Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2022
Episiotomy in vacuum extraction, do we cut the levator ani muscle? A prospective cohort study.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisVaginal delivery may lead to levator ani muscle (LAM) injury or avulsion. Episiotomy may reduce obstetric anal sphincter injury in operative vaginal delivery, but may increase the risk of LAM injury. Our aim was to assess whether lateral episiotomy in vacuum extraction (VE) in primiparous women causes LAM injury.
methodsA prospective cohort study of 58 primiparous women with episiotomy nested within an ongoing multicenter randomized controlled trial of lateral episiotomy versus no episiotomy in VE (EVA trial) was carried out in Sweden. LAM injury was evaluated using 3D endovaginal ultrasound 6-12 months after delivery and Levator Ani Deficiency (LAD) score. Episiotomy scar properties were measured. Characteristics were described and compared using Chi-squared tests. We stipulated that if a lateral episiotomy cuts the LAM, ≥50% would have a LAM injury. Among those, ≥50% would be side specific. We compared the observed prevalence with a test of one proportion.
resultsTwelve (20.7%, 95% CI 10.9-32.9) of 58 women had a LAD (p < 0.001, compared with the stipulated 50%). Six (50.0%, 95% CI 21.1% to 78.9%) of 12 women had a LAD on the episiotomy side, including those with bilateral LAD (p = 1.00). Two (16.7%, 95% CI 2.1% to 48.4%) of 12 women had a LAD exclusively on the episiotomy side (p = 0.02).
conclusionsThere was no excessive risk of cutting the LAM while performing a lateral episiotomy. LAD was not seen in women with episiotomies shorter than 18 mm.
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.