Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Research

Episiotomy use among vaginal deliveries and the association with anal sphincter injury: a population-based retrospective cohort study

Giulia M. Muraca, Shiliang Liu, Yasser Sabr, Sarka Lisonkova, Amanda Skoll, Rollin Brant, Geoffrey W. Cundiff, Olof Stephansson, Neda Razaz and K.S. Joseph
CMAJ October 21, 2019 191 (42) E1149-E1158; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.190366
Giulia M. Muraca
Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine (Muraca, Stephansson, Razaz), Solna, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Sabr, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Joseph), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Maternal, Child and Youth Health Division (Liu), Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; School of Population and Public Health (Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Stephansson), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shiliang Liu
Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine (Muraca, Stephansson, Razaz), Solna, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Sabr, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Joseph), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Maternal, Child and Youth Health Division (Liu), Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; School of Population and Public Health (Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Stephansson), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yasser Sabr
Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine (Muraca, Stephansson, Razaz), Solna, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Sabr, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Joseph), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Maternal, Child and Youth Health Division (Liu), Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; School of Population and Public Health (Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Stephansson), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarka Lisonkova
Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine (Muraca, Stephansson, Razaz), Solna, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Sabr, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Joseph), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Maternal, Child and Youth Health Division (Liu), Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; School of Population and Public Health (Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Stephansson), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amanda Skoll
Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine (Muraca, Stephansson, Razaz), Solna, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Sabr, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Joseph), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Maternal, Child and Youth Health Division (Liu), Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; School of Population and Public Health (Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Stephansson), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rollin Brant
Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine (Muraca, Stephansson, Razaz), Solna, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Sabr, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Joseph), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Maternal, Child and Youth Health Division (Liu), Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; School of Population and Public Health (Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Stephansson), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Geoffrey W. Cundiff
Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine (Muraca, Stephansson, Razaz), Solna, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Sabr, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Joseph), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Maternal, Child and Youth Health Division (Liu), Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; School of Population and Public Health (Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Stephansson), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olof Stephansson
Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine (Muraca, Stephansson, Razaz), Solna, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Sabr, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Joseph), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Maternal, Child and Youth Health Division (Liu), Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; School of Population and Public Health (Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Stephansson), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Neda Razaz
Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine (Muraca, Stephansson, Razaz), Solna, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Sabr, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Joseph), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Maternal, Child and Youth Health Division (Liu), Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; School of Population and Public Health (Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Stephansson), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
K.S. Joseph
Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine (Muraca, Stephansson, Razaz), Solna, Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Muraca, Sabr, Lisonkova, Skoll, Cundiff, Joseph), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Maternal, Child and Youth Health Division (Liu), Centre for Surveillance and Applied Research, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Sabr), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; School of Population and Public Health (Lisonkova, Joseph); Department of Statistics (Brant), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (Stephansson), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Metrics
  • Responses
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
References
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.
Your organization, institution's or residential address.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • RE: “Response to ‘Encouraging routine use of episiotomy with forceps questioned’”
    Giulia M Muraca and K.S. Joseph
    Posted on: 24 December 2019
  • RE: Encouraging Routine Use of Episiotomy with Forceps Questioned
    Michael C. Klein and Janusz Kaczorowski
    Posted on: 07 November 2019
  • Posted on: (24 December 2019)
    RE: “Response to ‘Encouraging routine use of episiotomy with forceps questioned’”
    • Giulia M Muraca, Perinatal Epidemiologist, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Br
    • Other Contributors:
      • K.S. Joseph, Professor

    To The Editor:

    We thank Drs. Klein and Kaczorowski (1) for their interest in our article (2). Although we found some of their arguments distracting and dated, we welcome this opportunity to clarify our position.

    Klein and Kaczorowski are correct in pointing out that our analysis focused on hospital deliveries, which included approximately 98% of all deliveries in Canada (excluding Quebec) (3). We characterized trends in episiotomy use in Canada and are unaware of data sources that contains such information for home births. Comparing differences in rates of episiotomy, operative vaginal delivery (OVD), and obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) in our study with those in the study by Janssen et al. (4) is not particularly meaningful as the latter was restricted to low risk women. Additionally, the Janssen et al. study included deliveries from 15 to 20 years ago when OASI rates were significantly lower (5).

    Klein and Kaczorowski appear to have missed the main conclusion of our study which showed a) that episiotomy use in Canada has declined among both spontaneous vaginal deliveries and among operative vaginal deliveries (OVD) and b) that episiotomy use in spontaneous vaginal deliveries increases the risk of OASI, while episiotomy use in operative vaginal deliveries protects against OASI. The former finding, namely, that episiotomy increases OASI risk in spontaneous vaginal deliveries, has been documented in several randomized trials (6) and is not und...

    Show More

    To The Editor:

    We thank Drs. Klein and Kaczorowski (1) for their interest in our article (2). Although we found some of their arguments distracting and dated, we welcome this opportunity to clarify our position.

    Klein and Kaczorowski are correct in pointing out that our analysis focused on hospital deliveries, which included approximately 98% of all deliveries in Canada (excluding Quebec) (3). We characterized trends in episiotomy use in Canada and are unaware of data sources that contains such information for home births. Comparing differences in rates of episiotomy, operative vaginal delivery (OVD), and obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) in our study with those in the study by Janssen et al. (4) is not particularly meaningful as the latter was restricted to low risk women. Additionally, the Janssen et al. study included deliveries from 15 to 20 years ago when OASI rates were significantly lower (5).

    Klein and Kaczorowski appear to have missed the main conclusion of our study which showed a) that episiotomy use in Canada has declined among both spontaneous vaginal deliveries and among operative vaginal deliveries (OVD) and b) that episiotomy use in spontaneous vaginal deliveries increases the risk of OASI, while episiotomy use in operative vaginal deliveries protects against OASI. The former finding, namely, that episiotomy increases OASI risk in spontaneous vaginal deliveries, has been documented in several randomized trials (6) and is not under debate: the SOGC guideline (7) on the use of episiotomy in spontaneous vaginal delivery already reflects the evidence. However, both the 2017 Cochrane review (6) on routine vs selective episiotomy use and the World Health Organisation’s (8) 2018 guideline on intrapartum care emphasize that the role of episiotomy among OVD remains to be established. It is on this latter issue that our study provides important evidence. The fact that forceps deliveries comprised 2.9% of deliveries (not 2.3% as stated) among nulliparous women and women with a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) delivery is entirely irrelevant as the above-mentioned associations were evaluated among 66,503 forceps deliveries.

    The randomized trial of episiotomy use in North America by Klein et al. (9) contributed to reducing unnecessary pain and OASI rates among women with spontaneous vaginal deliveries. However, this trial did not provide any insight into the relationship between episiotomy use and OASI among OVDs as it included a total of 20 forceps deliveries, and was carried out 30 years ago when median episiotomy was common practice. Similarly, reference to the study by Ecker et al. (10) is not helpful partly because it was based on a crude analysis of 2,041 deliveries occurring at single institution between 1984 and 1994. Further, the study documented a sharp reduction in episiotomy rates among OVDs to nulliparous women from 96.5% in 1984 to 38.7% in 1994, and a concurrent striking reduction in 4th degree perineal laceration rates from 14.8% in 1984 to 5.8% in 1994 (rates of 3rd degree tears were 28.3% and 29.7% in 1984 and 1994, respectively). The temporal reduction in 4th degrees perineal tears notwithstanding, these stratospheric rates of 3rd and 4th degree perineal laceration have little bearing on present day discourse in Canada where the same rates in 2004-2017 were substantially lower (rate of 3rd degree tears 13.3% to 14.6% and rate of 4th degree tears 2.1% to 2.2% following OVD among nulliparous women (2)).

    We carried out additional analyses by the main maternity care provider responsible for the care during the delivery hospitalization (irrespective of who conducted the delivery) but the results did not alter the interpretation of our study results. Multivariable regression analyses among nulliparous women showed no significant differences in the association between episiotomy use and OASI by provider type except among women delivering by vacuum (rate ratio [RR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.48 for midwives; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.92 for obstetricians; and RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.96 for general practitioners [GPs]). Among parous women without a previous cesarean delivery the association between episiotomy and OASI among spontaneous vaginal deliveries was significantly stronger among women with midwives as the main service provider (RR 4.42, 95% CI 3.28-5.95; RR 2.58, 95% CI 2.40-2.77; and RR 2.66, 95% CI 2.33-3.03 for deliveries with midwives, obstetricians and GPs, respectively). Among women with a VBAC delivery, the protective association between episiotomy use and OASI among forceps deliveries was significantly different by provider type (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08-0.59; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69-1.12; and RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.76-1.81 for deliveries with midwives, obstetricians and GPs as the main service provider, respectively). This was also true among vaginally nulliparous women who had a vaginal birth following a cesarean delivery.

    References

    1. Klein MC, Kaczorowski J. Encouraging routine use of episiotomy with forceps questioned.
    2. Muraca GM, Liu S, Sabr Y, et al. Episiotomy use among vaginal deliveries and the association with anal sphincter injury: a population-based retrospective cohort study. CMAJ 2019;191:E1149-58.
    3. Statistics Canada. Live births and fetal deaths (stillbirths), by place of birth (hospital or non-hospital). Accessed from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310042901 on 15-Dec-2019.
    4. Janssen PA, Saxell L, Page LA, et al. Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwife versus planned hospital birth with midwife or physician. CMAJ 2009;181377-383.
    5. Muraca GM, Lisonkova S, Skoll A, et al. Ecological associations between operative vaginal delivery and obstetric and birth trauma. CMAJ 2018;190:E734-41.
    6. Jiang H, Qian X, Carroli G, et al. Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 8;2:CD000081.
    7. Lee L, Dy J, Azzam H. Management of spontaneous labour at term in healthy women. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 2017; 38: 843-65.
    8. World Health Organisation. Intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2018.
    9. Klein MC, Gauthier RJ, Jorgensen SH, et al. Does episiotomy prevent perineal trauma and pelvic floor relaxation?. Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials 1992;Doc 10:0‐29. Accessed Dec 15, 2019.
    10. Ecker JL, Tan WM, Bansal RJ, et al. Is there a benefit to episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery? Observations over ten years in a stable population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997:176:411-4.

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (7 November 2019)
    RE: Encouraging Routine Use of Episiotomy with Forceps Questioned
    • Michael C. Klein, Emeritus Professor of Family Practice, University of British Columbia
    • Other Contributors:
      • Janusz Kaczorowski, Professor of Family and Emergency Medicine

    To the editor:
    Giulia et al show association between forceps without episiotomy and rising severe perineal trauma.(1) This large, retrospective study of administrative data examined hospital births only. The study does not report breakdown by provider type, though the CIHI database includes provider. Home birth data is absent from the CIHI database but available from other sources. In our 4-year study of all home births in BC, episiotomy and 3rd/4th degree tears were lower than the Giulia study, as were instrumentation rates after transfer. (2)

    A retrospective study of administrative data cannot provide causal inferences. Giulia et al show us something is going on that needs explanation. But other temporal changes are also taking place: increasing maternal age, steadily rising epidural and EFM rates. Importantly, episiotomy use declined in spontaneous vaginal deliveries, which represented over 85% of deliveries in this study, associated with corresponding decline in 3rd/4th degree tears. By contrast, the main conclusion of the study is based on forceps deliveries among nulliparous women and those attempting vaginal birth after cesarean, which accounted for less than 2.3% of deliveries included in the study.

    Ecker et al urged clinicians to separate decision to use forceps from use of episiotomy. In so doing, they dramatically reduced their 3rd/4th degree tear rate. (3) Klein et al, in still the only RCT of episiotomy in North America (4), demonstrate...

    Show More

    To the editor:
    Giulia et al show association between forceps without episiotomy and rising severe perineal trauma.(1) This large, retrospective study of administrative data examined hospital births only. The study does not report breakdown by provider type, though the CIHI database includes provider. Home birth data is absent from the CIHI database but available from other sources. In our 4-year study of all home births in BC, episiotomy and 3rd/4th degree tears were lower than the Giulia study, as were instrumentation rates after transfer. (2)

    A retrospective study of administrative data cannot provide causal inferences. Giulia et al show us something is going on that needs explanation. But other temporal changes are also taking place: increasing maternal age, steadily rising epidural and EFM rates. Importantly, episiotomy use declined in spontaneous vaginal deliveries, which represented over 85% of deliveries in this study, associated with corresponding decline in 3rd/4th degree tears. By contrast, the main conclusion of the study is based on forceps deliveries among nulliparous women and those attempting vaginal birth after cesarean, which accounted for less than 2.3% of deliveries included in the study.

    Ecker et al urged clinicians to separate decision to use forceps from use of episiotomy. In so doing, they dramatically reduced their 3rd/4th degree tear rate. (3) Klein et al, in still the only RCT of episiotomy in North America (4), demonstrated a powerful association between episiotomy use and 3rd/4th degree tears. 46 of 47 primiparous women had 3rd/4th degree tears in the presence of median episiotomy. Those physicians with the highest episiotomy rates had the highest 3rd/4th degree tear rates and used instrumentation and cesarean more often in women who were not randomized.

    Looking forward to seeing results by provider type.

    1. Giulia M et al. Episiotomy use among vaginal deliveries and the association with anal sphincter injury: a population-based retrospective cohort study. CMAJ 2019 October 231;191:E1149-58
    2. Janssen P, Saxell L, Page L, Klein MC, Liston R, Lee SK. Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwives versus planned hospital birth with a midwife or a physician. CMAJ.2009. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/cmaj.081869v1
    3. Ecker JL, Tan WM, Bansal RJ, Bishop JT, Kilpatrick SJ. Is there a benefit t episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery? Observations over ten year in a stable population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997:176:411-4.
    4. Klein M, Gauthier R, Robbins J, Kaczorowski J, Jorgensen S, Franco E, Johnson B, Waghorn K, Gelfand M, Guralnick M, Luskey G, Joshi J: Relation of Episiotomy to Perineal Trauma and Morbidity, Sexual Dysfunction and Pelvic Floor Relaxation. Am J Obstet Gynaecol, 1994 171(3):591-98

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 191 (42)
CMAJ
Vol. 191, Issue 42
21 Oct 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Episiotomy use among vaginal deliveries and the association with anal sphincter injury: a population-based retrospective cohort study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Episiotomy use among vaginal deliveries and the association with anal sphincter injury: a population-based retrospective cohort study
Giulia M. Muraca, Shiliang Liu, Yasser Sabr, Sarka Lisonkova, Amanda Skoll, Rollin Brant, Geoffrey W. Cundiff, Olof Stephansson, Neda Razaz, K.S. Joseph
CMAJ Oct 2019, 191 (42) E1149-E1158; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.190366

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Episiotomy use among vaginal deliveries and the association with anal sphincter injury: a population-based retrospective cohort study
Giulia M. Muraca, Shiliang Liu, Yasser Sabr, Sarka Lisonkova, Amanda Skoll, Rollin Brant, Geoffrey W. Cundiff, Olof Stephansson, Neda Razaz, K.S. Joseph
CMAJ Oct 2019, 191 (42) E1149-E1158; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.190366
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Routine use of episiotomy with forceps should not be encouraged
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Routine use of episiotomy with forceps should not be encouraged
  • The authors respond to "Routine use of episiotomy with forceps should not be encouraged"
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Association between antihypertensive medications and risk of skin cancer in people older than 65 years: a population-based study
  • Effectiveness of intrapartum fetal surveillance to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
  • Burden of noninfluenza respiratory viral infections in adults admitted to hospital: analysis of a multiyear Canadian surveillance cohort from 2 centres
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of the resources on this site in an accessible format, please contact us at cmajgroup@cmaj.ca.

Powered by HighWire