Which factors are associated with anal incontinence after obstetric anal sphincter injury?

OBJECTIVES

Obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) is an important factor in the etiology of anal incontinence. This study aimed to evaluate whether anal sphincter defects, levator avulsion or levator ballooning after OASI are associated with severity of anal incontinence. Furthermore, we evaluated whether factors such as constipation and altered stool consistency are associated with symptoms of incontinence after OASI.

METHODS

In this multicenter prospective observational cohort study, women with OASI were invited to participate at least 3 months after primary repair. All women completed validated questionnaires, including St Mark's incontinence score, Bristol stool scale (BSS) and Cleveland clinic constipation score (CCCS), and underwent four-dimensional (4D) transperineal ultrasound for assessment of the levator ani muscle and anal sphincter.

RESULTS

In total, 220 women were included. Median follow-up was 4 months (range, 3-98 months). Univariate linear regression analysis showed an association of St Mark's incontinence score with a residual defect of the external anal sphincter (EAS) (β, 1.55 (95% CI, 0.04-3.07); P = 0.045), higher parity (β, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.02-1.67); P = 0.046), BSS (β, 1.28 (95% CI, 0.67-1.89); P < 0.001) and CCCS (β, 0.36 (95% CI, 0.18-0.54); P < 0.001). However, multivariate linear regression found an association of St Mark's incontinence score only with BSS (β, 1.50 (95% CI, 0.90-2.11); P < 0.001) and CCCS (β, 0.46 (95% CI, 0.29-0.63); P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Residual defects of the EAS, detected on 4D transperineal ultrasound, are associated with severity of anal incontinence symptoms measured using St Mark's incontinence score 4 months after OASI repair. Furthermore, clinical factors such as constipation and altered stool consistency appear to influence this association and may therefore play a more important role in clinical management. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Association of levator injury and urogynecological complaints in women after their first vaginal birth with and without mediolateral episiotomy

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common health problem in women and has a negative influence on quality of life. A major cause of pelvic organ prolapse is levator injury.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to evaluate the association of mediolateral episiotomy with levator injury (levator avulsion, ballooning, or combined) and urogynecological complaints.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective observational cohort study was performed in 204 primiparous women with a spontaneous vaginal delivery without anal sphincter tear in a general hospital between 2012 and 2015. One hundred three of these women had had a mediolateral episiotomy. Validated urogynecological questionnaires and transperineal 3-dimensional/4-dimensional ultrasound were completed after delivery. Outcome measures were levator avulsion, ballooning (hiatal area of more than 25 cm²), and urogynecological questionnaire scores. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The median time at investigation after vaginal delivery was 13 months (range 6-33). Levator injury (avulsion, ballooning, or combined) was identified in 35 of the 103 women who had undergone mediolateral episiotomy (40.0%) and 33 of the 101 women without episiotomy (32.7%) (P = .69). No differences were found in the incidence of levator avulsion 27 (26.7%) vs 23 (22.8%) (P = .53) or in levator ballooning (20 [19.4%] vs 23 [22.8%] (P = .58) between both groups. There was an association between longer duration of the second stage of labor and the incidence of levator avulsion (odds ratio, 1.24 [95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.52]). Nonocciput anterior fetal position increased the risk of levator ballooning and levator injury (odds ratio, 10.19 [95% confidence interval, 1.89-54.91] and odds ratio, 12.16 [95% confidence interval, 1.41-104.38], respectively). No differences in urogynecological complaints were found.

CONCLUSION

Mediolateral episiotomy is not associated with the occurrence of levator injury or urogynecological complaints in women with a spontaneous vaginal delivery who did not obtain an anal sphincter injury. Levator injury was associated with a prolonged second stage of labor and a nonocciput anterior fetal position.

Interventions for women in subsequent pregnancies following obstetric anal sphincter injury to reduce the risk of recurrent injury and associated harms

BACKGROUND

Perineal damage occurs frequently during childbirth, with severe damage involving injury to the anal sphincter reported in up to 18% of vaginal births. Women who have sustained anal sphincter damage are more likely to suffer perineal pain, dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse), defaecatory dysfunction, and urinary and faecal incontinence compared to those without damage. Interventions in a subsequent pregnancy may be beneficial in reducing the risk of further severe trauma and may reduce the risk of associated morbidities.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of Interventions for women in subsequent pregnancies following obstetric anal sphincter injury for improving health.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, cluster-randomised trials and multi-arm trials assessing the effects of any intervention in subsequent pregnancies following obstetric anal sphincter injury to improve health. Quasi-randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

No trials were included. In future updates of this review, at least two review authors will extract data and assess the risk of bias of included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

No eligible completed trials were identified. One ongoing trial was identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No relevant trials were included. The effectiveness of interventions for women in subsequent pregnancies following obstetric anal sphincter injury for improving health is therefore unknown. Randomised trials to assess the relative effects of interventions are required before clear practice recommendations can be made.

Hyaluronidase for reducing perineal trauma

BACKGROUND

Perineal hyaluronidase (HAase) injection was widely used to reduce the occurrence of perineal trauma, pain and need for episiotomy in the 1950s to 1960s. Reports suggested that the administration of HAase was a simple, low risk, low cost and effective way to decrease perineal trauma without adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of perineal HAase injection for reducing spontaneous perineal trauma, episiotomy and perineal pain in vaginal deliveries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2013), the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (both on 1 April 2013), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We also contacted relevant organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing perineal HAase injection with placebo injection or no intervention in vaginal deliveries.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and evaluated methodological quality. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

The search strategy identified six potentially eligible studies. Two studies were excluded. We included four randomised controlled trials that randomised a total of 599 women (data were available for 595 women).Two trials (283 women) compared the effects of perineal HAase injection during the second stage of labour with placebo injection and were at low risk of bias. Three trials (one three-armed trial was analysed twice) (373 women) compared the effects of perineal HAase injection during second stage of labour with no intervention and two out of the three trials were at high risk of bias. Data from four trials involving 599 women suggested that perineal HAase injection during second stage of labour had a lower incidence of perineal trauma (average risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.95,Tau² = 0.08, I² = 82% compared with women in the control group, but there was no clear evidence of a reduction in the incidence of episiotomy (average RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.29, Tau² = 0.17, I² = 66%), first and second degree perineal lacerations (average RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33, Tau² = 0.30 , I² = 85%) and third and fourth degree perineal lacerations (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.13). Data from two trials involving 283 women indicated that there was no clear evidence of a reduction in the incidence of perineal trauma (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.06, Tau²=1.07, I² = 7%), episiotomy (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.89, Tau² = 0.27, I² = 54%), first and second degree perineal lacerations (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.40, Tau² = 1.11, I² = 10%) and third and fourth degree perineal lacerations (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.13) with perineal HAase injection. Data from three trials involving 373 women suggested that perineal HAase injection during second stage of labour had a lower incidence of perineal trauma (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.88, Tau² = 0.08, I² = 78%) compared with no intervention, but had no clear effect on in the incidence of episiotomy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.42, Tau² = 0.16, I² = 70%) and first and second degree perineal lacerations (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.10, Tau² = 0.18, I² = 59%). No side effects were reported in the included trials.No included trials reported on perineal pain and other pre-specified secondary outcomes: perineal trauma requiring suturing; blood loss; dyspareunia; urinary incontinence; faecal incontinence; assisted delivery rate; women's satisfaction; Apgar score less than seven at five minutes and need for admission to special care baby unit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Perineal HAase injection during second stage of labour had a lower incidence of perineal trauma compared with control or no intervention, but there was no clear evidence of benefit compared with placebo injection. The difference in incidence of perineal trauma may probably be due to bias and confounding in the non-placebo controlled comparison, this result should be interpreted cautiously. The potential use of perineal HAase injection as a method to reduce perineal trauma were yet to be determined as there was no appropriate established dose for HAase, no evidence of follow up, and the number of high-quality trials and outcomes reported were too limited to draw conclusions on its effectiveness and safety. Further rigorous randomised controlled trials are required to evaluate the role of perineal HAase injection in vaginal deliveries.