Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Carroli G, Mignini L

This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library
2009, Issue 3
[Link]

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
HEADER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 2 Number of episiotomies. . . .
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 4 Assisted delivery rate. . . . .
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 5 Severe vaginal/perineal trauma. .
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 8 Severe perineal trauma. . . . .
Analysis 1.11. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 11 Any posterior perineal trauma.
Analysis 1.14. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 14 Any anterior trauma. . . . .
Analysis 1.17. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 17 Need for suturing perineal trauma.
Analysis 1.20. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 20 Estimated blood loss at delivery.
Analysis 1.21. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 21 Moderate/severe perineal pain at 3
days. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.22. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 22 Any perineal pain at discharge.
Analysis 1.23. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 23 Any perineal pain at 10 days. .
Analysis 1.24. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 24 Moderate/severe perineal pain at 10
days. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.25. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 25 Use of oral analgesia at 10 days.
Analysis 1.26. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 26 Any perineal pain at 3 months.
Analysis 1.27. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 27 Moderate/severe perineal pain at 3
months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.28. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 28 No attempt at intercourse in 3
months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.29. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 29 Any dyspareunia within 3 months.
Analysis 1.30. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 30 Dyspareunia at 3 months. . .
Analysis 1.31. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 31 Ever suffering dyspareunia in 3
years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.32. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 32 Perineal haematoma at discharge.
Analysis 1.33. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 33 Healing complications at 7 days.
Analysis 1.34. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 34 Perineal wound dehiscence at 7
days. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.35. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 35 Perineal infection. . . . . .
Analysis 1.36. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 36 Perineal bulging at 3 months Midline.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.37. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 37 Urinary incontinence within 3-7
months. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.38. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 38 Any urinary incontinence at 3
years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.39. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 39 Pad wearing for urinary
incontinence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 1.40. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 40 Apgar score less than 7 at 1 minute.
Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)
Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1
1
2
2
3
3
5
6
6
6
6
8
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
28
29
29
30
30
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
35
35
36
i

Analysis 1.41. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 41 Admission to special care baby unit.
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae), Outcome 1 Number of episiotomies. . . . .
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae), Outcome 2 Severe vaginal/perineal trauma. . .
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae), Outcome 3 Severe perineal trauma. . . . . .
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae), Outcome 4 Any posterior trauma. . . . . .
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae), Outcome 5 Any anterior trauma. . . . . . .
Analysis 2.6. Comparison 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae), Outcome 6 Need for suturing perineal trauma. .
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae), Outcome 1 Number of episiotomies.
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae), Outcome 2 Severe vaginal/perineal
trauma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae), Outcome 3 Severe perineal trauma. .
Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae), Outcome 4 Any posterior perineal
trauma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis 3.5. Comparison 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae), Outcome 5 Any anterior trauma. . .
Analysis 3.6. Comparison 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae), Outcome 6 Need for suturing perineal
trauma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FEEDBACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WHATS NEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SOURCES OF SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INDEX TERMS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
49
49
50
50
50
50
51
51

ii

[Intervention Review]

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Guillermo Carroli1 , Luciano Mignini1
1 Centro

Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Rosario, Argentina

Contact address: Guillermo Carroli, Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Pueyrredon 985, Rosario, Santa Fe, 2000, Argentina.
gcarroli@[Link]. (Editorial group: Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group.)
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, 2009 (Status in this issue: Unchanged)
Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub2
This version first published online: 21 January 2009 in Issue 1, 2009.
Last assessed as up-to-date: 27 July 2008. (Help document - Dates and Statuses explained)
This record should be cited as: Carroli G, Mignini L. Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009,
Issue 1. Art. No.: CD000081. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub2.

ABSTRACT
Background
Episiotomy is done to prevent severe perineal tears, but its routine use has been questioned. The relative effects of midline compared
with midlateral episiotomy are unclear.
Objectives
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of restrictive use of episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy during vaginal
birth.
Search strategy
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Groups Trials Register (March 2008).
Selection criteria
Randomized trials comparing restrictive use of episiotomy with routine use of episiotomy; restrictive use of mediolateral episiotomy
versus routine mediolateral episiotomy; restrictive use of midline episiotomy versus routine midline episiotomy; and use of midline
episiotomy versus mediolateral episiotomy.
Data collection and analysis
The two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data.
Main results
We included eight studies (5541 women). In the routine episiotomy group, 75.15% (2035/2708) of women had episiotomies, while
the rate in the restrictive episiotomy group was 28.40% (776/2733). Compared with routine use, restrictive episiotomy resulted in
less severe perineal trauma (relative risk (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.91), less suturing (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61
to 0.81) and fewer healing complications (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.85). Restrictive episiotomy was associated with more anterior
perineal trauma (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.10). There was no difference in severe vaginal/perineal trauma (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to
1.18); dyspareunia (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.16); urinary incontinence (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20) or several pain measures.
Results for restrictive versus routine mediolateral versus midline episiotomy were similar to the overall comparison.
Authors conclusions
Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)
Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Restrictive episiotomy policies appear to have a number of benefits compared to policies based on routine episiotomy. There is less
posterior perineal trauma, less suturing and fewer complications, no difference for most pain measures and severe vaginal or perineal
trauma, but there was an increased risk of anterior perineal trauma with restrictive episiotomy.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Episiotomy for vaginal birth
Vaginal tears can occur during childbirth, most often at the vaginal opening as the babys head passes through, especially if the baby
descends quickly. Tears can involve the perineal skin or extend to the muscles and the anal sphincter and anus. The midwife or
obstetrician may decide to make a surgical cut to the perineum with scissors or scalpel (episiotomy) to make the babys birth easier and
prevent severe tears that can be difficult to repair. The cut is repaired with stitches (sutures). Some childbirth facilities have a policy of
routine episiotomy.
The review authors searched the medical literature for randomised controlled trials that compared episiotomy as needed (restrictive)
compared with routine episiotomy to determine the possible benefits and harms for mother and baby. They identified eight trials
involving more than 5000 women. For women randomly allocated to routine episiotomy 75.10% actually had an episiotomy whereas
with a restrictive episiotomy policy 28.40% had an episiotomy. Restrictive episiotomy policies appeared to give a number of benefits
compared with using routine episiotomy. Women experienced less severe perineal trauma, less posterior perineal trauma, less suturing
and fewer healing complications at seven days (reducing the risks by from 12% to 31%); with no difference in occurrence of pain,
urinary incontinence, painful sex or severe vaginal/perineal trauma after birth. Overall, women experienced more anterior perineal
damage with restrictive episiotomy. Both restrictive compared with routine mediolateral episiotomy and restrictive compared with
midline episiotomy showed similar results to the overall comparison with the limited data on episiotomy techniques available from the
present trials.

BACKGROUND

Description of the condition

Vaginal tears during childbirth are common and may occur spontaneously during birth, or the midwife or obstetrician may need to
make a surgical incision (episiotomy) to increase the diameter of
the vaginal outlet to facilitate the babys birth (Kettle 2007). Anterior perineal trauma is injury to the labia, anterior vagina, urethra,
or clitoris, and is usually associated with little morbidity. Posterior
perineal trauma is any injury to the posterior vaginal wall, perineal
muscles, or anal sphincter (Fernando 2007).
Spontaneous tears are defined as:
first degree (involving the fourchette, perineal skin and
vaginal mucous membrane, but not the underlying fascia and muscle);
second degree (involving the perineal muscles and skin);
third degree (injury to the anal sphincter complex: 3a
= < 50% of the external anal sphincter torn 3b = 50%
of the external anal sphincter torn 3c = injury to the
external and internal anal sphincter); and

fourth degree (injury to the perineum involving the

anal sphincter complex and anal epithelium) (Fernando
2006).
The most common injuries to the vagina during labour occur
at the vaginal opening, which may tear as the babys head passes
through. For successful vaginal delivery, the vaginal opening must
dilate slowly, in order to allow the appropriate stretching of the
tissues. When the baby descends quickly, the tissues can tear.

Description of the intervention

Episiotomy is the surgical enlargement of the vaginal orifice by an
incision of the perineum during the last part of the second stage of
labour or delivery. This procedure is done with scissors or scalpel
and requires repair by suturing (Thacker 1983).
A report dating back to 1741 suggested the first surgical opening of
the perineum to prevent severe perineal tears (Ould 1741). Worldwide, rates of episiotomy increased substantially during the first
half of this century. At that time there was also an increasing move
for women to give birth in hospital and for physicians to become
involved in the normal uncomplicated birth process. Although
episiotomy has become one of the most commonly performed

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

surgical procedures in the world, it was introduced without strong

scientific evidence of its effectiveness (Lede 1996). Reported rates
of episiotomies vary from as low as 9.70% (Sweden) to as high
as 100% (Taiwan) (Graham 2005). Rates of episiotomies around
the world are 62.50% in USA (Thacker 1983), 30% in Europe (
Buekens 1985; Mascarenhas 1992) and with higher estimates in
Latin America. In Argentina, episiotomy is a routine intervention
in nearly all nulliparous and primiparous births (Lede 1991).

How the intervention might work

The suggested maternal beneficial effects of episiotomy are the
following: (a) reduction in the likelihood of third degree tears (
Cunningham 1993; Ould 1741; Thacker 1983), (b) preservation
of the muscle relaxation of the pelvic floor and perineum leading
to improved sexual function, and a reduced risk of faecal and or
urinary incontinence (Aldridge 1935; Gainey 1955), (c) being a
straight, clean incision, an episiotomy is easier to repair and heals
better than a laceration. For the neonate, it is suggested that a prolonged second stage of labour (a second stage of labour longer than
120 minutes (Hamilton 1861)), could cause fetal asphyxia, cranial trauma, cerebral haemorrhage and mental retardation. During delivery it is also suggested that episiotomy may be necessary
to make more room if rotation manoeuvres are required during a
fetal shoulder dystocia.
On the other hand, hypothesized adverse effects of routine use
of episiotomy include: (a) extension of episiotomy either by cutting the anal sphincter or rectum, or by unavoidable extension
of the incision, (b) unsatisfactory anatomic results such as skin
tags, asymmetry or excessive narrowing of the introitus, vaginal
prolapse, recto-vaginal fistula and fistula in ano (Homsi 1994), (c)
increased blood loss and haematoma, (d) pain and oedema in the
episiotomy region, (e) infection and dehiscence (Homsi 1994), (f )
sexual dysfunction.
Other important issues to bear in mind are costs and the additional
resources that may be required to sustain a policy of routine use
of episiotomy.

consequently an increased risk of severe perineal trauma (Shiono

1990).
We also consider the implications for clinical practice and the need
for further research in this area.

OBJECTIVES
To determine the possible benefits and risks of the use of restrictive episiotomy versus routine episiotomy during delivery. We will
also determine the beneficial and detrimental effects of the using
midline episiotomy compared with mediolateral episiotomy.
Comparisons will be made in the following categories.
1. Restrictive episiotomy versus routine episiotomy (all).
2. Restrictive episiotomy versus routine episiotomy (mediolateral).
3. Restrictive episiotomy versus routine episiotomy (midline).
4. Midline episiotomy versus mediolateral episiotomy.

Hypotheses
1. Restrictive use of episiotomy compared with routine use
of episiotomy during delivery will not influence any of
the outcomes cited under Types of outcome measures.
2. Restrictive use of midline episiotomy compared with
routine use of midline episiotomy during delivery will
not influence any of the outcomes cited under Types
of outcome measures.
3. Restrictive use of medio-lateral episiotomy compared
with routine use of medio-lateral episiotomy during delivery will not influence any of the outcomes cited under Types of outcome measures.

Why it is important to do this review

This review aims to evaluate the available evidence about the possible benefits, risks and costs of the restrictive use of episiotomy
versus routine episiotomy. We also evaluate the benefits and risks
of performing a midline episiotomy compared with a mediolateral
[Link] question of whether midline episiotomy results in
a better outcome than mediolateral episiotomy has not been satisfactorily answered. The suggested advantages of performing a midline episiotomy instead of midlateral episiotomy are: better future
sexual function and better healing with improved appearance of
the scar. Those not in favour of using the midline method suggest
it is associated with higher rates of extension of the episiotomy and

METHODS

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies
Any adequate randomized controlled trial that compares one or
more of the following:
1. restrictive use of mediolateral episiotomy versus routine
use of mediolateral episiotomy;

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2. restrictive use of midline episiotomy versus routine use

of midline episiotomy;
3. use of midline episiotomy versus mediolateral episiotomy.
We did not include quasi-randomized controlled trials.
Types of participants
Pregnant women having a vaginal birth.
Types of interventions
Primary comparison

The main comparison is restrictive use of episiotomy versus routine

use of episiotomy.
Secondary comparisons

These include:
restrictive use of mediolateral episiotomy versus routine
use of mediolateral episiotomy;
restrictive use of midline episiotomy versus routine use
of midline episiotomy;
use of midline episiotomy versus mediolateral episiotomy.

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Groups Trials Register by contacting the Trials Search Co-ordinator (March
2008).
The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Groups Trials Register
is maintained by the Trials Search Co-ordinator and contains trials
identified from:
1. quarterly searches of the Cochrane Central Register of
Controlled Trials (CENTRAL);
2. weekly searches of MEDLINE;
3. handsearches of 30 journals and the proceedings of major conferences;
4. weekly current awareness alerts for a further 44 journals
plus monthly BioMed Central email alerts.
Details of the search strategies for CENTRAL and MEDLINE,
the list of handsearched journals and conference proceedings, and
the list of journals reviewed via the current awareness service can
be found in the Specialized Register section within the editorial information about the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth
Group.
Trials identified through the searching activities described above
are each assigned to a review topic (or topics). The Trials Search
Co-ordinator searches the register for each review using the topic
list rather than keywords.
We did not apply any language restrictions.

Data collection and analysis

Types of outcome measures
Maternal and neonatal outcomes are evaluated.
Primary outcomes

The primary maternal outcomes assessed in the comparison include: severe perineal trauma and severe vaginal/perineal trauma.
Secondary outcomes

The secondary maternal outcomes assessed in the comparison include: number of episiotomies, assisted delivery rate, severe vaginal/perineal trauma, severe perineal trauma, need for suturing,
posterior perineal trauma, anterior perineal trauma, blood loss,
perineal pain, use of analgesia, dyspareunia, haematoma, healing
complications and dehiscence, perineal infection, and urinary incontinence.
The neonatal outcome measures are Apgar score less than seven at
one minute and need for admission to special care baby unit.

Search methods for identification of studies

Electronic searches

Trials under consideration were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion, without consideration of
their results. Included trial data were processed as described in
Higgins 2006.
Selection of studies
Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the
potential studies that were identified as a result of the search strategy. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion.
Data extraction and management
We designed a form to extract data and two review authors extracted data using the agreed form. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Data were entered into Review Manager software (RevMan 2008) and checked for accuracy.
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
We assessed methodological quality in the three dimensions initially described by Chalmers 1989: namely the control for selection bias at entry (the quality of random allocation, assessing the
generation and concealment methods applied); the control of selection bias after entry (the extent to which the primary analysis
included every person entered into the randomized cohorts); and

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

the control of bias in assessing outcomes (the extent to which those

assessing the outcomes were kept unaware of the group assignment
of the individuals examined).
The two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for
each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook
for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2006). Any disagreement was resolved by discussion.
Randomization

We describe for each included study the methods used to generate

the allocation sequence in sufficient detail to allow an assessment
of whether it should produce comparable groups.
Concelament allocation

We describe for each included study the method used to conceal

the allocation sequence in sufficient detail and determined whether
intervention allocation could have been foreseen in advance of, or
during, recruitment.
We assessed the methods as:
adequate (e.g. telephone or central randomization; consecutively numbered sealed opaque envelopes);
inadequate (open random allocation; unsealed or nonopaque envelopes, alternation; date of birth);
unclear.
Blinding

We have described the methods used, if any, to blind study participants and personnel from knowledge of which intervention a
participant received.
Incomplete outcome data

We have described loss to follow up for the studies.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity
In case of heterogeneity we have conducted subgroup analyses
by whether women were primiparous or multiparous in order to
explore possible causes of heterogeneity. When the heterogeneity
was not readily explained by this sensitivity analysis one option
is to use a random-effects model. A random-effects meta-analysis
model involves an assumption that the effects being estimated in
the different studies are not identical, but follow similar distribution. However, as we have previously demonstrated (Villar 2001
), the relative risk summary for the random-effects model tends to
show a larger treatment effect than the fixed-effect model, while
not eliminating the heterogeneity itself.

RESULTS

Description of studies
See: Characteristics of included studies; Characteristics of excluded
studies; Characteristics of ongoing studies.
The search identified 14 studies including 5441 women, of which
8 were included (Argentine 1993; Dannecker 2004; Eltorkey
1994; Harrison 1984; House 1986; Klein 1992; Sleep 1984;
Rodriguez 2008) and 5 excluded (Coats 1980; Detlefsen 1980;
Dong 2004; Henriksen 1992; Werner 1991). There is one ongoing trial (Murphy 2006). The included studies varied in the rate of
episiotomies between the intervention and control groups from a
difference of 7.6% episiotomies in the restricted group compared
with 100% episiotomies in the routine group (Harrison 1984),
and 57.1% in the restricted group and 78.9% in the routine group
(Dannecker 2004).
For details of included and excluded studies, see table of
Characteristics of included studies and Characteristics of
excluded studies.

Risk of bias in included studies

The method of treatment allocation in general is sound except for
the Harrison 1984 trial where the method of treatment allocation
is not clearly established raising concerns about possible selection
bias.
Argentine 1993, Dannecker 2004, Eltorkey 1994, House 1986,
Klein 1992, Sleep 1984 and Rodriguez 2008 report random allocation and the concealment of the assignment by sealed opaque
envelopes reducing the risk of selection bias at entry to the trial.
Selection bias after entry is avoided in Dannecker 2004, Eltorkey
1994, Harrison 1984, House 1986, Sleep 1984 and Rodriguez
2008 where all the women randomized are included in the analyses. Sleep 1984 and Dannecker 2004 include long-term follow
up, with a loss to follow up of about 33% and 40 % of the participants respectively. Klein 1992 shows a loss to follow up rate of
0.71% for primary outcomes to 5% for secondary outcomes. In
the Argentine 1993 trial the total number of women randomized
was included in the analysis of the primary outcome with a 5%
loss to follow up at delivery, 11% at postnatal discharge and 57%
at seven months postpartum. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed in all of the studies.
In the Sleep 1984 trial, the observer measuring the outcomes was
blinded to the treatment group assignments. In the Argentine 1993
trial only the assessment of the healing and morbidity outcomes
were blinded to the observer. None of the other studies (Eltorkey
1994; Harrison 1984; House 1986; Klein 1992, Rodriguez 2008)
reported any effort to blind the observer to the treatment group
allocation.

Effects of interventions

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The restrictive use of episiotomy shows a lower risk of clinically

relevant morbidities including severe perineal trauma (relative risk
(RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.91), posterior
perineal trauma (RR 0.88, 95% 0.84 to 0.92), need for suturing
perineal trauma (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.81), and healing
complications at seven days (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.85). No
difference is shown in the incidence of major outcomes such as
severe vaginal and perineal trauma nor in pain, dyspareunia or urinary incontinence. The only disadvantage shown in the restrictive
use of episiotomy is an increased risk of anterior perineal trauma
(RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.10). The secondary comparisons,
for both restrictive versus routine mediolateral episiotomy and restrictive versus routine midline episiotomy, show similar results to
the overall comparison.
See Data and analyses section .
No trials comparing mediolateral versus midline episiotomy were
included because of poor methodological quality.

DISCUSSION
The primary question is whether or not to use an episiotomy routinely. The answer is clear. There is evidence to support the restrictive use of episiotomy compared with routine use of episiotomy.
This was the case for the overall comparison and the comparisons
of subgroups, that take parity into account.
In light of the available evidence, restrictive use of episiotomy is
recommended. However, it needs to be taken into account that
long term outcomes were assessed by studies with high loss of
follow up.
What type of episiotomy is more beneficial, midline or mediolateral? To date there are only three published trials available (Coats
1980 ; Detlefsen 1980 ; Werner 1991 ), which were excluded from
this review. As described in the Characteristics of excluded studies
table, these trials are of poor methodological quality, making their
results uninterpretable. This question, therefore, remains unanswered.

A cost effective analysis study conducted in Argentina (Borghi

2002) has shown that a restrictive episiotomy policy is more effective and less costly than a routine episiotomy policy.

AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS
Implications for practice
There is clear evidence to recommend a restrictive use of episiotomy. These results are evident in the overall comparison and
remain after stratification according to the type of episiotomy:
restrictive mediolateral versus routine mediolateral or restrictive
midline versus routine midline. Until further evidence is available,
the choice of technique should be that with which the accoucheur
is most familiar.

Implications for research

Several questions remain unanswered and further trials are needed
to address them. What are the indications for the restrictive use of
episiotomy at an assisted delivery (forceps or vacuum), preterm delivery, breech delivery, predicted macrosomia and presumed imminent tears? There is a pressing need to evaluate which episiotomy
technique (mediolateral or midline) provides the best outcome.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Jean Hay-Smith was the author of previous published version of
this review See Other published versions of this review.
Jos M Belizn was an author on previous versions of this review
and Georgina Stamp was a co-author on the first version of this
review.
Dr Carroli visited the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Review
Groups editorial office in Liverpool in 1996 to prepare the first
version of this review, funded by a Shell Fellowship administered
by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.

REFERENCES

References to studies included in this review

Argentine 1993 {published data only}
Argentine Episiotomy Trial Collaborative Group. Routine vs selective episiotomy: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1993;42:
15178.
Dannecker 2004 {published data only}
Dannecker C, Hillemanns P, Strauss A, Hasbargen U, Hepp H, Anthuber C. Episiotomy and perineal tears presumed to be imminent:

randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2004;83(4):3648.

Dannecker C, Hillemanns P, Strauss A, Hasbargen U, Hepp H, Anthuber C. Episiotomy and perineal tears presumed to be imminent:
the influence on the urethral pressure profile, analmanometric and
other pelvic floor findings - follow up study of a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2005;84:
6571.
Eltorkey 1994 {published data only}
Eltorkey MM, Al Nuaim MA, Kurdi AM, Sabagh TO, Clarke F.

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Episiotomy, elective or selective: a report of a random allocation trial.

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1994;14:31720.
Harrison 1984 {published data only}
Harrison RF, Brennan M, North PM, Reed JV, Wickham EA. Is
routine episiotomy necessary?. BMJ 1984;288:19715.
House 1986 {published data only}
House MJ, Cario G, Jones MH. Episiotomy and the perineum: a
random controlled trial. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1986;
7:10710.
Klein 1992 {published data only}
Klein M, Gauthier R, Jorgensen S, North B, Robbins J, Kaczorowski
J, et [Link] McGill/University of Montreal multicentre episiotomy
trial preliminary results. Innovations in Perinatal Care. Proceedings
of the 9th Birth Conference; 1990 Nov 11-13; San Francisco, USA.
1990:4455.
Klein MC, Gauthier RJ, Jorgensen SH, Robbins JM, Kaczorowski
J, Johnson B, et [Link] episiotomy prevent perineal trauma and
pelvic floor relaxation? [Forebygger episiotomi perineal trauma och
forsvagning av backenbotten?]. Jordemodern 1993;106(10):3757.
Klein MC, Gauthier RJ, Jorgensen SH, Robbins JM, Kaczorowski J,
Johnson B, et [Link] episiotomy prevent perineal trauma and pelvic
floor relaxation?. Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials 1992;
Vol. Doc No 10:[6019 words; 65 paragraphs].
Klein MC, Gauthier RJ, Robbins JM, Kaczorowski J, Jorgensen SH,
Franco ED, et [Link] of episiotomy to perineal trauma and
morbidity, sexual dysfunction and pelvic floor relaxation. American
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1994;171:5918.
Klein MC, Kaczorowsky J, Robbins JM, Gauthier RJ, Jorgensen SH,
Joshi AK. Physicians beliefs and behaviour during a randomized
controlled trial of episiotomy: consequences for women in their care.
Canadian Medical Association Journal 1995;153:76979.
Rodriguez 2008 {published data only}
Rodriguez A, Arenas EA, Osorio AL, Mendez O, Zuleta JJ. Selective
vs routine midline episiotomy for the prevention of third- or fourthdegree lacerations in nulliparous women. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2008;198(3):285.e1285.e4.
Sleep 1984 {published data only}
Sleep J, Grant AM. West Berkshire perineal management trial: three
year follow up. BMJ 1987;295:74951.
Sleep J, Grant AM, Garcia J, Elbourne D, Spencer J, Chalmers I. The
Reading episiotomy trial: a randomised trial comparing two policies for managing the perineum during spontaneous vaginal delivery.
Proceedings of 23rd British Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology;
1983 July 12-15; Birmingham, UK. 1983:24.
Sleep J, Grant AM, Garcia J, Elbourne DR, Spencer JAD, Chalmers
I. West Berkshire perineal management trial. BMJ 1984;289:587
90.

Detlefsen 1980 {published data only}

Detlefsen GU, Vinther S, Larsen P, Schroeder E. Median and mediolateral episiotomy [Median og mediolateral episiotomi]. Ugeskrift
for Laeger 1980;142(47):31146.
Dong 2004 {published data only}
Dong LQ, Li HL, Song ZL. Clinical study and application of the
improved episiotomy incision and anesthesia method in the vaginal
deliveries. Journal of Qilu Nursing 2004;10(1):13.
Henriksen 1992 {published data only}
Henriksen T, Beck KM, Hedegaard M, Secher NJ. Episiotomy and
perineal lesions in spontaneous vaginal deliveries. British Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1992;99:9504.
Henriksen TB, Bek KM, Hedegaard M, Secher NJ. Episiotomy and
perineal lesions in spontaneous vaginal delivery [Episiotomi og perineale laesioner ved spontane vaginale fodsler]. Ugeskrift for Laeger
1994;156(21):31769.
Werner 1991 {published data only}
Werner Ch, Schuler W, Meskendahl I. Midline episiotomy versus
medio-lateral episiotomy - a randomized prospective study. Proceedings of 13th World Congress of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO)
(Book 1); 1991 Sept 15-20; Singapore. 1991:33.

References to ongoing studies

Murphy 2006 {published data only}
Murphy DJ. Randomised controlled trial of restrictive versus routine
use of episiotomy for instrumental vaginal delivery - a multi-centre
pilot study. National Research Register ([Link]) (accessed
6 July 2006).

Additional references
Aldridge 1935
Aldridge AN, Watson P. Analysis of end results of labor in primiparas
after spontaneous versus prophylactic methods of delivery. American
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1935;30:55465.
Borghi 2002
Borghi J, Fox-Rushby J, Bergel E, Abalos E, Hutton G, Carroli G.
The cost-effectiveness of routine versus restrictive episiotomy in Argentina. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;186:
2218.
Buekens 1985
Buekens P, Lagasse R, Dramaix M, Wollast E. Episiotomy and third
degree tears. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1985;92:
8203.

References to studies excluded from this review

Chalmers 1989
Chalmers I, Hetherington J, Elbourne D, Keirse MJNC, Enkin M.
Materials and methods used in synthesizing evidence to evaluate the
effects of care during pregnancy and childbirth. In: Chalmers I,
Enkin MWE, Keirse MJNC editor(s). Effective care in pregnancy and
childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989:3965.

Coats 1980 {published data only}

Coats PM, Chan KK, Wilkins M, Beard RJ. A comparison between
midline and mediolateral episiotomies. British Journal of Obstetrics
and Gynaecology 1980;87:40812.

Cunningham 1993
Cunningham FG. Conduct of normal labor and delivery. In: Cunningham FG, MacDonald PC, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC III
editor(s). Williams obstetrics. 19th Edition. Norwalk, CT: Appleton
and Lange, 1993:37193.

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fernando 2006
Fernando R, Sultan AH, Kettle C, Thakar R, Radley S. Methods
of repair for obstetric anal sphincter injury. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858]
Fernando 2007
Fernando RJ, Williams AA, Adams EJ. The management of third or
fourth degree perineal tears. RCOG Green-top guidelines. No 29. London: RCOG, 2007.
Gainey 1955
Gainey NL. Postpartum observation of pelvis tissue damage: further
studies. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1955;70:800
7.
Graham 2005
Graham ID, Carroli G, Davies C, Medves JM. Episiotomy rates
around the world: an update. Birth 2005;32:21923.
Hamilton 1861
Hamilton G. Classical observations and suggestions in obstetrics.
Edinburgh Medical Journal 1861;7(313):21.
Higgins 2006
Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic
Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]. In: The
Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006. Chichester, UK: John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Homsi 1994
Homsi R, Daikoku NH, Littlejohn J, Wheeless CR Jr. Episiotomy;
risks of dehiscence and rectovaginal fistula. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey 1994;49:8038.
Kettle 2007
Kettle C, Hills RK, Ismail KMK. Continuous versus interrupted sutures for repair of episiotomy or second degree tears.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 4. [DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD000947.pub2]
Lede 1991
Lede R, Moreno M, Belizan JM. Reflections on the routine indications for episiotomy [Reflexiones acerca de la indicacion rutinaria de
la episiotomia]. Sinopsis Obsttrico-Ginecolgica 1991;38:1616.
Lede 1996
Lede R, Belizan JM, Carroli G. Is routine use of episiotomy justified?.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1996;174:1399402.

Mascarenhas 1992
Mascarenhas T, Eliot BW, Mackenzie IZ. A comparison of perinatal
outcome, antenatal and intrapartum care between England and Wales
and France. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1992;99:
9558.
Ould 1741
Ould F. A treatise of midwifery. London: J Buckland, 1741:1456.
RevMan 2008
The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.0.
Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre: The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
Shiono 1990
Shiono P, Klebanoff MA, Carey JC. Midline episiotomies: more
harm than good?. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1990;75:76570.
Thacker 1983
Thacker SB, Banta HD. Benefits and risks of episiotomy: an interpretative review of the english language literature, 1860-1980. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey 1983;38:32238.
Villar 2001
Villar J, Mackey ME, Carroli G, Donner A. Meta-analyses in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine:
comparison of fixed and random effects models. Statistics in Medicine
2001;20(23):363547.

References to other published versions of this review

Hay-Smith 1995a
Hay-Smith J. Liberal use of episiotomy for spontaneous vaginal delivery. [revised 05 May 1994]. In: Enkin MW, Keirse MJNC, Renfrew MJ, Neilson JP, Crowther CA (eds) Pregnancy and Childbirth
Module. In: The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database
[database on disk and CD ROM]. The Cochrane Collaboration; Issue 2, Oxford: Update Software; 1995.
Hay-Smith 1995b
Hay-Smith J. Midline vs mediolateral episiotomy. [revised 26 January 1994]. In: Enkin MW, Keirse MJNC, Renfrew MJ, Neilson
JP, Crowther CA (eds) Pregnancy and Childbirth Module. In: The
Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database [database on disk and
CD ROM]. The Cochrane Collaboration; Issue 2, Oxford: Update
Software; 1995.

Indicates the major publication for the study

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Argentine 1993
Methods

Generation of randomization by computer from a random sample generator programme, organised in

balanced blocks of 100, with stratification by centre and by parity (nulliparous and primiparous).
Allocation concealment by sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes, divided according to parity.

Participants

2606 women. Uncomplicated labour. 37 to 42 weeks gestation. Nulliparous or primiparous. Single fetus.
Cephalic presentation. No previous caesarean section or severe perineal tears.

Interventions

Selective: try to avoid an episiotomy if possible and only do it for fetal indications or if severe perineal
trauma was judged to be imminent.
Routine: do an episiotomy according to the hospitals policy prior to the trial.

Outcomes

Severe perineal trauma. Middle/upper vaginal tears. Anterior trauma. Any posterior surgical repair. Perineal
pain at discharge. Haematoma at discharge. Healing complications, infection and dehiscence at 7 days.
Apgar score less than 7 at 1 minute.

Notes

Mediolateral episiotomies. Epsiotomy rates were 30% for the restricted group and 80.6% for the routine
group.

Risk of bias
Item

Authors judgement

Description

Allocation concealment?

Yes

A - Adequate

Dannecker 2004
Methods

Random generation: not stated.

Allocation concealment: sealed opaque envelopes.

Participants

146 primiparous women. Gestation of > 34 weeks, with an uncomplicated pregnancy and a live singleton
fetus. Women were intending to have a vaginal delivery.

Interventions

Restrictive: try to avoid an episiotomy even if severe perineal trauma was judged to be imminent and only
do it for fetal indications.
Liberal: in addition to fetal indications use of episiotomy when a tear is judged to be imminent.

Outcomes

Reduction of episiotomies, increase of intact perinea and only minor perineal trauma, perineal pain in
the postpartum period, percentage change in overall anterior perineal trauma, difference of the PH of the

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dannecker 2004

(Continued)
umbilical artery, percentage of umbilical artery PH less than 7.15, percentage of Apgar scores less than 7
at 1 minute, maternal blood loss at delivery, percentage of severe perineal trauma.

Notes

Mediolateral episiotomies. Epsiotomy rates were 70% for restricted group and 79% for the routine group.

Risk of bias
Item

Authors judgement

Description

Allocation concealment?

Yes

A - Adequate

Eltorkey 1994
Methods

Random generation: not stated.

Allocation concealment: sealed opaque envelopes.

Participants

200 primigravid women with live, singleton fetus, cephalic presentation of at least 37 weeks of gestational
age, having a spontaneous vaginal delivery. Women were not suffering from any important medical or
psychiatric disorder.

Interventions

Elective group: the intention was to perform an episiotomy unless it was considered absolutely unnecessary.
Selective group: the intention was not to perform an episiotomy unless it was absolutely necessary for
maternal or fetal reasons.

Outcomes

First, second, third and fourth degree tears, anterior trauma, need for suturing, and neonatal outcomes:
Apgar score at 1 and 7 minutes, and stay in neonatal intensive care unit.

Notes

Mediolateral episiotomies. Epsiotomy rate were 53% for the restricted group and 83% for the routine
group were.

Risk of bias
Item

Authors judgement

Description

Allocation concealment?

Yes

A - Adequate

Harrison 1984
Methods

Generation method of randomization not established.

Concealment allocation method not established.
Allocated randomly.

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Harrison 1984

(Continued)

Participants

181 women primigravid, vaginal delivery, at least 16 years old, no less than 38 weeks gestational age, not
suffering from any important medical or psychiatric conditions or eclampsia.

Interventions

One group were not to undergo episiotomy unless it was considered to be medically essential by the person
in charge, that is the accoucheur could see that a woman was going to sustain a greater damage or if the
intact perineum was thought to be hindering the achievement of a safe normal or operative delivery.
Another group were to undergo mediolateral episiotomy.

Outcomes

Severe maternal trauma. Any posterior perineal trauma. Need for suturing perineal trauma.

Notes

Mediolateral episiotomies. Epsiotomy rates were 7.6% for restricted group and 100% for the routine
group.

Risk of bias
Item

Authors judgement

Description

Allocation concealment?

Unclear

B - Unclear

House 1986
Methods

Generation method of randomization not established.

Concealment method of allocation by envelopes.

Participants

Number of participants not established. There is only information for 165 women available to follow
up but it lacks information about those women lost to follow up either because one of the authors was
not available, or because of the early discharge scheme. Women were at least 37 weeks gestational age,
cephalic presentation and vaginal delivery.

Interventions

In one group episiotomy was not performed specifically to prevent laceration.

Another group were to receive standard current management whereby perineal damage was avoided by
control of the descent of the head and supporting the perineum at crowning. An episiotomy was made
if there was fetal distress, or for maternal reasons to shorten the 2nd stage such as severe exhaustion,
inability to complete expulsion or unwillingness to continue pushing. Episiotomy was performed if the
perineum appeared to be too tight or rigid to permit delivery without laceration, or if a laceration appeared
imminent.

Outcomes

Second degree tear. Third degree tear. Need for perineal suturing. Any perineal pain at 3 days. Healing at
3 days. Tenderness at 3 days. Perineal infection at 3 days. Blood loss during delivery.

Notes

Mediolateral episiotomies. Epsiotomy rate for restricted group were 18% and for the routine group were
69%.

Risk of bias

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

11

House 1986

(Continued)

Item

Authors judgement

Description

Allocation concealment?

Yes

A - Adequate

Klein 1992
Methods

Generation method of randomization not established.

Concealment of allocation by opaque, sequentially numbered envelopes.

Participants

1050 women enrolled at 30 to 34 weeks gestation, from which 703 were randomized. Randomization
took place if the women were at least 37 weeks gestation, medical conditions developing late in pregnancy,
fetal distress, caesarean deliveries and planned forceps. Parity 0, 1 or 2. Between the ages of 18 and 40
years. Single fetus. English or French spoken. Medical or obstetrical low risk determined by the physician.

Interventions

Try to avoid an episiotomy: the restricted episiotomy instruction.

Try to avoid a tear: the liberal episiotomy instruction.

Outcomes

Perineal trauma including first, second, third and fourth degree and sulcus tears. Perineal pain at 1, 2, 10
days. Dyspareunia. Urinary incontinence and perineal bulging. Time on resumption and pain of sexual
activity. Pelvic floor function. Admission to special care baby unit.

Notes

Midline episiotomies. Epsiotomy rates were 43.8% for restricted group and 65% for the routine group.

Risk of bias
Item

Authors judgement

Description

Allocation concealment?

Yes

A - Adequate

Rodriguez 2008
Methods

Ralloc software (Boston College Department of Economics, Boston, MA) was used to create a random
sequence of numbers in blocks with 2, 4, and 6 size permutations.

Participants

446 nulliparous women with pregnancies more than 28 weeks of gestation who had vaginal deliveries.

Interventions

Patients were assigned either to the routine episiotomy or the selective episiotomy group, depending on the
basis of the randomization sequence kept at the institution. Patients assigned to the selective episiotomy
group underwent the procedure only in cases of forceps delivery, fetal distress, or shoulder dystocia or when
the operator considered that a severe laceration was impending and could only be avoided by performing
an episiotomy. This decision was made by the treating physician. All the patients in the routine episiotomy
group underwent the procedure at the time the fetal head was distending the introitus.

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

12

Rodriguez 2008

(Continued)

Outcomes

The primary outcome of severe laceration

to perineal tissues was defined as a
third-degree laceration when the extent
of the lesion included the external anal
sphincter totally or partially, and fourth degree
laceration when the rectal mucosa
was involved.

Notes

Midline episiotomies. Epsiotomy rates were 24.3% for restricted group and 100% for the routine group.

Risk of bias
Item

Authors judgement

Description

Allocation concealment?

Yes

A - Adequate

Sleep 1984
Methods

Generation method of randomization not established.

Concealment of allocation by opaque sealed envelopes.

Participants

1000 women randomized with spontaneous vaginal deliveries, live singleton fetus, at least 37 completed
weeks of gestational age, cephalic presentation.
From the 1000 original women randomized in the original trial, 922 were available for follow up and 674
of them responded to a postal questionnaire which are the women included in the analysis.

Interventions

Try to avoid episiotomy: the intention should be to avoid an episiotomy and performing it only for fetal
indications (fetal bradycardia, tachycardia, or meconium stained liquor).
Try to prevent a tear: the intention being that episiotomy should be used more liberally to prevent tears.

Outcomes

Severe maternal trauma: extension through the anal sphincter or to the rectal mucosa or to the upper 3rd
of the vagina. Apgar score less than 7 at 1 minute. Severe or moderate perineal pain 10 days after delivery.
Admission to special care baby unit in first 10 days of life. Perineal discomfort 3 months after delivery.
No resumption of sexual intercourse 3 months after delivery.
Any dyspareunia in 3 years. Any incontinence of urine at 3 years. Urinary incontinence severe to wear a
pad at 3 years.

Notes

Mediolateral episiotomies. Epsiotomy rates were 10.2% for restricted group and 51.4% for the routine
group.

Risk of bias
Item

Authors judgement

Description

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

13

Sleep 1984

(Continued)

Allocation concealment?

Yes

A - Adequate

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Coats 1980

The allocation was quasi random and prone to cause selection bias. It is described in the article as, women who
were admitted to the delivery suite were randomly allocated into two groups by the last digit of their hospital
numbers. In addition, when the staff performed an incision which was inappropriate to the treatment allocation,
the woman was removed from the trial. This withdrawal of women as opposed to the principle of intention-totreat analysis increases the risk of selection bias.

Detlefsen 1980

This study does not compare the restrictive use of episiotomy versus the routine use of episiotomy.

Dong 2004

This study does not compare the restrictive use of episiotomy versus the routine use of episiotomy.

Henriksen 1992

The allocation was quasi random. As explained in the article, the deliveries were assisted by midwives on duty
when they arrived on the labour ward. This method of allocation is very prone to selection bias.

Werner 1991

There is no reference about the method of randomization used. The effects are not shown in a quantitative format
making the data uninterpretable.

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

Murphy 2006
Trial name or title

Randomised controlled trial of restrictive versus routine use of episiotomy for instrumental vaginal delivery:
a multi-centre pilot study.

Methods

Randomised controlled trial. Random allocation to: [A] Restrictive use of episiotomy for instrumental vaginal
delivery. [B] Routine use of episiotomy for instrumental vaginal delivery.

Participants

The study aims to recruit 200 women. Inclusion criteria: primigravid women in the third trimester of pregnancy (>36 weeks) with a singleton cephalic pregnancy who are English speakers and have no contra-indication to vaginal birth. Exclusion criteria: Women who are: non-English speakers; who have contra-indication
to vaginal birth; multiple pregnancy; malpresentation; multiparous women as the rate of instrumental delivery
is significantly lower in these women making the effort of recruitment unjustified; women who have not given
written informed consent prior to the onset of labour.

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

14

Murphy 2006

(Continued)

Interventions

Random allocation to: [A] Restrictive use of episiotomy for instrumental vaginal delivery. [B] Routine use of
episiotomy for instrumental vaginal delivery.

Outcomes

Damage to the anal sphincter (third or fourth degree tears).

Starting date

01/09/2005

Contact information

Miss B Strachan
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
St Michaels Hospital
Bristol
BS2 8EG
Telephone: 0117 928 5594
Fax: 0117 928 5180
E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

Notes

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

15

DATA AND ANALYSES

Comparison 1. Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

No. of
studies

No. of
participants

2 Number of episiotomies
2.1 Midline
2.2 Mediolateral
4 Assisted delivery rate
4.1 Midline
4.2 Mediolateral
5 Severe vaginal/perineal trauma
5.1 Midline
5.2 Mediolateral
8 Severe perineal trauma
8.1 Midline
8.2 Mediolateral
11 Any posterior perineal trauma
11.1 Midline
11.2 Mediolateral
14 Any anterior trauma
14.1 Midline
14.2 Mediolateral
17 Need for suturing perineal
trauma
20 Estimated blood loss at delivery

8
2
6
6
2
4
5
2
3
7
2
5
4
1
3
6
2
4
5

5441
1143
4298
4210
1137
3073
4838
1143
3695
4404
1143
3261
2079
698
1381
4896
1143
3753
4133

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Random, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.36, 0.40]

0.46 [0.41, 0.52]
0.36 [0.33, 0.38]
0.77 [0.56, 1.05]
0.85 [0.50, 1.46]
0.72 [0.49, 1.07]
0.92 [0.72, 1.18]
0.78 [0.55, 1.10]
1.10 [0.77, 1.59]
0.67 [0.49, 0.91]
0.74 [0.51, 1.07]
0.55 [0.31, 0.96]
0.88 [0.84, 0.92]
0.92 [0.87, 0.99]
0.85 [0.80, 0.91]
1.84 [1.61, 2.10]
2.00 [1.45, 2.77]
1.80 [1.56, 2.09]
0.71 [0.61, 0.81]

165

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

21 Moderate/severe perineal pain

at 3 days
22 Any perineal pain at discharge
23 Any perineal pain at 10 days
24 Moderate/severe perineal pain
at 10 days
25 Use of oral analgesia at 10 days
26 Any perineal pain at 3 months
27 Moderate/severe perineal pain
at 3 months
28 No attempt at intercourse in 3
months
29 Any dyspareunia within 3
months
30 Dyspareunia at 3 months
31 Ever suffering dyspareunia in 3
years
32 Perineal haematoma at
discharge
33 Healing complications at 7 days

165

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

-58.0 [-107.57, 8.43]

0.71 [0.48, 1.05]

1
1
1

2422
885
885

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.65, 0.81]

1.00 [0.78, 1.27]
1.04 [0.67, 1.62]

1
1
1

885
895
895

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.47 [0.63, 3.40]

0.98 [0.62, 1.55]
1.51 [0.65, 3.49]

895

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.61, 1.39]

895

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.90, 1.16]

1
1

895
674

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.22 [0.94, 1.59]

1.21 [0.84, 1.75]

2296

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.65, 1.42]

1119

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.56, 0.85]

Outcome or subgroup title

Statistical method

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Effect size

16

34 Perineal wound dehiscence at 7

days
35 Perineal infection
36 Perineal bulging at 3 months Midline
37 Urinary incontinence within 37 months
37.1 Midline
37.2 Mediolateral
38 Any urinary incontinence at 3
years
39 Pad wearing for urinary
incontinence
40 Apgar score less than 7 at 1
minute
41 Admission to special care baby
unit
41.1 Midline
41.2 Mediolateral
42 Anorectal incontinence at 7
months

1118

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.48 [0.30, 0.75]

2
1

1298
667

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.02 [0.48, 2.16]

0.84 [0.50, 1.40]

1569

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.98 [0.79, 1.20]

1
1
1

674
895
674

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.68, 1.32]

1.00 [0.76, 1.30]
0.95 [0.77, 1.16]

674

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.16 [0.71, 1.89]

3908

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.76, 1.43]

1898

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.46, 1.19]

1
2
0

698
1200
0

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Odds Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Not estimable
0.74 [0.46, 1.19]
Not estimable

Comparison 2. Restrictive versus routine (primiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

1 Number of episiotomies
1.1 Midline
1.2 Mediolateral
2 Severe vaginal/perineal trauma
2.1 Midline
2.2 Mediolateral
3 Severe perineal trauma
3.1 Midline
3.2 Mediolateral
4 Any posterior trauma
4.1 Midline
4.2 Mediolateral
5 Any anterior trauma
5.1 Midline
5.2 Mediolateral
6 Need for suturing perineal
trauma
6.2 Mediolateral

No. of
studies

No. of
participants

8
2
6
5
2
3
7
2
5
4
1
3
5
2
3
5

3364
801
2563
2541
801
1740
2944
801
2143
1157
356
801
1530
801
729
2441

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.38, 0.44]

0.43 [0.37, 0.48]
0.40 [0.37, 0.44]
0.82 [0.60, 1.12]
0.79 [0.56, 1.11]
0.96 [0.45, 2.07]
0.68 [0.49, 0.94]
0.75 [0.52, 1.08]
0.53 [0.28, 1.01]
0.86 [0.82, 0.91]
0.99 [0.93, 1.05]
0.80 [0.75, 0.87]
1.52 [1.24, 1.86]
2.26 [1.51, 3.38]
1.27 [1.00, 1.60]
0.73 [0.70, 0.76]

2441

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.70, 0.76]

Statistical method

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Effect size

17

Comparison 3. Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae)

Outcome or subgroup title

1 Number of episiotomies
1.1 Midline
1.2 Mediolateral
2 Severe vaginal/perineal trauma
2.1 Midline
2.2 Mediolateral
3 Severe perineal trauma
3.1 Midline
3.2 Mediolateral
4 Any posterior perineal trauma
4.1 Midline
4.2 Mediolateral
5 Any anterior trauma
5.1 Midline
5.2 Mediolateral
6 Need for suturing perineal
trauma
6.1 Mediolateral

No. of
studies

No. of
participants

4
1
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
3

2040
342
1698
1973
342
1631
1460
342
1118
922
342
580
922
342
580
1692

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)
Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.23, 0.31]

0.65 [0.50, 0.86]
0.20 [0.17, 0.24]
1.14 [0.52, 2.48]
0.94 [0.19, 4.61]
1.21 [0.49, 2.96]
0.71 [0.28, 1.82]
0.94 [0.19, 4.61]
0.61 [0.19, 1.97]
0.91 [0.83, 0.99]
0.86 [0.76, 0.97]
0.94 [0.83, 1.05]
1.61 [1.19, 2.18]
1.57 [0.91, 2.71]
1.63 [1.13, 2.35]
0.78 [0.72, 0.83]

1692

Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.78 [0.72, 0.83]

Statistical method

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Effect size

18

Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 2 Number of episiotomies.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 2 Number of episiotomies

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Midline
Klein 1992

153/349

227/349

11.1 %

0.67 [ 0.59, 0.78 ]

54/222

223/223

10.9 %

0.24 [ 0.19, 0.31 ]

571

572

22.0 %

0.46 [ 0.41, 0.52 ]

392/1308

1046/1298

51.4 %

0.37 [ 0.34, 0.41 ]

49/70

60/76

2.8 %

0.89 [ 0.73, 1.07 ]

Eltorkey 1994

53/100

83/100

4.1 %

0.64 [ 0.52, 0.78 ]

Harrison 1984

7/92

89/89

4.4 %

0.08 [ 0.04, 0.16 ]

House 1986

17/94

49/71

2.7 %

0.26 [ 0.17, 0.41 ]

Sleep 1984

51/498

258/502

12.6 %

0.20 [ 0.15, 0.26 ]

2162

2136

78.0 %

0.36 [ 0.33, 0.38 ]

2708

100.0 %

0.38 [ 0.36, 0.40 ]

Rodriguez 2008

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 207 (Restricted episiotomy), 450 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 56.47, df = 1 (P<0.00001); I2 =98%
Test for overall effect: Z = 12.64 (P < 0.00001)
2 Mediolateral
Argentine 1993
Dannecker 2004

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 569 (Restricted episiotomy), 1585 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 155.49, df = 5 (P<0.00001); I2 =97%
Test for overall effect: Z = 27.59 (P < 0.00001)

Total (95% CI)

2733

Total events: 776 (Restricted episiotomy), 2035 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 220.34, df = 7 (P<0.00001); I2 =97%
Test for overall effect: Z = 30.34 (P < 0.00001)

0.002

0.1

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

500

Favours Routine

19

Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 4 Assisted delivery rate.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 4 Assisted delivery rate

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Midline
Klein 1992

20/346

23/346

27.5 %

0.87 [ 0.49, 1.55 ]

3/222

4/223

4.8 %

0.75 [ 0.17, 3.33 ]

568

569

32.3 %

0.85 [ 0.50, 1.46 ]

24/1302

32/1297

38.4 %

0.75 [ 0.44, 1.26 ]

4/49

9/60

9.7 %

0.54 [ 0.18, 1.66 ]

Eltorkey 1994

4/100

5/100

6.0 %

0.80 [ 0.22, 2.89 ]

House 1986

10/94

10/71

13.6 %

0.76 [ 0.33, 1.72 ]

1545

1528

67.7 %

0.72 [ 0.49, 1.07 ]

2097

100.0 %

0.77 [ 0.56, 1.05 ]

Rodriguez 2008

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 23 (Restricted episiotomy), 27 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.03, df = 1 (P = 0.86); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.58 (P = 0.56)
2 Mediolateral
Argentine 1993
Dannecker 2004

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 42 (Restricted episiotomy), 56 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.30, df = 3 (P = 0.96); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.62 (P = 0.11)

Total (95% CI)

2113

Total events: 65 (Restricted episiotomy), 83 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.56, df = 5 (P = 0.99); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.65 (P = 0.098)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restrictive

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

20

Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 5 Severe vaginal/perineal
trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 5 Severe vaginal/perineal trauma

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Midline
Klein 1992

30/349

29/349

24.2 %

1.03 [ 0.63, 1.69 ]

Rodriguez 2008

22/222

38/223

31.6 %

0.58 [ 0.36, 0.95 ]

571

572

55.8 %

0.78 [ 0.55, 1.10 ]

53/1308

47/1278

39.6 %

1.10 [ 0.75, 1.62 ]

2/49

5/60

3.7 %

0.49 [ 0.10, 2.42 ]

4/498

1/502

0.8 %

4.03 [ 0.45, 35.95 ]

1855

1840

44.2 %

1.10 [ 0.77, 1.59 ]

2412

100.0 %

0.92 [ 0.72, 1.18 ]

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 52 (Restricted episiotomy), 67 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.66, df = 1 (P = 0.10); I2 =62%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.44 (P = 0.15)
2 Mediolateral
Argentine 1993
Dannecker 2004
Sleep 1984

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 59 (Restricted episiotomy), 53 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.34, df = 2 (P = 0.31); I2 =15%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.54 (P = 0.59)

Total (95% CI)

2426

Total events: 111 (Restricted episiotomy), 120 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 6.77, df = 4 (P = 0.15); I2 =41%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.64 (P = 0.53)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

21

Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 8 Severe perineal trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 8 Severe perineal trauma

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy
n/N

Routine episiotomy

Risk Ratio

n/N

Risk Ratio

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Midline
Klein 1992

30/349

29/349

1.03 [ 0.63, 1.69 ]

Rodriguez 2008

15/222

32/223

0.47 [ 0.26, 0.84 ]

571

572

0.74 [ 0.51, 1.07 ]

15/1308

19/1298

0.78 [ 0.40, 1.54 ]

2/49

5/60

0.49 [ 0.10, 2.42 ]

Eltorkey 1994

0/100

0/100

0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]

Harrison 1984

0/92

5/89

0.09 [ 0.00, 1.57 ]

House 1986

0/94

3/71

0.11 [ 0.01, 2.06 ]

1643

1618

0.55 [ 0.31, 0.96 ]

2190

0.67 [ 0.49, 0.91 ]

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 45 (Restricted episiotomy), 61 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 4.11, df = 1 (P = 0.04); I2 =76%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.61 (P = 0.11)
2 Mediolateral
Argentine 1993
Dannecker 2004

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 17 (Restricted episiotomy), 32 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 3.83, df = 3 (P = 0.28); I2 =22%
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.10 (P = 0.036)

Total (95% CI)

2214

Total events: 62 (Restricted episiotomy), 93 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 8.17, df = 5 (P = 0.15); I2 =39%
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.54 (P = 0.011)

0.005

0.1

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

200

Favours Routine

22

Analysis 1.11. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 11 Any posterior perineal
trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 11 Any posterior perineal trauma

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Midline
Klein 1992

282/349

305/349

35.9 %

0.92 [ 0.87, 0.99 ]

349

349

35.9 %

0.92 [ 0.87, 0.99 ]

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 282 (Restricted episiotomy), 305 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.37 (P = 0.018)
2 Mediolateral
Eltorkey 1994

60/100

75/100

8.8 %

0.80 [ 0.66, 0.97 ]

Harrison 1984

73/92

89/89

10.7 %

0.79 [ 0.71, 0.88 ]

329/498

380/502

44.6 %

0.87 [ 0.81, 0.95 ]

690

691

64.1 %

0.85 [ 0.80, 0.91 ]

1040

100.0 %

0.88 [ 0.84, 0.92 ]

Sleep 1984

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 462 (Restricted episiotomy), 544 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.33, df = 2 (P = 0.31); I2 =14%
Test for overall effect: Z = 4.95 (P < 0.00001)

Total (95% CI)

1039

Total events: 744 (Restricted episiotomy), 849 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 6.74, df = 3 (P = 0.08); I2 =56%
Test for overall effect: Z = 5.47 (P < 0.00001)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

23

Analysis 1.14. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 14 Any anterior trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 14 Any anterior trauma

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Midline
Klein 1992

52/349

37/349

13.5 %

1.41 [ 0.95, 2.09 ]

Rodriguez 2008

46/222

12/223

4.4 %

3.85 [ 2.10, 7.07 ]

571

572

17.8 %

2.00 [ 1.45, 2.77 ]

230/1197

101/1247

36.0 %

2.37 [ 1.90, 2.96 ]

27/49

25/60

8.2 %

1.32 [ 0.89, 1.96 ]

12/100

18/100

6.5 %

0.67 [ 0.34, 1.31 ]

131/498

87/502

31.5 %

1.52 [ 1.19, 1.93 ]

1844

1909

82.2 %

1.80 [ 1.56, 2.09 ]

2481

100.0 %

1.84 [ 1.61, 2.10 ]

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 98 (Restricted episiotomy), 49 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 7.54, df = 1 (P = 0.01); I2 =87%
Test for overall effect: Z = 4.21 (P = 0.000026)
2 Mediolateral
Argentine 1993
Dannecker 2004
Eltorkey 1994
Sleep 1984

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 400 (Restricted episiotomy), 231 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 18.67, df = 3 (P = 0.00032); I2 =84%
Test for overall effect: Z = 7.88 (P < 0.00001)

Total (95% CI)

2415

Total events: 498 (Restricted episiotomy), 280 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 26.43, df = 5 (P = 0.00007); I2 =81%
Test for overall effect: Z = 8.93 (P < 0.00001)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

24

Analysis 1.17. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 17 Need for suturing
perineal trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 17 Need for suturing perineal trauma

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Argentine 1993

n/N

Risk Ratio

Weight

M-H,Random,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Random,95% CI

817/1296

1138/1291

24.2 %

0.72 [ 0.68, 0.75 ]

Eltorkey 1994

62/100

86/100

18.2 %

0.72 [ 0.61, 0.86 ]

Harrison 1984

50/92

89/89

17.4 %

0.55 [ 0.45, 0.66 ]

House 1986

54/94

63/71

17.1 %

0.65 [ 0.53, 0.79 ]

344/498

392/502

23.2 %

0.88 [ 0.82, 0.95 ]

2080

2053

100.0 %

0.71 [ 0.61, 0.81 ]

Sleep 1984

Total (95% CI)

Total events: 1327 (Restricted episiotomy), 1768 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Tau2 = 0.02; Chi2 = 35.99, df = 4 (P<0.00001); I2 =89%
Test for overall effect: Z = 4.79 (P < 0.00001)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

10

Favours Routine

Analysis 1.20. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 20 Estimated blood loss
at delivery.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 20 Estimated blood loss at delivery

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy
N

House 1986

Total (95% CI)

Routine episiotomy
Mean(SD)

94

94

214 (162)

Mean Difference
Mean(SD)

71

Weight

IV,Fixed,95% CI

Mean Difference
IV,Fixed,95% CI

272 (160)

100.0 %

-58.00 [ -107.57, -8.43 ]

100.0 % -58.00 [ -107.57, -8.43 ]

71

Heterogeneity: not applicable

Test for overall effect: Z = 2.29 (P = 0.022)

-10

-5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

25

Analysis 1.21. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 21 Moderate/severe
perineal pain at 3 days.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 21 Moderate/severe perineal pain at 3 days

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N

Risk Ratio

n/N

House 1986

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

30/94

32/71

100.0 %

0.71 [ 0.48, 1.05 ]

94

71

100.0 %

0.71 [ 0.48, 1.05 ]

Total (95% CI)

Total events: 30 (Restricted episiotomy), 32 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.73 (P = 0.084)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

10

Favours Routine

Analysis 1.22. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 22 Any perineal pain at
discharge.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 22 Any perineal pain at discharge

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy
n/N

Argentine 1993

Total (95% CI)

Routine episiotomy

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

371/1207

516/1215

100.0 %

0.72 [ 0.65, 0.81 ]

1207

1215

100.0 %

0.72 [ 0.65, 0.81 ]

Total events: 371 (Restricted episiotomy), 516 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 5.92 (P < 0.00001)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

26

Analysis 1.23. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 23 Any perineal pain at
10 days.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 23 Any perineal pain at 10 days

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Sleep 1984

Total (95% CI)

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

99/439

101/446

100.0 %

1.00 [ 0.78, 1.27 ]

439

446

100.0 %

1.00 [ 0.78, 1.27 ]

Total events: 99 (Restricted episiotomy), 101 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.03 (P = 0.97)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

10

Favours Routine

Analysis 1.24. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 24 Moderate/severe
perineal pain at 10 days.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 24 Moderate/severe perineal pain at 10 days

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Sleep 1984

Total (95% CI)

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

37/439

36/446

100.0 %

1.04 [ 0.67, 1.62 ]

439

446

100.0 %

1.04 [ 0.67, 1.62 ]

Total events: 37 (Restricted episiotomy), 36 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.19 (P = 0.85)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

27

Analysis 1.25. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 25 Use of oral analgesia
at 10 days.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 25 Use of oral analgesia at 10 days

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Sleep 1984

Total (95% CI)

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

13/439

9/446

100.0 %

1.47 [ 0.63, 3.40 ]

439

446

100.0 %

1.47 [ 0.63, 3.40 ]

Total events: 13 (Restricted episiotomy), 9 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.90 (P = 0.37)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

10

Favours Routine

Analysis 1.26. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 26 Any perineal pain at 3
months.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 26 Any perineal pain at 3 months

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Sleep 1984

Total (95% CI)

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

33/438

35/457

100.0 %

0.98 [ 0.62, 1.55 ]

438

457

100.0 %

0.98 [ 0.62, 1.55 ]

Total events: 33 (Restricted episiotomy), 35 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.07 (P = 0.94)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

28

Analysis 1.27. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 27 Moderate/severe
perineal pain at 3 months.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 27 Moderate/severe perineal pain at 3 months

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Sleep 1984

Total (95% CI)

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

13/438

9/457

100.0 %

1.51 [ 0.65, 3.49 ]

438

457

100.0 %

1.51 [ 0.65, 3.49 ]

Total events: 13 (Restricted episiotomy), 9 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.96 (P = 0.34)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

10

Favours Routine

Analysis 1.28. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 28 No attempt at
intercourse in 3 months.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 28 No attempt at intercourse in 3 months

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Sleep 1984

Total (95% CI)

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

39/438

44/457

100.0 %

0.92 [ 0.61, 1.39 ]

438

457

100.0 %

0.92 [ 0.61, 1.39 ]

Total events: 39 (Restricted episiotomy), 44 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.37 (P = 0.71)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

29

Analysis 1.29. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 29 Any dyspareunia
within 3 months.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 29 Any dyspareunia within 3 months

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Sleep 1984

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

228/438

233/457

100.0 %

1.02 [ 0.90, 1.16 ]

438

457

100.0 %

1.02 [ 0.90, 1.16 ]

Total (95% CI)

Total events: 228 (Restricted episiotomy), 233 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.32 (P = 0.75)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

10

Favours Routine

Analysis 1.30. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 30 Dyspareunia at 3
months.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 30 Dyspareunia at 3 months

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Sleep 1984

Total (95% CI)

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

96/438

82/457

100.0 %

1.22 [ 0.94, 1.59 ]

438

457

100.0 %

1.22 [ 0.94, 1.59 ]

Total events: 96 (Restricted episiotomy), 82 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.49 (P = 0.14)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

30

Analysis 1.31. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 31 Ever suffering
dyspareunia in 3 years.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 31 Ever suffering dyspareunia in 3 years

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Sleep 1984

Total (95% CI)

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

52/329

45/345

100.0 %

1.21 [ 0.84, 1.75 ]

329

345

100.0 %

1.21 [ 0.84, 1.75 ]

Total events: 52 (Restricted episiotomy), 45 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.02 (P = 0.31)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

10

Favours Routine

Analysis 1.32. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 32 Perineal haematoma
at discharge.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 32 Perineal haematoma at discharge

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Argentine 1993

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

47/1148

49/1148

100.0 %

0.96 [ 0.65, 1.42 ]

1148

1148

100.0 %

0.96 [ 0.65, 1.42 ]

Total (95% CI)

Total events: 47 (Restricted episiotomy), 49 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.21 (P = 0.83)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

31

Analysis 1.33. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 33 Healing complications
at 7 days.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 33 Healing complications at 7 days

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Argentine 1993

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

114/555

168/564

100.0 %

0.69 [ 0.56, 0.85 ]

555

564

100.0 %

0.69 [ 0.56, 0.85 ]

Total (95% CI)

Total events: 114 (Restricted episiotomy), 168 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 3.52 (P = 0.00043)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

10

Favours Routine

Analysis 1.34. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 34 Perineal wound
dehiscence at 7 days.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 34 Perineal wound dehiscence at 7 days

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Argentine 1993

Total (95% CI)

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

25/557

53/561

100.0 %

0.48 [ 0.30, 0.75 ]

557

561

100.0 %

0.48 [ 0.30, 0.75 ]

Total events: 25 (Restricted episiotomy), 53 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 3.17 (P = 0.0015)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

32

Analysis 1.35. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 35 Perineal infection.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 35 Perineal infection

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Argentine 1993
House 1986

Total (95% CI)

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

9/555

10/578

74.1 %

0.94 [ 0.38, 2.29 ]

5/94

3/71

25.9 %

1.26 [ 0.31, 5.09 ]

649

649

100.0 %

1.02 [ 0.48, 2.16 ]

Total events: 14 (Restricted episiotomy), 13 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.12, df = 1 (P = 0.73); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.05 (P = 0.96)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

10

Favours Routine

Analysis 1.36. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 36 Perineal bulging at 3
months - Midline.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 36 Perineal bulging at 3 months - Midline

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Klein 1992

Total (95% CI)

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

24/332

29/335

100.0 %

0.84 [ 0.50, 1.40 ]

332

335

100.0 %

0.84 [ 0.50, 1.40 ]

Total events: 24 (Restricted episiotomy), 29 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.68 (P = 0.50)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

33

Analysis 1.37. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 37 Urinary incontinence
within 3-7 months.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 37 Urinary incontinence within 3-7 months

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Midline
Klein 1992

Subtotal (95% CI)

57/337

60/337

41.3 %

0.95 [ 0.68, 1.32 ]

337

337

41.3 %

0.95 [ 0.68, 1.32 ]

83/438

87/457

58.7 %

1.00 [ 0.76, 1.30 ]

438

457

58.7 %

1.00 [ 0.76, 1.30 ]

794

100.0 %

0.98 [ 0.79, 1.20 ]

Total events: 57 (Restricted episiotomy), 60 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.31 (P = 0.76)
2 Mediolateral
Sleep 1984

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 83 (Restricted episiotomy), 87 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.03 (P = 0.97)

Total (95% CI)

775

Total events: 140 (Restricted episiotomy), 147 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.05, df = 1 (P = 0.83); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.22 (P = 0.82)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

34

Analysis 1.38. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 38 Any urinary
incontinence at 3 years.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 38 Any urinary incontinence at 3 years

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Sleep 1984

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

112/329

124/345

100.0 %

0.95 [ 0.77, 1.16 ]

329

345

100.0 %

0.95 [ 0.77, 1.16 ]

Total (95% CI)

Total events: 112 (Restricted episiotomy), 124 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.52 (P = 0.61)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

10

Favours Routine

Analysis 1.39. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 39 Pad wearing for
urinary incontinence.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 39 Pad wearing for urinary incontinence

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Sleep 1984

Total (95% CI)

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

31/329

28/345

100.0 %

1.16 [ 0.71, 1.89 ]

329

345

100.0 %

1.16 [ 0.71, 1.89 ]

Total events: 31 (Restricted episiotomy), 28 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.60 (P = 0.55)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

35

Analysis 1.40. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 40 Apgar score less than
7 at 1 minute.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 40 Apgar score less than 7 at 1 minute

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy

Routine episiotomy

n/N
Argentine 1993

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

43/1306

39/1293

54.9 %

1.09 [ 0.71, 1.67 ]

3/49

7/60

8.8 %

0.52 [ 0.14, 1.92 ]

1/100

3/100

4.2 %

0.33 [ 0.04, 3.15 ]

27/498

23/502

32.1 %

1.18 [ 0.69, 2.04 ]

1953

1955

100.0 %

1.04 [ 0.76, 1.43 ]

Dannecker 2004
Eltorkey 1994
Sleep 1984

Total (95% CI)

Total events: 74 (Restricted episiotomy), 72 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.32, df = 3 (P = 0.51); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.24 (P = 0.81)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

36

Analysis 1.41. Comparison 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all), Outcome 41 Admission to special
care baby unit.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 1 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (all)

Outcome: 41 Admission to special care baby unit

Study or subgroup

Restricted episiotomy
n/N

Routine episiotomy

Risk Ratio

n/N

Risk Ratio

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Midline
Klein 1992

Subtotal (95% CI)

0/349

0/349

0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]

349

349

0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]

0/100

0/100

0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]

28/498

38/502

0.74 [ 0.46, 1.19 ]

598

602

0.74 [ 0.46, 1.19 ]

951

0.74 [ 0.46, 1.19 ]

Total events: 0 (Restricted episiotomy), 0 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.0 (P < 0.00001)
2 Mediolateral
Eltorkey 1994
Sleep 1984

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 28 (Restricted episiotomy), 38 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.0, df = 0 (P = 1.00); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.23 (P = 0.22)

Total (95% CI)

947

Total events: 28 (Restricted episiotomy), 38 (Routine episiotomy)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.0, df = 0 (P = 1.00); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.23 (P = 0.22)

0.1 0.2

0.5

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

Favours Routine

37

Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae), Outcome 1 Number of episiotomies.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae)

Outcome: 1 Number of episiotomies

Study or subgroup

Restrictive

Routine

n/N

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Midline
Klein 1992

99/173

149/183

9.9 %

0.70 [ 0.61, 0.81 ]

Rodriguez 2008

54/222

223/223

15.2 %

0.24 [ 0.19, 0.31 ]

395

406

25.1 %

0.43 [ 0.37, 0.48 ]

307/777

706/778

48.1 %

0.44 [ 0.40, 0.48 ]

20/49

46/60

2.8 %

0.53 [ 0.37, 0.77 ]

Eltorkey 1994

53/100

83/100

5.7 %

0.64 [ 0.52, 0.78 ]

Harrison 1984

7/92

89/89

6.2 %

0.08 [ 0.04, 0.16 ]

House 1986

16/50

38/48

2.6 %

0.40 [ 0.26, 0.62 ]

Sleep 1984

36/201

147/219

9.6 %

0.27 [ 0.20, 0.36 ]

1269

1294

74.9 %

0.40 [ 0.37, 0.44 ]

1700

100.0 %

0.41 [ 0.38, 0.44 ]

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 153 (Restrictive), 372 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 67.28, df = 1 (P<0.00001); I2 =99%
Test for overall effect: Z = 12.94 (P < 0.00001)
2 Mediolateral
Argentine 1993
Dannecker 2004

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 439 (Restrictive), 1109 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 52.40, df = 5 (P<0.00001); I2 =90%
Test for overall effect: Z = 22.77 (P < 0.00001)

Total (95% CI)

1664

Total events: 592 (Restrictive), 1481 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 122.74, df = 7 (P<0.00001); I2 =94%
Test for overall effect: Z = 26.19 (P < 0.00001)

0.01

0.1

Favours Restricted

10

100

Favours Routine

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

38

Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae), Outcome 2 Severe vaginal/perineal
trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae)

Outcome: 2 Severe vaginal/perineal trauma

Study or subgroup

Restrictive

Routine

Risk Ratio

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio

n/N

n/N

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Klein 1992

27/173

26/183

33.1 %

1.10 [ 0.67, 1.81 ]

Rodriguez 2008

22/222

38/223

49.7 %

0.58 [ 0.36, 0.95 ]

395

406

82.8 %

0.79 [ 0.56, 1.11 ]

1 Midline

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 49 (Restrictive), 64 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 3.19, df = 1 (P = 0.07); I2 =69%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.35 (P = 0.18)
2 Mediolateral
Argentine 1993

9/531

8/520

10.6 %

1.10 [ 0.43, 2.83 ]

Dannecker 2004

2/49

5/60

5.9 %

0.49 [ 0.10, 2.42 ]

1/297

0/283

0.7 %

2.86 [ 0.12, 69.89 ]

877

863

17.2 %

0.96 [ 0.45, 2.07 ]

1269

100.0 %

0.82 [ 0.60, 1.12 ]

Sleep 1984

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 12 (Restrictive), 13 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.21, df = 2 (P = 0.55); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.10 (P = 0.92)

Total (95% CI)

1272

Total events: 61 (Restrictive), 77 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 4.57, df = 4 (P = 0.33); I2 =13%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.25 (P = 0.21)

0.01

0.1

Favours Restricted

10

100

Favours Routine

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

39

Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae), Outcome 3 Severe perineal trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae)

Outcome: 3 Severe perineal trauma

Study or subgroup

Restrictive

Routine

Risk Ratio

Risk Ratio

n/N

n/N

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Klein 1992

27/173

26/183

1.10 [ 0.67, 1.81 ]

Rodriguez 2008

15/222

32/223

0.47 [ 0.26, 0.84 ]

395

406

0.75 [ 0.52, 1.08 ]

11/777

14/778

0.79 [ 0.36, 1.72 ]

2/49

5/60

0.49 [ 0.10, 2.42 ]

Eltorkey 1994

0/100

0/100

0.0 [ 0.0, 0.0 ]

Harrison 1984

0/92

5/89

0.09 [ 0.00, 1.57 ]

House 1986

0/50

2/48

0.19 [ 0.01, 3.90 ]

1068

1075

0.53 [ 0.28, 1.01 ]

1481

0.68 [ 0.49, 0.94 ]

1 Midline

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 42 (Restrictive), 58 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 4.71, df = 1 (P = 0.03); I2 =79%

Test for overall effect: Z = 1.53 (P = 0.13)
2 Mediolateral
Argentine 1993
Dannecker 2004

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 13 (Restrictive), 26 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 2.90, df = 3 (P = 0.41); I2 =0.0%

Test for overall effect: Z = 1.93 (P = 0.053)

Total (95% CI)

1463

Total events: 55 (Restrictive), 84 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 8.01, df = 5 (P = 0.16); I2 =38%
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.36 (P = 0.018)

0.01

0.1

Favours Restricted

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

10

100

Favours Routine

40

Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae), Outcome 4 Any posterior trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae)

Outcome: 4 Any posterior trauma

Study or subgroup

Restrictive

Routine

n/N

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Midline
Klein 1992

Subtotal (95% CI)

160/173

171/183

32.5 %

0.99 [ 0.93, 1.05 ]

173

183

32.5 %

0.99 [ 0.93, 1.05 ]

Total events: 160 (Restrictive), 171 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.35 (P = 0.72)
2 Mediolateral
Eltorkey 1994

60/100

75/100

14.7 %

0.80 [ 0.66, 0.97 ]

Harrison 1984

73/92

89/89

17.8 %

0.79 [ 0.71, 0.88 ]

139/201

187/219

35.0 %

0.81 [ 0.73, 0.90 ]

393

408

67.5 %

0.80 [ 0.75, 0.87 ]

591

100.0 %

0.86 [ 0.82, 0.91 ]

Sleep 1984

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 272 (Restrictive), 351 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.07, df = 2 (P = 0.97); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 5.67 (P < 0.00001)

Total (95% CI)

566

Total events: 432 (Restrictive), 522 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 25.97, df = 3 (P<0.00001); I2 =88%
Test for overall effect: Z = 5.39 (P < 0.00001)

0.01

0.1

Favours Restricted

10

100

Favours Routine

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

41

Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae), Outcome 5 Any anterior trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae)

Outcome: 5 Any anterior trauma

Study or subgroup

Restrictive

Routine

Risk Ratio

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio

n/N

n/N

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Klein 1992

22/173

19/183

15.7 %

1.22 [ 0.69, 2.18 ]

Rodriguez 2008

46/222

12/223

10.2 %

3.85 [ 2.10, 7.07 ]

395

406

25.8 %

2.26 [ 1.51, 3.38 ]

27/49

25/60

19.1 %

1.32 [ 0.89, 1.96 ]

Eltorkey 1994

12/100

18/100

15.3 %

0.67 [ 0.34, 1.31 ]

Sleep 1984

66/201

49/219

39.8 %

1.47 [ 1.07, 2.01 ]

350

379

74.2 %

1.27 [ 1.00, 1.60 ]

785

100.0 %

1.52 [ 1.24, 1.86 ]

1 Midline

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 68 (Restrictive), 31 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 7.27, df = 1 (P = 0.01); I2 =86%
Test for overall effect: Z = 3.94 (P = 0.000081)
2 Mediolateral
Dannecker 2004

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 105 (Restrictive), 92 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 4.35, df = 2 (P = 0.11); I2 =54%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.98 (P = 0.048)

Total (95% CI)

745

Total events: 173 (Restrictive), 123 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 15.78, df = 4 (P = 0.003); I2 =75%
Test for overall effect: Z = 4.06 (P = 0.000049)

0.01

0.1

Favours Restricted

10

100

Favours Routine

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

42

Analysis 2.6. Comparison 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae), Outcome 6 Need for suturing perineal
trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 2 Restrictive versus routine (primiparae)

Outcome: 6 Need for suturing perineal trauma

Study or subgroup

Restrictive

Routine

n/N

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

2 Mediolateral
Argentine 1993

522/769

722/773

63.7 %

0.73 [ 0.69, 0.77 ]

Eltorkey 1994

62/100

86/100

7.6 %

0.72 [ 0.61, 0.86 ]

Harrison 1984

50/92

89/89

8.0 %

0.55 [ 0.45, 0.66 ]

House 1986

34/50

46/48

4.2 %

0.71 [ 0.58, 0.87 ]

149/201

195/219

16.5 %

0.83 [ 0.76, 0.91 ]

1212

1229

100.0 %

0.73 [ 0.70, 0.76 ]

Sleep 1984

Total (95% CI)

Total events: 817 (Restrictive), 1138 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 16.96, df = 4 (P = 0.002); I2 =76%
Test for overall effect: Z = 14.71 (P < 0.00001)

0.01

0.1

Favours Restricted

10

100

Favours Routine

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

43

Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae), Outcome 1 Number of
episiotomies.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae)

Outcome: 1 Number of episiotomies

Study or subgroup

Restrictive

Routine

Risk Ratio

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio

n/N

n/N

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

54/176

78/166

13.9 %

0.65 [ 0.50, 0.86 ]

176

166

13.9 %

0.65 [ 0.50, 0.86 ]

87/531

367/520

64.0 %

0.23 [ 0.19, 0.28 ]

1/44

11/23

2.5 %

0.05 [ 0.01, 0.35 ]

15/297

111/283

19.6 %

0.13 [ 0.08, 0.22 ]

872

826

86.1 %

0.20 [ 0.17, 0.24 ]

992

100.0 %

0.27 [ 0.23, 0.31 ]

1 Midline
Klein 1992

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 54 (Restrictive), 78 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 3.04 (P = 0.0024)
2 Mediolateral
Argentine 1993
House 1986
Sleep 1984

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 103 (Restrictive), 489 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 6.79, df = 2 (P = 0.03); I2 =71%
Test for overall effect: Z = 16.77 (P < 0.00001)

Total (95% CI)

1048

Total events: 157 (Restrictive), 567 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 53.47, df = 3 (P<0.00001); I2 =94%
Test for overall effect: Z = 17.04 (P < 0.00001)

0.01

0.1

Favours Restricted

10

100

Favours Routine

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

44

Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae), Outcome 2 Severe
vaginal/perineal trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae)

Outcome: 2 Severe vaginal/perineal trauma

Study or subgroup

Restrictive
n/N

Routine

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Midline
Klein 1992

3/176

3/166

26.4 %

0.94 [ 0.19, 4.61 ]

176

166

26.4 %

0.94 [ 0.19, 4.61 ]

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 3 (Restrictive), 3 (Routine)
Heterogeneity: not applicable

Test for overall effect: Z = 0.07 (P = 0.94)

2 Mediolateral
Argentine 1993

9/531

8/520

69.2 %

1.10 [ 0.43, 2.83 ]

Sleep 1984

1/297

0/283

4.4 %

2.86 [ 0.12, 69.89 ]

828

803

73.6 %

1.21 [ 0.49, 2.96 ]

969

100.0 %

1.14 [ 0.52, 2.48 ]

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 10 (Restrictive), 8 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.32, df = 1 (P = 0.57); I2 =0.0%

Test for overall effect: Z = 0.41 (P = 0.68)

Total (95% CI)

1004

Total events: 13 (Restrictive), 11 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.38, df = 2 (P = 0.83); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.32 (P = 0.75)

0.01

0.1

Favours Restricted

10

100

Favours Routine

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

45

Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae), Outcome 3 Severe perineal
trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae)

Outcome: 3 Severe perineal trauma

Study or subgroup

Restrictive
n/N

Routine

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Midline
Klein 1992

Subtotal (95% CI)

3/176

3/166

30.6 %

0.94 [ 0.19, 4.61 ]

176

166

30.6 %

0.94 [ 0.19, 4.61 ]

4/531

5/520

50.0 %

0.78 [ 0.21, 2.90 ]

0/44

1/23

19.4 %

0.18 [ 0.01, 4.20 ]

575

543

69.4 %

0.61 [ 0.19, 1.97 ]

709

100.0 %

0.71 [ 0.28, 1.82 ]

Total events: 3 (Restrictive), 3 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.07 (P = 0.94)
2 Mediolateral
Argentine 1993
House 1986

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 4 (Restrictive), 6 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.72, df = 1 (P = 0.40); I2 =0.0%

Test for overall effect: Z = 0.82 (P = 0.41)

Total (95% CI)

751

Total events: 7 (Restrictive), 9 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.88, df = 2 (P = 0.64); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.70 (P = 0.48)

0.01

0.1

Favours Restricted

10

100

Favours Routine

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

46

Analysis 3.4. Comparison 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae), Outcome 4 Any posterior
perineal trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae)

Outcome: 4 Any posterior perineal trauma

Study or subgroup

Restrictive
n/N

Routine

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Midline
Klein 1992

Subtotal (95% CI)

122/176

134/166

41.1 %

0.86 [ 0.76, 0.97 ]

176

166

41.1 %

0.86 [ 0.76, 0.97 ]

190/297

193/283

58.9 %

0.94 [ 0.83, 1.05 ]

297

283

58.9 %

0.94 [ 0.83, 1.05 ]

449

100.0 %

0.91 [ 0.83, 0.99 ]

Total events: 122 (Restrictive), 134 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.42 (P = 0.015)
2 Mediolateral
Sleep 1984

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 190 (Restrictive), 193 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.07 (P = 0.28)

Total (95% CI)

473

Total events: 312 (Restrictive), 327 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 1.06, df = 1 (P = 0.30); I2 =6%
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.27 (P = 0.023)

0.01

0.1

Favours Restricted

10

100

Favours Routine

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

47

Analysis 3.5. Comparison 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae), Outcome 5 Any anterior
trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae)

Outcome: 5 Any anterior trauma

Study or subgroup

Restrictive

Routine

Risk Ratio

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio

n/N

n/N

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

30/176

18/166

32.3 %

1.57 [ 0.91, 2.71 ]

176

166

32.3 %

1.57 [ 0.91, 2.71 ]

65/297

38/283

67.7 %

1.63 [ 1.13, 2.35 ]

297

283

67.7 %

1.63 [ 1.13, 2.35 ]

449

100.0 %

1.61 [ 1.19, 2.18 ]

1 Midline
Klein 1992

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 30 (Restrictive), 18 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.63 (P = 0.10)
2 Mediolateral
Sleep 1984

Subtotal (95% CI)

Total events: 65 (Restrictive), 38 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: not applicable
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.62 (P = 0.0088)

Total (95% CI)

473

Total events: 95 (Restrictive), 56 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.01, df = 1 (P = 0.91); I2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 3.08 (P = 0.0021)

0.01

0.1

Favours Restricted

10

100

Favours Routine

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

48

Analysis 3.6. Comparison 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae), Outcome 6 Need for
suturing perineal trauma.
Review:

Episiotomy for vaginal birth

Comparison: 3 Restrictive versus routine episiotomy (multiparae)

Outcome: 6 Need for suturing perineal trauma

Study or subgroup

Restrictive
n/N

Routine

Risk Ratio

n/N

Weight

M-H,Fixed,95% CI

Risk Ratio
M-H,Fixed,95% CI

1 Mediolateral
Argentine 1993
House 1986
Sleep 1984

Total (95% CI)

295/527

416/518

65.4 %

0.70 [ 0.64, 0.76 ]

20/44

17/23

3.5 %

0.61 [ 0.41, 0.92 ]

196/297

195/283

31.1 %

0.96 [ 0.86, 1.07 ]

868

824

100.0 %

0.78 [ 0.72, 0.83 ]

Total events: 511 (Restrictive), 628 (Routine)

Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 20.44, df = 2 (P = 0.00004); I2 =90%
Test for overall effect: Z = 7.36 (P < 0.00001)

0.01

0.1

Favours Restricted

10

100

Favours Routine

FEEDBACK
Preston, September 2001
Summary
Results

The relative risks reported in the results section have been calculated using a fixed effects analysis. There is significant heterogeneity in the
outcomes for suturing and perineal trauma. Use of the fixed effects approach ignores this variability between studies, producing artificially
narrow confidence intervals. For example, the relative risk for need for suturing perineal trauma changes from 0.74 (0.71,0.77) to
0.71(0.61,0.81) with a random effects model, and that for any anterior trauma changes from 1.79 (1.55,2.07) to 1.48 (0.99,2.21).
Reply
In cases of heterogeneity among the results of the studies, it is clearly of interest to determine the causes by conducting subgroup analyses
or meta-regression on the basis of biological characteristics of the population, use of different interventions, methodological quality of
the studies, etc, to find the source of heterogeneity. Trying to find the source of heterogeneity, we performed beforehand a sensitivity
analysis stratifying by parity. When the heterogeneity were not readily explained by this sensitivity analysis, we used a random-effects
model. A random-effects meta-analysis model involves an assumption that the effects being estimated in the different studies are not
identical, but follow similar distribution. However, one needs to be careful in interpreting these results as , the relative risk summary
for the random-effects model tend to show a larger treatment effect than the fixed-effect model while not eliminating the heterogeneity
itself (Villar 2001).
Contributors
Summary of comment from Carol Preston, September 2001

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

49

WHATS NEW
Last assessed as up-to-date: 27 July 2008.

28 July 2008

New citation required but conclusions have not changed New author.

31 March 2008

New search has been performed

New search conducted; two new studies included (

Dannecker 2004; Rodriguez 2008), two excluded (
Detlefsen 1980; Dong 2004) and one new ongoing
study identified (Murphy 2006).

31 January 2008

Feedback has been incorporated

Response to feedback from Carol Preston added.

HISTORY
Protocol first published: Issue 2, 1997
Review first published: Issue 2, 1997

3 October 2001

Feedback has been incorporated

Received from Carol Preston, September 2001.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS
To be completed.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Guillermo Carroli is the author of one of the studies included in this review.

SOURCES OF SUPPORT
Internal sources
Human Reproduction, World Health Organization, Switzerland.
Centro Rosarino de Estudios Perinatales, Rosario, Argentina.
Secretaria de Salud Publica, Municipalidad de Rosario, Argentina.

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

50

External sources
No sources of support supplied

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW

Review methodology section was updated (Higgins 2006).

INDEX TERMS
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Episiotomy

[adverse effects; methods; standards]; Parturition; Perineum [ injuries; surgery]; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

MeSH check words

Female; Humans; Pregnancy

Episiotomy for vaginal birth (Review)

Copyright 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

51