Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter April 28, 2020

Birth tears after spontaneous and vacuum-assisted births with different vacuum cup systems – a retrospective cohort study

Martina Kreft, Roland Zimmermann and Nina Kimmich ORCID logo

Abstract

Objectives

Birth tears are a common complication of vaginal childbirth. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of birth tears first by comparing the mode of vaginal birth (VB) and then comparing different vacuum cups in instrumental VBs in order to better advise childbearing women and obstetrical professionals.

Methods

In a retrospective cohort study, we analyzed nulliparous and multiparous women with a singleton pregnancy in vertex presentation at ≥37 + 0 gestational weeks who gave birth vaginally at our tertiary care center between 06/2012 and 12/2016. We compared the distribution of tear types in spontaneous births (SBs) vs. vacuum-assisted VBs. We then compared the tear distribution in the vacuum group when using the Kiwi Omnicup or Bird’s anterior metal cup. Outcome parameters were the incidence and distribution of the different tear types dependent on the mode of delivery and type of vacuum cup.

Results

A total of 4549 SBs and 907 VBs were analyzed. Birth tear distribution differed significantly between the birth modes. In 15.2% of women with an SB an episiotomy was performed vs. 58.5% in women with a VB. Any kind of perineal tear was seen in 45.7% after SB and in 32.7% after VB. High-grade obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) appeared in 1.1% after SB and in 3.1% after VB. No significant changes in tear distribution were found between the two different VB modes.

Conclusions

There were more episiotomies, vaginal tears and OASIS after VB than after SB. In contrast, there were more low-grade perineal and labial tears after SB. No significant differences were found between different vacuum cup systems, just a slight trend toward different tear patterns.


Corresponding author: Martina Kreft, MD, Division of Obstetrics, University Hospital of Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland, Tel.: 0041-44-255 1111

  1. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.

  5. Ethical approval: The study has been complied with all relevant national regulations and in accordance to the Declaration of Helsinki regarding ethical conduct of research involving human subjects, and has been approved by the Ethical Board of the district (KEK-ZH-Nr.2016-02079).

References

1. Thom DH, Rortveit G. Prevalence of postpartum urinary incontinence: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010;89:1511–22.Search in Google Scholar

2. Radestad I, Olsson A, Nissen E, Rubertsson C. Tears in the vagina, perineum, sphincter ani, and rectum and first sexual intercourse after childbirth: a nationwide follow-up. Birth 2008;35:98–106.Search in Google Scholar

3. Yang X, Zhang HX, Yu HY, Gao XL, Yang HX, Dong Y. The prevalence of fecal incontinence and urinary incontinence in primiparous postpartum Chinese women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010;152:214–7.Search in Google Scholar

4. Kimmich N, Grauwiler V, Richter A, Zimmermann R, Kreft M. Birth lacerations in different genital compartments and their effect on maternal subjective outcome: a prospective observational study. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2019;223:359–68.Search in Google Scholar

5. Albers L, Garcia J, Renfrew M, McCandlish R, Elbourne D. Distribution of genital tract trauma in childbirth and related postnatal pain. Birth 1999;26:11–7.Search in Google Scholar

6. Ventolini G, Yaklic JL, Galloway ML, Hampton M, Maher JE. Obstetric vulvar lacerations and postpartum dyspareunia. J Reprod Med 2014;59:560–5.Search in Google Scholar

7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 165: Prevention and management of obstetric lacerations at vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:e1–15.Search in Google Scholar

8. Smith LA, Price N, Simonite V, Burns EE. Incidence of and risk factors for perineal trauma: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013;13:59.Search in Google Scholar

9. Birri J, Kreft M, Zimmermann R, Kimmich N. [Association of birth trauma with the implementation of obstetrical monitoring tools: a retrospective cohort study]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2018;223:157–68.Search in Google Scholar

10. Kimmich N, Burkhardt T, Kreft M, Zimmermann R. Reducing birth trauma by the implementation of novel monitoring and documentation tools. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2019;98:1223–6.Search in Google Scholar

11. Hals E, Oian P, Pirhonen T, Gissler M, Hjelle S, Nilsen EB, et al. A multicenter interventional program to reduce the incidence of anal sphincter tears. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116:901–8.Search in Google Scholar

12. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:179–93.Search in Google Scholar

13. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 49, December 2003: Dystocia and augmentation of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:1445–54.Search in Google Scholar

14. Zimmermann R, al e. Handbuch Geburtshilfe. Verein zur Förderung der Spitzenmedizin in der Geburtshilfe Zürich 2018.Search in Google Scholar

15. SGGG. Guideline Sectio caesarea. SGGG. 2015.Search in Google Scholar

16. Wang H, Jayasekara R, Warland J. The effect of “hands on” techniques on obstetric perineal laceration: a structured review of the literature. Women Birth 2015;28:194–8.Search in Google Scholar

17. Albers LL, Anderson D, Cragin L, Daniels SM, Hunter C, Sedler KD, et al. Factors related to perineal trauma in childbirth. J Nurse Midwifery 1996;41:269–76.Search in Google Scholar

18. Kimmich N, Yeo A, Zimmermann R, Furrer E. How do sustained birth tears after vaginal birth affect birth tear patterns in a subsequent birth? J Perinat Med 2020.Search in Google Scholar

19. Bourgon N, Mottet N, Bourtembourg A, Pugin A, RamanahR, Riethmuller D. [Obstetrical anal sphincter injuries and vacuum-assisted delivery at term in primiparas]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol 2018;46:686–91.Search in Google Scholar

20. Rockner G, Wahlberg V, Olund A. Episiotomy and perineal trauma during childbirth. J Adv Nurs 1989;14:264–8.Search in Google Scholar

21. Carroli G, Mignini L. Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009:CD000081. .Search in Google Scholar

22. Jansova M, Kalis V, Lobovsky L, Hyncik L, Karbanova J, Rusavy Z. The role of thumb and index finger placement in manual perineal protection. Int Urogynecol J 2014;25:1533–40.Search in Google Scholar

23. Pirhonen J, Samuelsson E, Pirhonen T, Odeback A, Gissler M. Interventional program to reduce both the incidence of anal sphincter tears and rate of Caesarean sections. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018;223:56–9.Search in Google Scholar

24. Stedenfeldt M, Oian P, Gissler M, Blix E, Pirhonen J. Risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury after a successful multicentre interventional programme. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;121:83–91.Search in Google Scholar

25. Laine K, Skjeldestad FE, Sandvik L, Staff AC. Incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries after training to protect the perineum: cohort study. BMJ Open 2012;2:e001649.Search in Google Scholar

26. Mola GD, Kuk JM. A randomised controlled trial of two instruments for vacuum-assisted delivery (Vacca Re-Usable OmniCup and the Bird anterior and posterior cups) to compare failure rates, safety and use effectiveness. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2010;50:246–52.Search in Google Scholar

27. Burkhardt T, Zimmermann R. [A structured and photographic documentation of the vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2018;222:25–7.Search in Google Scholar

28. Groom KM, Jones BA, Miller N, Paterson-Brown S. A prospective randomised controlled trial of the Kiwi Omnicup versus conventional ventouse cups for vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;113:183–9.Search in Google Scholar

29. Ismail NA, Saharan WS, Zaleha MA, Jaafar R, Muhammad JA, Razi ZR. Kiwi Omnicup versus Malmstrom metal cup in vacuum assisted delivery: a randomized comparative trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2008;34:350–3.Search in Google Scholar

30. Attilakos G, Sibanda T, Winter C, Johnson N, Draycott T. A randomised controlled trial of a new handheld vacuum extraction device. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;112:1510–5.Search in Google Scholar

31. Siggelkow W, Schwarz N, Beckmann MW, Kehl S, Faschingbauer F, Schild RL. Comparison of obstetric efficacy and safety of the Kiwi OmniCup with conventional vacuum extraction. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2014;74:146–51.Search in Google Scholar

32. Turkmen S. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in vacuum-assisteddelivery with the Kiwi OmniCup and Malmström metal cup. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015;41:207–13.Search in Google Scholar

33. Hayman RG, Gilby J, Sabaratnam A. Clinical evaluation of a “hand pump” vacuum delivery device. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:1190–3.Search in Google Scholar

34. Baskett TF, Fanning CA, Young DC. A prospective observational study of 1000 vacuum assisted deliveries with the OmniCup device. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2008;30:573–80.Search in Google Scholar

35. Vacca A. Vacuum-assisted delivery: an analysis of traction force and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006;46:124–7.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-12-30
Accepted: 2020-03-23
Published Online: 2020-04-28
Published in Print: 2020-07-28

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston