Clinical and Ultrasonographic Evaluation of the Pelvic Floor in Primiparous Women after Normal Vaginal Delivery with Episiotomy and without Episiotomy

Crossmark: check for updates

Authors

  • Nora H. K. Elabady Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculty of Medicine,Tanta University,Tanta, Gharbia, Egypt
  • Ahmed M. Awara Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculty of Medicine,Tanta University,Tanta, Gharbia, Egypt
  • Amr M. El-Badry Diagnostic Radiology Department, Faculty of Medicine,Tanta University,Tanta, Gharbia, Egypt
  • Nareman El-Hamamy Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Faculty of Medicine,Tanta University,Tanta, Gharbia, Egypt

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17140/GOROJ-7-153

Keywords:

Clinical and ultrasonography, Primiparous, Normal vaginal delivery, Episiotomy

Abstract

Objective
The aim of this prospective study is clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation of the pelvic floor in primiparous women after normal vaginal delivery with episiotomy and without episiotomy.
Methods
This is a cross-section study of primiparous women with a history of delivery at Tanta University Hospital from August 2018 to August 2019. The sample power was calculated based on avulsion (major and minor) in two groups (vaginal delivery with episiotomy and without episiotomy) of total forty-primiparous women with an interval after delivery (20 cases after normal vaginal delivery with episiotomy and 20 cases after normal vaginal delivery without episiotomy).
Results
Twenty-four hours of delivery there was a highly significant difference between group A (with episiotomy) and group B (without episiotomy) regarding to ultrasound abnormalities, degree of tear, blood loss, hemoglobin concentration and clinical findings, while no difference regarding levator ani weakness. Two months later from delivery there was no significant difference between group A and group B regarding to ultrasound abnormalities and levator ani weakness while there was a difference between the two groups in regarding with clinical findings.
Conclusion
Normal vaginal delivery without episiotomy in primiparous women is better than normal vaginal delivery with episiotomy as there is no perineal tenderness, no dyspareunia. Low incidence of urinary, rectal incontinence, tear and perineal infection.

References

Hallock JL, Handa VL. The epidemiology of pelvic floor disor-ders and childbirth: An update. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2016; 43: 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2015.10.008

Memon H, Handa VL. Pelvic floor disorders following vagi-nal. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 24(5): 349-354. doi: 10.1097/ GCO.0b013e328357628b

Michalec I, Simetka O, Navratilova M, Tomanova M, Gartner M1, Salounova D, et al. Vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery and leva-tor ani avulsion in primiparous women. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 29: 2715-2718. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1102223

Sagi-Dain L, Sagi S. Indications for episiotomy performance -across-sectional survey and review of the literature. J Obstet Gyn-aecol. 2016; 36(4): 361-365. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2015.1065233

Carroli G, Mignini L. Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2009; 1: CD000081. doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD000081.pub2

Sagi-Dain L, Sagi S. The role of episiotomy in prevention and man-agement of shoulder dystocia: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2015; 70(6): 354-362. doi: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000179

Alperin M, Cook M, Tuttle LJ, Esparza MC, Lieber RL. Impact of vaginal parity and aging on the architectural design of pelvic floor muscles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215(3): 312 e-1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.033

Tan L, Shek KL, Atan IK, Rojas RG, Dietz HP. The repeatability of sonographic measures of functional pelvic floor anatomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26(11): 1667-1672. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015- 2759-9

Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS, Redden DT, Burgio KL, Rich-ter HE, et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 141-148. doi:

1097/AOG.0000000000000057 Original Research | Volume 7 | Number 1| 10. JúniorA, de Freitas R, Di Bella Z, Alexandre SM, Nakamura MU, Nardozza LMM, et al. Assessment of pelvic floor by three-di-mensional-ultrasound in primiparous women according to delivery mode: Initial experience from a single reference service in Brazil. Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetrićia: revista da Federação Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2013; 35(3): 117-122. doi: 10.1590/S0100-72032013000300005

Araujo C, Coelho S, Martinho N, et al. Clinical and ultrasono-graphic evaluation of the pelvic floor in primiparous women: A cross-sectional study. Int Urogynecol J. 2018; 29: 1543-1549. doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3581-y

Javed I, Shoaib T, Bhutta S. Liberal versus restricted use of episiotomy in primigravidae. Journal of Surgery Pakistan. 2007; 12(3): 106-109.

Shahraki AD, Aram S, Pourkabirian S, Khodaee S, Choupan-nejad S. A comparison between early maternal and neonatal com-plications of restrictive episiotomy and routine episiotomy in pri-miparous vaginal delivery. J Res Med Sci. 2011; 16(12): 1583-1589.

Rodriguez A, Arenas EA, Osorio AL, Mendez O, Zuleta JJ. Se-lective vs routine midline episiotomy for the prevention of third-or fourth-degree lacerations in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198: 285: e1-e4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.007

Sulaiman AS, Ahmad S, Ismail NA, Rahman RA, Jamil MA, Mohd Dali AZ. A randomized control trial evaluating the preva-lence of obstetrical anal sphincter injuries in primigravida in rou-tine versus selective mediolateral episiotomy. Saudi Med J. 2013; 34(8): 819-823. Submit your article to this journal | https://openventio.org/submit-manuscript/ Original Research | Volume 7 | Number 1| Elabady NHK et al

Parveen B, Haq G, Sheikh A. Routine versus selective episi-otomy in primigravidae. Pak J Surg. 2012; 28(4): 285-290.

Dietz HP, Bernardo MJ, Kirby A, ShekKL.Minimal criteria for the diagnosis of avulsion of the puborectalis muscle by to-mographic ultrasound. Int Urogynecol J. 2011; 22(6): 699-704. doi: 10.1007/s00192-010-1329-4

Coutada R, Nogueira-Silva Cand Rocha A. Episiotomy: Early maternal and neonatal outcomes of selective versus routine use. Acta Obstet Ginecol Port. 2014; 8(2): 126-134.

M Amorim M, Coutinho IC, Melo I, Katz L. Selective episi-otomy vs. implementation of a non-episiotomy protocol: A ran-domized clinical trial. Reprod Health. 2017; 14(1): 55. doi: 10.1186/ s12978-017-03154

Thamaraveni K. Episiotomy versus spontaneous vaginal deliv-ery in primigravidae. Indian Journa of Applied Research. 2016; 6(12): 88-90.

Apurva J, Patil S, Patil Y, Bhosle R. Routine versus restricted use of episiotomy in primigravidas. J Evolution Med Dent Sci. 2016; 5(48): 3086-3089. doi: 10.14260/jemds/2016/718

Tähtinen RM, Cartwright R, Tsui JF, Aaltonen RL, Aoki Y, Cárdenas JL, et al. Long-term impact of mode of delivery on stress urinary incontinence and urgency urinary incontinence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016; 70(1): 148- 158. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.037

Downloads

Published

2020-06-03

How to Cite

Nora H. K. Elabady, Ahmed M. Awara, Amr M. El-Badry, & Nareman El-Hamamy. (2020). Clinical and Ultrasonographic Evaluation of the Pelvic Floor in Primiparous Women after Normal Vaginal Delivery with Episiotomy and without Episiotomy. Gynecology and Obstetrics Research, 7(1), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.17140/GOROJ-7-153

Issue

Vol. 7 No. 1 (2020): Volume 7 Issue 1 2020

Section

Articles

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

All content published in Gynecology and Obstetrics Research (GOR) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows anyone to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work — including for commercial purposes — provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source.