Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
There seems to be a temporal association between increasing use of “hands off” the perineum in labour and reduced use of episiotomy with an increasing rate of anal sphincter injuries. We aimed to determine how common the practice of “hands off” the perineum is.
Methods
An observational postal questionnaire study of 1,000 midwives in England in which the main objective was to obtain an estimate of the number of midwives practising either “hands on” or “hands off” was conducted.
Results
Six hundred and seven questionnaires were returned; 299 (49.3%, 95% CI 45.2–53.3%) midwives prefer the “hands-off” method. Less-experienced midwives were more likely to prefer the “hands off” (72% vs. 41.4%, p < 0.001). A higher proportion of midwives in the “hands-off” group would never do an episiotomy (37.1% vs. 24.4%, p = 0.001) for indications other than fetal distress.
Conclusions
The “hands off” the perineum technique is prevalent in the management of labour. We hypothesise that a possible consequence might be an increased incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injury.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Laine K, Pirhonen T, Rolland R, Pirhonen J (2008) Decreasing the incidence of anal sphincter tears during delivery. Obstet Gynecol 111:1053–1057
Revicky V, Nirmal D, Mukhopadhyay S, Morris E, Nieto J (2010) Could a mediolateral episiotomy prevent obstetric anal sphincter injury? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 150:142–146
Raisanen S, Vehvilainen-Julkunen K, Gissler M, Heinonen S (2009) The increased incidence of obstetric anal sphincter rupture – an emerging trend in Finland. Prev Med 49:535–540
Laine K, Gissler M, Pirhonen J (2009) Changing incidence of anal sphincter tears in four Nordic countries through the last decades. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 146:71–75
Van Dillen J, Spaans M, van Keijsteren W et al (2010) A prospective multicenter audit of labour-room episiotomy and anal sphincter injury assessment in the Netherlands. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 108:97–100
Mous M, Muller SA, de Leeuw JW (2008) Long term effects of anal sphincter rupture during vaginal delivery: faecal incontinence and sexual complaints. BJOG 115:234–238
Nordenstam J, Mellgren A, Altman D et al (2008) Immediate or delayed repair of obstetric anal sphincter tears – a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 115:857–865
Fernando RJ, Sultan AH, Kettle C, Radley S, Jones P, O’Brien PM (2006) Repair techniques for obstetric anal sphincter injuries: a randomised controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 107:1261–1268
Richter HE, Fielding JR, Bradley CS et al (2006) Endoanal ultrasound findings and fecal incontinence symptoms in women with and without recognised anal sphincter tears. Obstet Gynecol 108:1394–1401
Aukee P, Sundstrom H, Kairaluoma M (2006) The role of mediolateral episiotomy during labour: analysis of risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter tears. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85:856–860
Jander C, Lyrenas S (2001) Third and fourth degree perineal tears – predictor factors in a referral hospital. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80:229–234
Dahl C, Kjolhede P (2006) Obstetric anal sphincter rupture in older primiparous women: a case-control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85:1252–1258
Sheiner E, Levy A, Walfisch A, Hallak M, Mazor M (2005) Third degree perineal tears in a university medical centre where midline episiotomies are not performed. Arch Gynecol Obstet 271:307–310
Spydslaug A, Trogstad L, Skrondal A, Eskild A (2005) Recurrent risk of anal sphincter laceration among women with vaginal deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 105:307–313
Samarasekera D, Bekhit M, Preston J, Speakman C (2009) Risk factors for anal sphincter disruption during childbirth. Langenbecks Arch Surg 394:535–538
De Leeuw J, Struijk P, Vierhout M, Wallenburg H (2001) Risk factors for third degree perineal ruptures during delivery. BJOG 108:383–387
Williams A (2003) Third degree perineal tears: risk factors and outcome after primary repair. J Obstet Gynaecol 23:611–614
Andrews V, Sultan A, Thakar R, Jones P (2006) Risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury: a prospective study. Birth 33:117–122
Pirhonen J, Grenman S, Haadem K et al (1998) Frequency of anal sphincter rupture at delivery in Sweden and Finland – result of difference in manual help to the baby’s head. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 77:974–977
Parnell C, Langhoff-Roos J, Moller H (2001) Conduct of labour and rupture of the sphincter ani. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80:256–261
Samuelsson E, Ladfors L, Wennerholm U, Gareberg B, Nyberg K, Hagberg H (2000) Anal sphincter tears: prospective study of obstetric risk factors. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 107:926–931
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2007) CG55 Intrapartum care: care of healthy women and their babies during childbirth. RCOG, London
Munro J, Jokinen M (2008) Midwifery practice guideline: care of the perineum. RCM evidence based guidelines for midwifery-led care in labour, 4th edn. Royal College of Midwives, London
McCandlish R, Bowler U, van Asten H et al (1998) A randomised controlled trial of care of the perineum during second stage of normal labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105:1262–1272
Mayerhofer K, Bodner-Adler B, Bodner K et al (2002) Traditional care of the perineum during birth: a prospective, randomised, multicenter study of 1076 women. J Reprod Med 47:477–482
Hals E, Oian P, Pirhonen T et al (2010) A multicenter interventional programme to reduce the incidence of anal sphincter tears. Obstet Gynecol 116:901–908
Carroli G, Mignini L (2009) Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, issue 1. Art. no.:CD000081. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub2
Andrews V, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Jones PW (2005) Are mediolateral episiotomies actually mediolateral? BJOG 112:1156–1158
Eogan M, Daly L, O’Connell PR, O’Herlihy C (2006) Does the angle of episiotomy affect the incidence of anal sphincter injury? BJOG 113:190–194
Kalis V, Karbanova J, Horak M, Lobovsky L, Kralickova M, Rokyta Z (2008) The incision angle of mediolateral episiotomy before delivery and after repair. Int J Gynecol Obstet 103:5–8
Nakash RA, Hutton JL, Jorstad-Stein EC, Gates S, Lamb SE (2006) Maximising response to postal questionnaires – a systematic review of randomised trials in health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:5. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-5
Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, et al (2009) Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, issue 3. Art. no.: MR000008. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4
Acknowledgements
We thank all the midwives who participated in the survey and Paula Brockman and Angela King for their help with data input.
Details of ethics approval
Approval for the study was sought and obtained from the Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust R&D Department, who deemed it exempt from Ethics Committee approval.
Funding
The study was funded by the Plymouth Urogynaecology Research Fund.
Conflict of interest
RM Freeman is editor of the International Urogynecology Journal and Lead for the Peninsula Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (PenCLAHRC). M Waterfield and R Trochez have no conflict of interest to declare.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
Survey of the management of the perineum during vaginal delivery
Questionnaire
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Trochez, R., Waterfield, M. & Freeman, R.M. Hands on or hands off the perineum: a survey of care of the perineum in labour (HOOPS). Int Urogynecol J 22, 1279–1285 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1454-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1454-8