Comparison of use of restrictive episiotomy versus routine episiotomy in primigravidae undergoing vaginal birth at a tertiary care hospital

Abstract

Background: Episiotomy is the surgical enlargement of the vaginal orifice by an incision on the perineum during the last part of the second stage of labour or delivery. Episiotomy, incision of the perineum at the time of vaginal childbirth, is a common surgical procedure experienced by women. This study is done to compare use of restrictive episiotomy and routine episiotomy in primigravidae undergoing vaginal birth.Methods: This is a prospective cohort study designed to analyse the outcome of the restrictive use of episiotomy in comparison to routine use of episiotomy. Total 100 primigravidae women reporting to labour room in spontaneous labour/induction of labour were included and two cohorts were formed. Both the cohorts were evaluated during labour, immediate postpartum period and first postnatal day and data was tabulated and analysed.Results: Vaginal and paraurethral tears were noted in 14% primigravidae in the routine episiotomy group and 22.22% in the restrictive episiotomy group with no statistically significant association. Number of cases sustaining perineal tear in restrictive group was 15.55% and extension of episiotomy in the routine group was 26% with no statistically significant association. Requirement of suturing was far less in restrictive group (20%) as compared to routine group (100%), as 64.45% of the patients in restrictive group delivered with an intact perineum. The restrictive use of episiotomy does not prolong the second stage of labour and has requirement of significantly less pain relief compared to the routine group. Complication rate was higher in the routine group and perineal laceration and pain severity, was less in restrictive episiotomy group. However, neonatal complications were similar in the two groups.Conclusions: This study identified fair to good evidence suggesting that immediate outcomes following routine use of episiotomy are no better than those of restrictive use. Indeed, routine use is harmful to the degree that some proportion of women who would have had lesser injury instead had a surgical incision.