Observational studyInternational urogynecology journal2015
Cutting an episiotomy at 60 degrees: how good are we?
Observational study in International urogynecology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Episiotomy: Are Indian Obstetricians Getting the Angle Right?Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Episiotomy Characteristics of EPISCISSORS-60 Scissors Compared with Mayo Scissors: A Single-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2023Article
- Author response.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Impact of a quality improvement project to reduce the rate of obstetric anal sphincter injury: a multicentre study with a stepped-wedge design.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2021Article
- Article
- Impact of the EPISCISSORS-60 mediolateral episiotomy scissors on obstetric anal sphincter injuries: a 2-year data review in the United Kingdom.International urogynecology journal · 2020Review
- Article
- A multi-centre quality improvement project to reduce the incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI): study protocol.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
- Evaluation of Accuracy of Episiotomy Incision in a Governmental Maternity Unit in Palestine: An Observational Study.Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2018Article
- Comparative study of episiotomy angles achieved by cutting with straight Mayo scissors and the EPISCISSORS-60 in a birth simulation model.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Evaluation of training programme uptake in an attempt to reduce obstetric anal sphincter injuries: the SUPPORT programme.International urogynecology journal · 2017Article
- Obstetric anal sphincter injuries: review of anatomical factors and modifiable second stage interventions.International urogynecology journal · 2015Review
- Comparison of obstetric anal sphincter injuries in nulliparous women before and after introduction of the EPISCISSORS-60(®) at two hospitals in the United Kingdom.International journal of women's health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisEpisiotomy is regarded as the most common maternal obstetric surgical procedure. It is associated with a significant increase in blood loss, lower pelvic floor muscle strength, dyspareunia, and perineal pain compared with a perineal tear. We tested the hypothesis that all doctors and midwives can perform an episiotomy when prompted to, specifically cut at 60° from the midline (in a simulation model).
methodsDoctors and midwives attending the BMFMS Annual Meeting (2014), Croydon Perineal Trauma Course and staff at Poole General Hospital were invited to cut a paper replica of the perineum with a commonly used episiotomy incision pad. Participants were prompted to cut an episiotomy at 60° to the perineal midline with the anus as a reference point. The angles and distances were measured using protractors and rulers. A 58-62° band was deemed acceptable to account for measurement errors.
resultsA total of 106 delegates participated. Only 15 % of doctors and midwives cut an episiotomy between 58 and 62°. Over one third (36 %) cut the episiotomy between 55 and 65° (inclusive). Nearly two thirds either underestimated the angle (<55°; 44 %), or overestimated the angle (>66°; 18 %). Thirty-six and 7.5 % of episiotomies were cut at <50 and >70° respectively. The origination point of the episiotomy was 5 mm away from the midline (IQR 1-8 mm).
conclusionsThis original observational study shows that doctors and midwives were poor at cutting at the prompted episiotomy angle of 60°. This highlights the need to develop structured training programmes to improve the visual accuracy of estimating angles or the use of fixed angle devices to help improve the ability to estimate the desired angle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.