If you are experiencing problems downloading PDF or HTML fulltext, our helpdesk recommend clearing your browser cache and trying again. If you need help in clearing your cache, please click here . Still need help? Email help@ingentaconnect.com

Differences in episiotomy technique between midwives and doctors

$48.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Download / Buy Article:

Abstract:

Objectives

To examine the practice of making an episiotomy and to determine any differences in practice between professional groups. Design

A prospective survey. Setting

A large tertiary referral obstetric hospital and the obstetric department of a district general hospital. Population

All staff routinely involved in the care of women in labour. Methods

A novel validated pictorial questionnaire was designed, validated and distributed to the study population. Differences in outcome measures were compared by profession and by seniority. Main outcome measures

Measurements taken from the questionnaire: the length of episiotomy drawn; the distance from the sagittal plane at which the episiotomy was begun; and the angle of the episiotomy from the sagittal plane. Results

Fifty doctors and 78 midwives completed the forms. Median distance of the episiotomy from the midline was 0 mm (−2 to 11). Episiotomies drawn by doctors were significantly longer and more angled than those drawn by midwives ( P= 0.002 and P= 0.001 ). Sixteen percent of doctors and 1% of midwives drew an episiotomy longer than 20 mm (difference 15%, 95% CI 6 to 24). Twenty-three percent of midwives and 2% of doctors drew an episiotomy angled 30° or less (difference 21%, 95% CI 9 to 34). Conclusions

This study has demonstrated differences in the reporting of episiotomy practice by doctors and midwives. Theoretically, the differences demonstrated could predispose to a greater risk of anal sphincter injuries. These data need to be confirmed by observational studies of actual practice and by studies to investigate the mechanics of sphincter injury during childbirth.

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2003.03030.x

Affiliations: 1: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Leicester, Leicester Royal Infirmary, UK 2: Urogynaecology Department, Liverpool Women's Hospital, UK 3: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool Women's Hospital, UK

Publication date: December 1, 2003

Tools

Favourites

Share Content

Access Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
ingentaconnect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more