p = 0.99), or pre- to post- subsequent birth (OR = 0.79 95% CI 0.51-1.25; 13 studies, 5496 participants, I2 = 73% p = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to low evidence quality, we are unable to determine whether planned caesarean is protective against AI after OASI. Higher quality evidence is required to guide personalised decision-making for asymptomatic women and to determine the effect of subsequent birth mode on long-term AI outcomes.

The prevention of perineal trauma during vaginal birth

Perineal trauma after vaginal birth is common, with approximately 9 of 10 women being affected. Second-degree perineal tears are twice as likely to occur in primiparous births, with a incidence of 40%. The incidence of obstetrical anal sphincter injury is approximately 3%, with a significantly higher rate in primiparous than in multiparous women (6% vs 2%). Obstetrical anal sphincter injury is a significant risk factor for the development of anal incontinence, with approximately 10% of women developing symptoms within a year following vaginal birth. Obstetrical anal sphincter injuries have significant medicolegal implications and contribute greatly to healthcare costs. For example, in 2013 and 2014, the economic burden of obstetrical anal sphincter injuries in the United Kingdom ranged between £3.7 million (with assisted vaginal birth) and £9.8 million (with spontaneous vaginal birth). In the United States, complications associated with trauma to the perineum incurred costs of approximately $83 million between 2007 and 2011. It is therefore crucial to focus on improvements in clinical care to reduce this risk and minimize the development of perineal trauma, particularly obstetrical anal sphincter injuries. Identification of risk factors allows modification of obstetrical practice with the aim of reducing the rate of perineal trauma and its attendant associated morbidity. Risk factors associated with second-degree perineal trauma include increased fetal birthweight, operative vaginal birth, prolonged second stage of labor, maternal birth position, and advanced maternal age. With obstetrical anal sphincter injury, risk factors include induction of labor, augmentation of labor, epidural, increased fetal birthweight, fetal malposition (occiput posterior), midline episiotomy, operative vaginal birth, Asian ethnicity, and primiparity. Obstetrical practice can be modified both antenatally and intrapartum. The evidence suggests that in the antenatal period, perineal massage can be commenced in the third trimester of pregnancy to increase muscle elasticity and allow stretching of the perineum during birth, thereby reducing the risk of tearing or need for episiotomy. With regard to the intrapartum period, there is a growing body of evidence from the United Kingdom, Norway, and Denmark suggesting that the implementation of quality improvement initiatives including the training of clinicians in manual perineal protection and mediolateral episiotomy can reduce the incidence of obstetrical anal sphincter injury. With episiotomy, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics recommends restrictive rather than routine use of episiotomy. This is particularly the case with unassisted vaginal births. However, there is a role for episiotomy, specifically mediolateral or lateral, with assisted vaginal births. This is specifically the case with nulliparous vacuum and forceps births, given that the use of mediolateral or lateral episiotomy has been shown to significantly reduce the incidence of obstetrical anal sphincter injury in these groups by 43% and 68%, respectively. However, the complications associated with episiotomy including perineal pain, dyspareunia, and sexual dysfunction should be acknowledged. Despite considerable research, interventions for reducing the risk of perineal trauma remain a subject of controversy. In this review article, we present the available data on the prevention of perineal trauma by describing the risk factors associated with perineal trauma and interventions that can be implemented to prevent perineal trauma, in particular obstetrical anal sphincter injury.

Connecting the science and practice of implementation - applying the lens of context to inform study design in implementation research

The saying "horses for courses" refers to the idea that different people and things possess different skills or qualities that are appropriate in different situations. In this paper, we apply the analogy of "horses for courses" to stimulate a debate about how and why we need to get better at selecting appropriate implementation research methods that take account of the context in which implementation occurs. To ensure that implementation research achieves its intended purpose of enhancing the uptake of research-informed evidence in policy and practice, we start from a position that implementation research should be explicitly connected to implementation practice. Building on our collective experience as implementation researchers, implementation practitioners (users of implementation research), implementation facilitators and implementation educators and subsequent deliberations with an international, inter-disciplinary group involved in practising and studying implementation, we present a discussion paper with practical suggestions that aim to inform more practice-relevant implementation research.

Design and management considerations for control groups in hybrid effectiveness-implementation trials: Narrative review & case studies

Hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies allow researchers to combine study of a clinical intervention's effectiveness with study of its implementation with the aim of accelerating the translation of evidence into practice. However, there currently exists limited guidance on how to design and manage such hybrid studies. This is particularly true for studies that include a comparison/control arm that, by design, receives less implementation support than the intervention arm. Lack of such guidance can present a challenge for researchers both in setting up but also in effectively managing participating sites in such trials. This paper uses a narrative review of the literature (Phase 1 of the research) and comparative case study of three studies (Phase 2 of the research) to identify common themes related to study design and management. Based on these, we comment and reflect on: (1) the balance that needs to be struck between fidelity to the study design and tailoring to emerging requests from participating sites as part of the research process, and (2) the modifications to the implementation strategies being evaluated. Hybrid trial teams should carefully consider the impact of design selection, trial management decisions, and any modifications to implementation processes and/or support on the delivery of a controlled evaluation. The rationale for these choices should be systematically reported to fill the gap in the literature.

A hybrid type I, multi-center randomized controlled trial to study the implementation of a method for Sustained cord circulation And VEntilation (the SAVE-method) of late preterm and term neonates: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

An intact umbilical cord allows the physiological transfusion of blood from the placenta to the neonate, which reduces infant iron deficiency and is associated with improved development during early childhood. The implementation of delayed cord clamping practice varies depending on mode of delivery, as well as gestational age and neonatal compromise. Emerging evidence shows that infants requiring resuscitation would benefit if respiratory support were provided with the umbilical cord intact. Common barriers to providing intact cord resuscitation is the availability of neonatal resuscitation equipment close to the mother, organizational readiness for change as well as attitudes and beliefs about placental transfusion within the multidisciplinary team. Hence, clinical evaluations of cord clamping practice should include implementation outcomes in order to develop strategies for optimal cord management practice.

METHODS

The Sustained cord circulation And Ventilation (SAVE) study is a hybrid type I randomized controlled study combining the evaluation of clinical outcomes with implementation and health service outcomes. In phase I of the study, a method for providing in-bed intact cord resuscitation was developed, in phase II of the study the intervention was adapted to be used in multiple settings. In phase III of the study, a full-scale multicenter study will be initiated with concurrent evaluation of clinical, implementation and health service outcomes. Clinical data on neonatal outcomes will be recorded at the labor and neonatal units. Implementation outcomes will be collected from electronic surveys sent to parents as well as staff and managers within the birth and neonatal units. Descriptive and comparative statistics and regression modelling will be used for analysis. Quantitative data will be supplemented by qualitative methods using a thematic analysis with an inductive approach.

DISCUSSION

The SAVE study enables the safe development and evaluation of a method for intact cord resuscitation in a multicenter trial. The study identifies barriers and facilitators for intact cord resuscitation. The knowledge provided from the study will be of benefit for the development of cord clamping practice in different challenging clinical settings and provide evidence for development of clinical guidelines regarding optimal cord clamping.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04070560 . Registered 28 August 2019.