Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2021
In women with spontaneous vaginal delivery, repair of perineal tears might be easier compared to episiotomy.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postpartum perineal pain and its association with sub-classified second-degree tears and perineal trauma-A follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024Trial
- Network meta-analysis of episiotomy approaches: comparing routine, restrictive, and non-episiotomy strategies and their effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes in primiparous patients.Reproductive health · 2025Review
- Trigonometric characteristics of episiotomy & pregnancy variables.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2025Article
- Mediolateral episiotomy and obstetric anal sphincter injuries in nullipara: a propensity score matching study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisTo examine a common assumption that suturing of episiotomy, a straight performer-controlled incision, might be easier compared to repair of unpredictable spontaneous perineal tears.
methodsData for this study were collected prospectively, as part of a randomized controlled trial examining the outcomes of episiotomy avoidance. Suturing characteristics were compared between vaginal deliveries with episiotomy vs. spontaneous perineal tears. Primary outcomes included the duration of the repair, number of suture packs used for the repair, and subjective rating of suturing difficulty (rated from 1 to 5 by practitioner performing the suturing).
resultsOf 525 vaginal deliveries, episiotomy was performed in 165 (31.4%) of the cases, 59 of which (35.8%) were accompanied by additional vaginal tears. Spontaneous vaginal tears without episiotomy were noted in 272 deliveries (51.8%). Compared to spontaneous perineal tears, episiotomy performance was associated with an adverse effect on all three suturing characteristics in the overall cohort and in subgroup of non-operative deliveries. When comparing episiotomy only to second-degree tear suturing, in the subgroup of non-operative vaginal deliveries a higher rate of suturing duration < 10 min was noted in favor of spontaneous tears. However, in sub-analysis of vacuum-assisted deliveries, a benefit was noted in favor of the episiotomy-only group in terms of fewer suture packs and lower subjective difficulty.
conclusionsIn women with non-operative vaginal delivery, suturing of spontaneous perineal tears was easier and shorter compared to episiotomy repair. This might be related to the unpredictable nature of perineal tears, which might be shorter and shallower compared to the standard episiotomy incision.
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.