medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2019, Number 07

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2019; 87 (07)

Prevalence of perineal tars in patients submitted to the application of vacuum

Arvizu-Armenta JA, Rodríguez-Ayala C, González-Aldeco PM, Aguilera-Cervantes SM, Sánchez-Huesca R

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 447-453
PDF size: 264.09 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of perineal tears in patients which delivery was instrumented by vacuum and to identify the risk factors that lead to a tear in the anal sphincter.
Material and Method: Descriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective and observational study. All vacuum deliveries were selected among the instrumental deliveries of the population in a secondary care hospital in Mexico City. The inclusion criteria were women who delivered vaginally at term with sole and normoevolutive pregnancies. The perineal tears were classified according to WHO. The statistical analysis included the estimation of prevalences with their corresponding confidence intervals. Variables were described by means and standard deviations or absolute and relative frequencies. Tears were compared using χ2 tests considering a statistical significance of p ‹ 0.05.
Results: The number of instrumented deliveries was 74 out of 708 cases of total deliveries, those with vacuum were 70 out of 74. Considering the instrumented deliveries with vacuum, the most prevalent tears were those of first and second degree with values of 40.0% (CI 29-51) and 38.6% (CI 27-50) respectively. There were not associated risk factors to severe perineal tears.
Conclusions: Prevalence in the studied population was similar to developed countries and moderate tears are the most prevalent.


REFERENCES

  1. Peaceman AM. Operative vaginal delivery. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Practice Bulletin. ACOG 2015;154. doi: 10.1097/ AOG.0000000000001147

  2. Baskett TF. Operative vaginal delivery: An historical perspective. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Apr;56:3-10. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.08.002

  3. Caughey AB, Sandberg PL. Forceps compared with vacuum rates of neonatal and maternal morbidity. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2005; 106(5):908-12. doi 10.1097/01. AOG.0000182616.39503.b2

  4. Ryman P, Ahlberg MB. Risk factors for anal sphincter tears in vacuum-assisted delivery. Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare 2015;6:151-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/birt.12346

  5. Andrews SE, Alston MJ, Allshouse AA, et al. Does the number of forceps deliveries performed in residency predict use in practice? Am J ObstetGynecol 2015;213(93):e1-e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.025

  6. Merriam AA, et al. Trends in operative vaginal delivery, 2005–2013: a population-based study. BJOG 2017. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14553

  7. Thiagamoorthy G, et al. National survey of perineal trauma and its subsequent management in the United Kingdom. Int Urogynecol J 2014;25(12):1621-27. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2406-x

  8. Martínez PJ. Consideraciones sobre 113 casos de aplicación de fórceps medio. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2011;79(8):516-24.

  9. Althabe F. Elección de instrumentos para parto vaginal asistido: Comentario de la BSR. La Biblioteca de Salud Reproductiva de la OMS. Ginebra: Organización Mundial de la Salud. http://www.extranet.who.int/rlh/es/ topics/pregnancy-and-childbirth-care-during-labour- 2nd-stage-3>

  10. Encuesta Perinatal 2008: Resultados en Hospitales Públicos de la Provincia de Buenos Aires y Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires 2009. Buenos Aires: Ministerio de salud. [en línea]. http://www.fr.scribd.com>

  11. Cargill YM, MacKinnon CJ. No. 148-Guidelines for Operative Vaginal Birth. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2018;40(2):e74–e80. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.11.003

  12. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S, et al. Births: Final data for 2006. National Vital Statistics Reports 2016;67(1):11-20. PMID: 16176060

  13. O’Mahony F, et al. Choice of instruments for assisted vaginal delivery. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010;11:CD005455. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858. CD005455.pub2

  14. The management of third- and fourth-degree perineal tears. Green-top guideline. RCOG 2015;29. https://www. rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg-29. pdf>

  15. Lewicky-Gaupp C, Leader-Cramer A. Wound complications after obstetric anal sphincter injuries. ACOG 2015; 125(5):1088-1093. DOI: 10.1097/ AOG.0000000000000833

  16. Ramírez GC, Ramírez GB. Uso actual del extractor de vacío. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2008;76(10):629-3.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com