Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

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

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Routine use of episiotomy with forceps should not be encouraged

Michael C. Klein and Janusz Kaczorowski
CMAJ February 24, 2020 192 (8) E190; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.74132
Michael C. Klein
Emeritus professor of family practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Janusz Kaczorowski
Professor of family and emergency medicine, Université de Montréal and Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montréal, Que.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Muraca and colleagues show an association between forceps delivery without episiotomy and rising severe perineal trauma.1 This large, retrospective study of administrative data examined hospital births only. The study does not report a breakdown by provider type, though the database from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) includes providers. Data on home births are absent from the CIHI database but available from other sources. In the 4-year study by Janssen and colleagues of all home births in British Columbia, rates of episiotomy and third- or fourth-degree tears were lower than in Muraca and colleagues’ study, as were rates of instrumentation (i.e., use of forceps and vacuum) after transfer (i.e., from intended home birth to hospital for cause).2

A retrospective study of administrative data cannot provide causal inferences. Muraca and colleagues show us that something is going on that needs explanation. But other temporal changes are also taking place, that is, increasing maternal age, and steadily rising rates of epidural use and electronic fetal monitoring. Importantly, episiotomy use declined in spontaneous vaginal deliveries, which represented more than 85% of deliveries in the study by Muraca and colleagues, associated with corresponding decline in third- and fourth-degree tears.1 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 2.9% of deliveries included in the study.

In a hospital where clinicians were urged to separate the decision to use forceps from use of episiotomy, Ecker and colleagues found the rate of third- and fourth-degree tears was dramatically reduced among nulliparous women.3 One of us led the only randomized controlled trial of episiotomy use in North America, which showed a powerful association between episiotomy use and third- and fourth-degree tears.4 Of 47 primiparous women, 46 had third- and fourth-degree tears in the presence of median episiotomy. Physicians with the highest episiotomy rates had the highest rates of third- and fourth-degree tears and used instrumentation and cesarean more often in women who were not randomly assigned because of risk issues that arose, but who were still followed and whose data were analyzed.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Muraca GM,
    2. Liu S,
    3. Sabr Y,
    4. 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.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Janssen P,
    2. Saxell L,
    3. Page L,
    4. et al
    . Outcomes of planned home birth with registered midwives versus planned hospital birth with a midwife or a physician. CMAJ 2009;181:377–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Ecker JL,
    2. Tan WM,
    3. Bansal RJ,
    4. et al
    . Is there a benefit to episiotomy at operative vaginal delivery? Observations over ten year in a stable population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176:411–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Klein MC,
    2. Gauthier RJ,
    3. Robbins JM,
    4. et al
    . Relationship of episiotomy to perineal trauma and morbidity, sexual dysfunction and pelvic floor relaxation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171:591–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 192 (8)
CMAJ
Vol. 192, Issue 8
24 Feb 2020
  • 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.
Routine use of episiotomy with forceps should not be encouraged
(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
Routine use of episiotomy with forceps should not be encouraged
Michael C. Klein, Janusz Kaczorowski
CMAJ Feb 2020, 192 (8) E190; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.74132

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Routine use of episiotomy with forceps should not be encouraged
Michael C. Klein, Janusz Kaczorowski
CMAJ Feb 2020, 192 (8) E190; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.74132
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Episiotomy use among vaginal deliveries and the association with anal sphincter injury: a population-based retrospective cohort study
  • The authors respond to “Routine use of episiotomy with forceps should not be encouraged”
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

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

More in this TOC Section

  • Hospital-at-home programs in Canada: challenges and pitfalls
  • Pitfalls of analyzing perinatal outcomes by health care provider
  • Author response to “Pitfalls of analyzing perinatal outcomes by health care provider”
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

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

Information for

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

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact 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 these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire