Does the Epi-No-(R) birth trainer prevent vaginal birth-related pelvic floor trauma? A multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial
Author
dc.contributor.author
Atan, I. Kamisan
Author
dc.contributor.author
Shek, K. L.
Author
dc.contributor.author
Langer, S.
Author
dc.contributor.author
Guzmán Rojas, Rodrigo
Author
dc.contributor.author
Caudwell-Hall, J.
Author
dc.contributor.author
Daly, J. O.
Author
dc.contributor.author
Dietz, H. P.
Admission date
dc.date.accessioned
2016-10-17T16:38:06Z
Available date
dc.date.available
2016-10-17T16:38:06Z
Publication date
dc.date.issued
2016
Cita de ítem
dc.identifier.citation
BJOG 2016;123:995–1003
es_ES
Identifier
dc.identifier.other
10.1111/1471-0528.13924
Identifier
dc.identifier.uri
https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/140796
Abstract
dc.description.abstract
Objective Vaginal childbirth may result in levator ani injury
secondary to overdistension during the second stage of labour.
Other injuries include perineal and anal sphincter tears.
Antepartum use of a birth trainer may prevent such injuries by
altering the biomechanical properties of the pelvic floor. This
study evaluates the effects of Epi-No use on intrapartum pelvic
floor trauma.
Design Multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial.
Setting Two tertiary obstetric units in Australia.
Population Nulliparous women carrying an uncomplicated
singleton term pregnancy.
Methods Participants were assessed clinically and with 4D
translabial ultrasound in the late third trimester, and again at 3–
6 months postpartum. Women randomised to the intervention
group were asked to use the Epi-No device from 37 weeks of
gestation until delivery.
Main outcome measures Levator ani, anal sphincter, and perineal
trauma diagnosed clinically and/or with translabial ultrasound
imaging.
Results Of 660 women randomised, 504 (76.4%) returned for
assessment at a mean of 5 months postpartum. There was no
significant difference in the incidence of levator avulsion [12
versus 15%; relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval
(95% CI) 0.51–1.32; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.03,
95% CI 0.04 to 0.09; P = 0.39], irreversible hiatal
overdistension (13 versus 15%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52–1.42;
ARR 0.02, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.09; P = 0.51), clinical anal
sphincter trauma (7 versus 6%; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49–2.60;
ARR –0.01, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.06; P = 0.77), and perineal tears
(51 versus 53%; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78–1.17; ARR 0.02, 95% CI
0.08 to 0.13; P = 0.65). A marginally higher rate of significant
defects of the external anal sphincter on ultrasound was
observed in the intervention group (21 versus 14%; RR 1.44,
95% CI 0.97–2.20; ARR –0.06, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.05;
P = 0.07).
Conclusion Antenatal use of the Epi-No device is unlikely to be
clinically beneficial in the prevention of intrapartum levator ani
damage, or anal sphincter and perineal trauma.
Keywords Anal sphincter tear, Epi-No , levator avulsion, pelvic
floor trauma, perineal trauma.
es_ES
Patrocinador
dc.description.sponsorship
Australian Women & Children's Research Foundation (OZWAC) ;
Nepean Medical Research Foundation (NMRF)