Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Repair of Episiotomy, First and Second Degree Tears

  • Chapter
Perineal and Anal Sphincter Trauma

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Sleep J. Postnatal perineal care revisited. In: Alexander J, Levy V, Roch S, eds. Aspects of midwifery practice. A research based approach, 1st edn. London: Macmillan Press, 1995, pp 132–53.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sleep J. Perineal care: a series of fi ve randomized controlled trials. In: Robinson S, Thomson A, eds. Midwives, research and childbirth, 1st edn, vol 2. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991, pp 199–251.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kettle C, Hills RK, Jones P, Darby L, Gray R, Johanson R. Continuous versus interrupted perineal repair with standard or rapidly absorbed sutures after spontaneous vaginal birth: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;359:2217–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Glazener CMA, Abdalla M, Stroud P, Naji S, Templeton A, Russell IT. Postnatal maternal morbidity: extent, causes, prevention and treatment. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;102:282–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sleep J, Grant A. West Berkshire Perineal Management Trial. Three year follow-up. Br Med J 1987; 295(7):749–51.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Thomas JM, Bartram CI. Anal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1905–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sleep J, Grant A, Garcia J, Elbourne D, Spencer J, Chalmers I. West Berkshire perineal management trial. Br Med J 1984;289:587–90.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Klein MC, Gauthier RJ, Robbins JM et al. Relationship of episiotomy to perineal trauma and morbidity, sexual function, and pelvic fl oor relaxation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171(3):591–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Department of Health. A fi rst class service – Quality in the new NHS. London: HMSO, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hurley J. Midwives and research-based practice. Br J Midwifery 1998;6:294–7.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McCandlish R, Bowler U, Van Asten H, Berridge G, Winter C, Sames L, Garcia J, Renfrew M, Elbourne D. A randomised controlled trial of care of the perineum during second stage of normal labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:1262–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Thacker SB, Banta HD. Benefits and risks of episiotomy: an interpretative review of the English language literature 1860–1980. Obstet Gynecol Survey 1983;38(6):322–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kettle C, O’Brien S. Methods and materials used in perineal repair. Guideline no 23. London: Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, revised July 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Bartram CI, Hudson CN. Perineal damage at delivery. Contemp Rev Obstet Gynaecol 1994;6:18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  15. UKCC. The midwives’ scope of practice. London: UKCC, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN. Obstetric perineal trauma: an audit of training. J Obstet Gynaecol 1995;15(1):19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. McClellan MT, Melick CF, Clancy SL, Artel R. Episiotomy and perineal repair. An evaluation of resident education and experience. J Reprod Med 2002;47(12):1025–30.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rix JA. Painful and perineal problem. Daily Telegraph 1992;14.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Brimacombe J. Reaping the pain which others have sewn. The Independent (14th March) 1995;21.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lewis L. Are you sitting comfortably? The development of a perineal audit system to enable midwives to follow their perineal management up to 13 months postnatally. Midwives Chronicle 1994; 226–7.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Borgatta L, Piening SL, Cohen WR. Association of episiotomy and delivery position with deep perineal laceration during spontaneous delivery in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160(2): 294–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Thorp JM, Bowes WA. Episiotomy: can its routine use be defended? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160:1027–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shiono P, Klebanoff MA, Carey JC. Midline episiotomies: more harm than good? Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:765–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Weaks JD, Kozak LJ. Trends of episiotomy in the United States: 1980–1998. Birth 2001;28(3):152– 60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Klein MC. Use of episiotomy in the United States. Birth 2002;29:74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Magdi I. Obstetric injuries of the perineum. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 1949;49:687–700.

    Google Scholar 

  27. McCandlish R, Brocklehurst P, King V, Kettle C. Midwives should offer perineal repair. Pract Midwife 1999;2(7):14–5.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wood T. Not suturing is safe. Pract Midwife 1999; 2(7):15.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gilpin-Blake D, Elliot S. A natural alternative to suturing. Midwifery Today 2001(winter);60:32.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Metcalfe A, Tohill S, Williams A, Haldon V, Brown L, Henry L. A pragmatic tool for the measurement of perineal tears. Br J Midwifery 2002;10(7):412–7.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Head M. Dropping stitches. Nursing Times 1993; 89(33):64–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Clement S, Reed B. To stitch or not to stitch? A long-term follow-up study of women with unsutured perineal tears. Pract Midwife 1999;2(4):20–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lundquist M, Olsson A, Nissen E, Norman M. Is it necessary to suture all lacerations after a vaginal delivery? Birth 2000;27(2):79–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Fleming EM, Hagan S, Niven C. Does perineal suturing make a difference? The SUNS trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2003;110:684–9.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lewis P. Poor science makes poor practice. Modern Midwife 1997;7(6):4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kettle C. Perineal repair: a randomised controlled trial of suturing techniques and materials following spontaneous vaginal birth. PhD Thesis, Keele University, UK, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Pretorius GP. Episiotomy. Br Med J 1982;284: 1322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gordon B, Mackrodt C, Fern E, Truesdale A, Ayers S, Grant A. The Ipswich Childbirth Study: 1. A randomised evaluation of two stage postpartum perineal repair leaving the skin unsutured. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105(4):435–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Oboro VO, Tabowei TO, Loto OM, Bosah JO. A multicentre evaluation of the two-layered repair of postpartum perineal trauma. J Obstet Gynaecol 2003;23(1):5–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Kettle C, Johanson RB. Continuous versus interrupted sutures for perineal repair. The Cochrane Library, Issue 3. Oxford: Update Software, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Banninger U, Buhrig H, Schreiner WE. A comparison between chromic catgut and polyglycolic acid sutures in episiotomy repair (transl.). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 1978;33:30–3.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Isager-Sally L, Legarth J, Jacobsen B, Bostofte E. Episiotomy repair – immediate and long-term sequelae. A prospective randomized study of three different methods of repair. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;93:420–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Mahomed K, Grant A, Ashurst H, James D. The Southmead perineal suture study. A randomized comparison of suture materials and suturing techniques for repair of perineal trauma. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989;96:1272–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Rucker MP. Perineorraphy with longitudinal sutures. Virginia Medical Monthly 1930;July: 238–9.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mandy TE, Christhilf SM, Mandy AJ, Siegel IA. Evaluation of the Rucker method of episiotomy repair as to perineal pain. Am J Surg 1951;82: 251–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Christhilf SM, Monias MB. Knotless episiorrhaphy as a positive approach towards eliminating postpartum perineal distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1962;84(6):812–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Guilhem P, Pontonnier A, Espagno G. Episiotomie prophylactique. Suture intradermique. Gynécologie et Obstétrique 1960;59(2):261–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Llewellyn-Jones JD. Commentary. Repair of episiotomies and perineal tears. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94:92–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Grant A. The choice of suture materials and techniques for repair of perineal trauma: an overview of the evidence from controlled trials. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989;96(11):1281–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Fleming N. Can the suturing method make a difference in postpartum perineal pain? J Nurse- Midwifery 1990;35(1):19–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Olah KS. Episiotomy repair – suture material and short term morbidity. J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 10:503–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kettle C, Johanson RB. Absorbable synthetic versus catgut suture material for perineal repair (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library, Issue 3. Oxford: Update Software, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mackenzie D. The history of sutures. History of Medicine 1973;17:158.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Cuschieri A, Steele RJC, Moossa AR. Essential surgical practice, 4th edn. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Taylor I, Karran SJ. Surgical principles, 1st edn. London: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ethicon. Coated Vicryl polyglactin 910: the gentle approach. Edinburgh: Ethicon Limited, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  57. McCaul LK, Bagg J, Jenkins WMM. Rate of loss of irradiated polyglactin 910 (Vicryl Rapide) from the mouth: a prospective study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;38:328–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Craig PH, Williams JA, Davis KW, Magoun AD, Levy AJ, Bogdansky S, Jones JP. A biologic comparison of polyglactin 910 and polyglycolic acid synthetic absorbable sutures. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1975;141:1–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Moy RL, Lee A, Zalka A. Commonly used suture materials in skin surgery. Am Fam Physician 1991; 44(6):2123–38.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Mackrodt C, Gordon B, Fern E, Ayers S, Truesdale A, Grant A. The Ipswich childbirth study: 2. A randomised comparison of polyglactin 910 with chromic catgut for postpartum perineal repair. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105(4):441–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Ethicon. A unique new product completes the family: VICRYL rapide. Edinburgh: Ethicon Limited, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Gemynthe A, Langhoff-Roos J, Sahl S, Knudsen J. New VICRYL formulation: an improved method of perineal repair? Br J Midwifery 1996;4(5): 230–4.

    Google Scholar 

  63. McElhinney BR, Glenn DRJ, Harper MA. Episiotomy repair: vicryl versus vicryl rapide. Ulster Med J 2000;69(1):27–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Walton I. Sexuality and motherhood. Hale: Books for Midwives Press, 1994, p 125.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Kahn GQ, Lilford RJ. Wound pain may be reduced by prior infi ltration of the episiotomy site after delivery under spinal epidural anaesthetic. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94(4):341–4.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Hankins GD, Clark SL, Cunningham FG, Gilstrap LC. Operative obstetrics, 1st edn. New York: Appleton and Lange, 1995. Figures 7–10 and 7–11, p 105.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Obstetric Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of North Staffordshire and Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK

    Christine Kettle

  2. Division of Gynecology Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Dee E. Fenner

Authors
  1. Christine Kettle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dee E. Fenner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Mayday University Hospital, Croydon, UK

    Abdul H. Sultan

  2. Consultant Obstetrician and Urogynaecologist, Mayday University Hospital, Croydon, UK

    Ranee Thakar

  3. Furlong Professor of Women’s Health Director of Gynecology Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Dee E. Fenner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kettle, C., Fenner, D.E. (2009). Repair of Episiotomy, First and Second Degree Tears. In: Sultan, A.H., Thakar, R., Fenner, D.E. (eds) Perineal and Anal Sphincter Trauma. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-503-5_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-503-5_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-926-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84628-503-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation