1995•Obstetrical & Gynecological SurveyRequires access

Benefits and Risks of Episiotomy

Robert J. Woolley

Open publisher page 180 citations

Abstract

The professional literature on the benefits and risks of episiotomy was last reviewed critically in 1983, encompassing material published through 1980. This paper reviews the evidence accumulated since then. (Part II follows in this issue.) It is concluded that episiotomies prevent anterior perineal lacerations (which carry minimal morbidity), but fail to accomplish any of the other maternal or fetal benefits traditionally ascribed, including prevention of perineal damage and its sequelae, prevention of pelvic floor relaxation and its sequelae, and protection of the newborn from either intracranial hemorrhage or intrapartum asphyxia. In the process of affording this one small advantage, the incision substantially increases maternal blood loss, the average depth of posterior perineal injury, the risk of anal sphincter damage and its attendant long-term morbidity (at least for midline episiotomy), the risk of improper perineal wound healing, and the amount of pain in the first several postpartum days.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The professional literature on the benefits and risks of episiotomy was last reviewed critically in 1983, encompassing material published through 1980. This paper reviews the evidence accumulated since then. (Part II follows in this issue.) It is concluded that episiotomies prevent anterior perineal lacerations (which carry minimal morbidity), but fail to accomplish any of the other maternal or fetal benefits traditionally ascribed, including prevention of perineal damage and its sequelae, prevention of pelvic floor relaxation and its sequelae, and protection of the newborn from either intracranial hemorrhage or intrapartum asphyxia. In the process of affording this one small advantage, the incision substantially increases maternal blood loss, the average depth of posterior perineal injury, the risk of anal sphincter damage and its attendant long-term morbidity (at least for midline episiotomy), the risk of improper perineal wound healing, and the amount of pain in the first several postpartum days.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 180 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The professional literature on the benefits and risks of episiotomy was last reviewed critically in 1983, encompassing material published through 1980. This paper reviews the evidence accumulated since then. (Part II follows in this issue.) It is concluded that episiotomies prevent anterior perineal lacerations (which carry minimal morbidity), but fail to accomplish any of the other maternal or fetal benefits traditionally ascribed, including prevention of perineal damage and its sequelae, prevention of pelvic floor relaxation and its sequelae, and protection of the newborn from either intracranial hemorrhage or intrapartum asphyxia. In the process of affording this one small advantage, the incision substantially increases maternal blood loss, the average depth of posterior perineal injury, the risk of anal sphincter damage and its attendant long-term morbidity (at least for midline episiotomy), the risk of improper perineal wound healing, and the amount of pain in the first several postpartum days.

Key concepts: Medicine, Episiotomy, Anal sphincter, Perineum, Shoulder dystocia, Asphyxia, Obstetrics, Blood loss

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Benefits and Risks of Episiotomy — Research Paper | ScholarLens