Comparison of Restrictive Vs Routine Episiotomy And Its Outcome in Tertiary Care Hospital
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61581/mjsp.v6i02.322Keywords:
Restrictive Episiotomy, Routine Episiotomy,, Vaginal Delivery, Episiotomy, Episiotomy OutcomesAbstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to examine the differences and similarities in outcomes that occur when restrictive episiotomy and routine episiotomy are performed on first-time mothers who are giving birth vaginally at the same time.
Methods: For the purpose of determining the effects of employing a restrictive episiotomy approach in comparison to the standard application of episiotomy, a prospective cohort study was carried out. In order to establish two distinct cohorts, a total of one hundred women who were experiencing their first pregnancy and were presenting in the labor room with either spontaneous labor or labor that had been induced were recruited. The evaluations between two groups were carried out throughout the entirety of the labor process, immediately following the postpartum period, and on the very first day after the birth of the baby, and the data were tabulated and analyzed in a systematic manner.
Results: In the routine episiotomy group, 14% of primigravidae experienced vaginal and paraurethral tears, while the restrictive episiotomy group exhibited a slightly higher rate of 22.22%, with no statistically significant association observed. Perineal tears were observed in 15.55% of cases in the restrictive group, while episiotomy extension was observed in 26% of cases in the routine group. However, there was no statistically significant association between the occurrence of perineal tears and episiotomy extension. Due to the fact that 64.45% of patients in the restrictive group gave birth without any damage to the perineum, there was a significantly lower requirement for suturing in the restrictive group (20%) compared to the routine group (100%).
Conclusion: The results of this study provide substantial evidence suggesting that the immediate outcomes that follow the utilization of a routine episiotomy are not superior to those that are achieved through the utilization of a restrictive approach. Indeed, routinely employing episiotomy can have adverse effects, as it may subject certain women to surgical incisions and result in more harm than if they had experienced less injury.
Downloads
References
1. Weber AM, Meyn L. Episiotomy use in the United States, 1979–1997. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100(6):1177–82. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(02)02449-3.
2. Ould F. A treatise of midwifery. London: J Buckland; 1741. p.145–6.
3. Thacker SB, Banta HD. Benefits and risks of episiotomy: an interpretative review of the English language literature, 1860–1980. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1983;38(6):322–38.
4. Langer B, Minetti A. Complications immédiates et à long terme de l’épisiotomie. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2006;35(1 Suppl):1S59–67.
5. Hartmann K, Viswanathan M, Palmieri R, Gartlehner G, Thorp J Jr, Lohr KN. Outcomes of routine episiotomy: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293(17):2141–8. doi:10.1001/jama.293.17.2141.
6. Popovic JR. 1999 National Hospital Discharge Survey: annual summary with detailed diagnosis and procedure data. Vital Health Stat 13. 2001;(151):i–206. doi:10.1037/e309042005-001.
7. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Park MM. Births: final data for 2000. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2002;50(5):1–101.
8. Bhatia JC, Cleland J. Determinants of maternal care in a region of South India. Health Transit Rev. 1995;5(2):127–42.
9. Nugent F. The primiparous perineum after forceps delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1935;30:249–56.
10. Murphy DJ, Macleod M, Bahl R, Goyder K, Howarth L, Strachan B. A randomised controlled trial of routine versus restrictive use of episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery: a multicentre pilot study. BJOG. 2008;115(13):1695–703. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01960.x.
11. Shahraki AD, Aram S, Pourkabirian S, Khodaee S, Choupannejad S. A comparison between early maternal and neonatal complications of restrictive episiotomy and routine episiotomy in primiparous vaginal delivery. J Res Med Sci. 2011;16(12):1583–9.
12. Saxena RK, Sandhu GS, Babu KM, Bandol H, Sharma GV. Restricted use of episiotomy. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2010;60(5):408–12. doi:10.1007/s13224-010-0067-3.
13. Carroli G, Mignini L. Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(1):CD000081. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub2.
14. Clemons JL, Towers GD, McClure GB, O’Boyle AL. Decreased anal sphincter lacerations associated with restrictive episiotomy use. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1620–5. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.017.
15. Eltorkey MM, Al Nuaim MA, Kurdi AM, Sabagh TO, Clarke F. Episiotomy, elective or selective: a report of a random allocation trial. J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;14(5):317–20. doi:10.3109/01443619409027599.
16. Argentine Episiotomy Trial Collaborative Group. Routine vs selective episiotomy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1993;342(8886–8887):1517–8.
17. Carroli G, Belizan J. Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000081. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000081.
18. Hartmann K, Viswanathan M, Palmieri R, Gartlehner G, Thorp J Jr, Lohr KN. Outcomes of routine episiotomy: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293(17):2141–8. doi:10.1001/jama.293.17.2141.
19. Giri DK, Mondal D, Chaudhuri S. Routine episiotomy versus selective episiotomy in nulliparous women at term: randomized comparative trial. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2020;9:5019–22.
20. Chen AW, Hall MJ, Altman MR. Interventions and strategies for reducing episiotomy rates globally: a systematic review. Birth. 2025;52(4):539–52. doi:10.1111/birt.70000.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dr Alveena Butt, Col Dr Yasmin Fatima, Lt Col Lubna Noor, Muhammad Taimoor Gul, Major Sadia Majeed, Major Maryam Arif, Faisal Rasheed
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
