Perineal resuturing versus conservative treatment for dehisced perineal wounds and episiotomies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

introduction and hypothesisPerineal wound dehiscence is associated with complications, such as infections, perineal pain, dyspareunia, and altered sexual function, that severely affects women's health. Currently, few studies have examined secondary repair of first- and second-degree perineal wound dehiscence and episiotomies, and there is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment option for dehisced perineal wounds. The objective was to evaluate whether resuturing or conservative treatment of first- and second-degree dehisced perineal wounds and episiotomies is the optimal treatment modality in terms of postoperative healing time and other secondary outcomes.

methodsA systematic literature search was carried out using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. All included studies were evaluated using the SIGN methodology checklist, with the purpose of assessing the study quality.

resultsThree randomized controlled trials were included. Only two small sample-sized studies presented data regarding healing time for both the resuturing and the conservative treatment groups. However, no significant difference was found between the two groups at 4-6 weeks' healing time (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.53-2.52). One study found that women being resutured experienced a significantly reduced healing time and higher satisfaction with the appearance of the wound healing at 3 months compared with the conservative treatment group.

conclusionWe found no significant differences in the healing time between the resuturing group and the conservative treatment group. However, the sample sizes of the studies were small. A well-designed, large, and prospective randomized controlled trial is needed to evaluate the optimal treatment modality for dehisced perineal wounds.