Episiotomy practices in France: epidemiology and risk factors in non-operative vaginal deliveries.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 11 2020
19 11 2020
Historique:
received:
06
03
2020
accepted:
28
07
2020
entrez:
20
11
2020
pubmed:
21
11
2020
medline:
14
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Episiotomy use has decreased due to the lack of evidence on its protective effects from maternal obstetric anal sphincter injuries. Indications for episiotomy vary considerably and there are a great variety of factors associated with its use. The aim of this article is to describe the episiotomy rate in France between 2013 and 2017 and the factors associated with its use in non-operative vaginal deliveries. In this retrospective population-based cohort study, we included vaginal deliveries performed in French hospitals (N = 584) and for which parity was coded. The variable of interest was the rate of episiotomy, particularly for non-operative vaginal deliveries. Trends in the episiotomy rates were studied using the Cochran-Armitage test. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with episiotomy according to maternal age and parity. Between 2013 and 2017, French episiotomy rates fell from 21.6 to 14.3% for all vaginal deliveries (p < 0.01), and from 15.5 to 9.3% (p < 0.01) for all non-operative vaginal deliveries. Among non-operative vaginal deliveries, epidural analgesia, non-reassuring fetal heart rate, meconium in the amniotic fluid, shoulder dystocia, and newborn weight (≥ 4,000 g) were risk factors for episiotomy, both for nulliparous and multiparous women. On the contrary, prematurity reduced the risk of its use. For nulliparous women, breech presentation was also a risk factor for episiotomy, and for multiparous women, scarred uterus and multiple pregnancies were risk factors. In France, despite a reduction in episiotomy use over the last few years, the factors associated with episiotomy have not changed and are similar to the literature. This suggests that the decrease in episiotomies in France is an overall tendency which is probably related to improved care strategies that have been relayed by hospital teams and perinatal networks.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33214621
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-70881-7
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-70881-7
pmc: PMC7677317
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20208Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2020 Nov;48(11):790-799
pubmed: 32376481
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2):CD000081
pubmed: 10796120
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28(18):2201-6
pubmed: 25380033
BJOG. 2017 Jul;124(8):1255-1262
pubmed: 27781401
Circulation. 2013 Apr 30;127(17):1767-74
pubmed: 23543004
J Public Health (Oxf). 2013 Mar;35(1):147-56
pubmed: 22829662
Health Place. 2011 Sep;17(5):1170-3
pubmed: 21727022
Eur Respir J. 2015 Aug;46(2):503-11
pubmed: 26022949
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2017 Jan;43(1):41-48
pubmed: 28334585
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019 Jan;232:60-64
pubmed: 30468985
Health Care Women Int. 2018 Jun;39(6):644-662
pubmed: 29509098
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 08;2:CD000081
pubmed: 28176333
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2016 Sep;45(7):691-700
pubmed: 26996239
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2014 Nov;43(9):680-90
pubmed: 24135017
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2006 Feb;35(1 Suppl):1S12-1S23
pubmed: 16495823
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018 Jul;298(1):121-124
pubmed: 29785549
Birth. 2012 Sep;39(3):183-91
pubmed: 23281900
Midwifery. 2013 Aug;29(8):943-9
pubmed: 23453700
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2012 Apr;41(2):151-66
pubmed: 22197351
BMJ Open. 2020 May 12;10(5):e035218
pubmed: 32404391
Am J Epidemiol. 2003 May 15;157(10):940-3
pubmed: 12746247
BJOG. 2015 Jul;122(8):1073-81
pubmed: 25950083
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2006 Feb;35(1 Suppl):1S32-1S39
pubmed: 16495825
Midwifery. 2018 Nov;66:161-167
pubmed: 30176390
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Dec;27(18):1864-9
pubmed: 24476386
Nurs Health Sci. 2017 Sep;19(3):351-357
pubmed: 28631876
BMC Anesthesiol. 2017 Jun 28;17(1):88
pubmed: 28659122
Women Health. 2019 Aug;59(7):760-774
pubmed: 30615591
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013 Dec;288(6):1249-56
pubmed: 23708390
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Aug 16;19(1):300
pubmed: 31419953
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017 Feb;30(3):251-256
pubmed: 27018243
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Jul;300(1):87-94
pubmed: 31056735
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Aug;39(6):737-747
pubmed: 31020867
Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2013 Jan;41(1):10-5
pubmed: 22964000
BJOG. 2012 Apr;119(5):522-6
pubmed: 22304364
Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2017 Mar;45(3):146-151
pubmed: 28682756
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017 Dec;46(10):701-713
pubmed: 29031048
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2015 Aug;63(4):237-46
pubmed: 26143088
BJOG. 2008 Dec;115(13):1688-94
pubmed: 19035943
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 May;200(5):573.e1-7
pubmed: 19243733
Birth. 2008 Sep;35(3):171-8
pubmed: 18844642
JAMA. 2015 Jan 13;313(2):197-9
pubmed: 25585333
Reprod Health. 2013;10 Suppl 1:S1
pubmed: 24625113
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016 Jul;95(7):746-54
pubmed: 26958827
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Jun 4;18(1):208
pubmed: 29866103
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21;(1):CD000081
pubmed: 19160176
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259
pubmed: 22696318
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2012 Feb;41(1):62-8
pubmed: 22018442
Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2016;24:e2793
pubmed: 27224064
Stroke. 2015 Jan;46(1):190-6
pubmed: 25378425
Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2016 Apr;44(4):232-8
pubmed: 26997462