In women with spontaneous vaginal delivery, repair of perineal tears might be easier compared to episiotomy.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To examine a common assumption that suturing of episiotomy, a straight performer-controlled incision, might be easier compared to repair of unpredictable spontaneous perineal tears. METHODS: Data for this study were collected prospectively, as part of a randomized controlled trial examining the outcomes of episiotomy avoidance. Suturing characteristics were compared between vaginal deliveries with episiotomy vs. spontaneous perineal tears. Primary outcomes included the duration of the repair, number of suture packs used for the repair, and subjective rating of suturing difficulty (rated from 1 to 5 by practitioner performing the suturing). RESULTS: Of 525 vaginal deliveries, episiotomy was performed in 165 (31.4%) of the cases, 59 of which (35.8%) were accompanied by additional vaginal tears. Spontaneous vaginal tears without episiotomy were noted in 272 deliveries (51.8%). Compared to spontaneous perineal tears, episiotomy performance was associated with an adverse effect on all three suturing characteristics in the overall cohort and in subgroup of non-operative deliveries. When comparing episiotomy only to second-degree tear suturing, in the subgroup of non-operative vaginal deliveries a higher rate of suturing duration < 10 min was noted in favor of spontaneous tears. However, in sub-analysis of vacuum-assisted deliveries, a benefit was noted in favor of the episiotomy-only group in terms of fewer suture packs and lower subjective difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: In women with non-operative vaginal delivery, suturing of spontaneous perineal tears was easier and shorter compared to episiotomy repair. This might be related to the unpredictable nature of perineal tears, which might be shorter and shallower compared to the standard episiotomy incision.

Is it time to abandon episiotomy use? A randomized controlled trial (EPITRIAL).

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this trial was to evaluate whether avoidance of episiotomy can decrease the risk of advanced perineal tears. METHODS: In this randomized (1:1) parallel-group superiority trial, primiparous women underwent randomization into "avoidance of episiotomy" (the study group in which episiotomy was allowed only in cases of fetal distress) or "standard care." The primary outcome was the incidence of advanced (3rd- and 4th-degree) perineal tears. RESULTS: The participants were randomized into "standard care" (n = 337) vs. "no episiotomy" (n = 339) groups, not differing in any demographic or obstetric characteristics. Episiotomy rates were significantly lower in the study group (19.6%) compared with the standard care group (29.8%, p = 0.004). Five (1.5%) advanced tears were diagnosed in the study group vs. ten = 3.0% in the controls, yielding an odds ratio of 0.50 (95% CI 0.17-1.50) in favor of the "no episiotomy" group (p = 0.296). No differences were noted in any secondary outcomes. By per protocol analysis (omitting cases in which episiotomy was performed for indications other than fetal distress in the study group), a trend to decreased risk of advanced tears in the study group was noted (p = 0.0956). By per protocol analyses, no severe tears were noted in the 53 vacuum deliveries in the study group vs. 4/65 (6.2%) tears in the controls (p = 0.126). CONCLUSIONS: Since decreased use of episiotomy was not associated with higher rates of severe tears or any other adverse outcomes, we believe this procedure can be avoided in spontaneous as well as vacuum-assisted deliveries. Trial registration no. NCT02356237.

No episiotomy versus selective lateral/mediolateral episiotomy (EPITRIAL): an interim analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this trial was to evaluate whether avoiding episiotomy can decrease the risk of advanced perineal tears. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this randomized (1:1) parallel-group superiority trial, primiparous women underwent randomization into standard care (155 cases) vs. no episiotomy (154 cases) groups. The primary endpoint was the incidence of advanced (3rd- and 4th-degree) perineal tears. Secondary outcomes included perineal integrity, suturing characteristics, second-stage duration, incidence of postpartum hemorrhage, neonatal variables, and various postpartum symptoms 2 days and 2 months after delivery. RESULTS: At prespecified 1-year interim analysis, the groups did not differ in terms of baseline demographic and obstetric characteristics. Six advanced perineal tears (3.9%) were diagnosed in the standard care group vs. two in no episiotomy group (1.3%), yielding a calculated odds ratio (OR) of 0.33 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06-1.65). Unexpectedly, rates of episiotomy performance also did not significantly vary between groups: 26.5% (41 cases) vs. 21.4% (33 cases), respectively, p = 0.35. No significant differences were noted in any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in the rates of advanced perineal tears was found between groups; however, the main limitation of our study was unexpectedly high rates of episiotomy in the nonepisiotomy group. Thus, the main conclusion is that investigator monitoring and education should be continuously practiced throughout the trial duration, stressing the importance of adherence to the protocol.

Pregnancy course and outcome in women traveling to developing countries.

BACKGROUND: The issue of travel to developing countries during pregnancy has not been sufficiently studied. The aim of this study is to investigate the rate, course, and outcome of pregnancies in women who traveled to developing countries while pregnant, or became pregnant during such travel. METHODS: Women visiting two major travel clinics in Israel for consultation within the years 2004 to 2009, who were pregnant or declared an intention of becoming pregnant during travel were contacted. This was followed by a telephone interview by an obstetrician with those women who were actually pregnant. Background characteristics, morbidity during travel, and pregnancy course and outcome were collected. RESULTS: Overall 52,430 travelers' records had been screened. Of these, we identified 49 women who were pregnant during their trip, but 3 declined participation. Of the remaining 46 women, 33 were pregnant at departure, and 13 conceived during travel. The incidence of pregnancy during travel was thus 0.93/1000 travelers. Thirty-three women traveled to East Asia, 8 to South and Central America, 5 to Africa. More than two thirds of women received pretravel vaccinations. Adherence to the World Health Organization recommendations regarding food and drink was high (87%) and travelers' diarrhea occurred in only 11% of women. Five of 22 women traveling to malarious areas had taken antimalarial prophylaxis. Six women required medical therapy during travel. Pregnancy outcome was not different from the normal population except for an unusually low rate of preterm delivery. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, travel to developing countries was not associated with adverse pregnancy outcome. Larger studies are needed to support these findings.