Routine vs no episiotomy in primigravida: a pilot RCT on perineal injury and pelvic floor dysfunction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20260560Keywords:
Perineal injury, Routine episiotomy, Selective episiotomy, Vaginal deliveryAbstract
Background: The present study compared the effect of ‘routine-episiotomy’ vs ‘no-episiotomy’ on perineal injury and pelvic floor function during normal vaginal delivery in primigravida.
Methods: This open-label RCT allocated women in the second stage of labour to routine mediolateral episiotomy or no-episiotomy (1:1) using concealed computer-generated randomisation. Episiotomy was avoided in the no-episiotomy group unless instrumental delivery was required for maternal or foetal reasons. Perineal trauma, suturing characteristics, pain, pelvic-floor function, urinary and anal incontinence were assessed at 24 hours, 36 hours, and 3 months postpartum. Pre and post-episiotomy biomarkers assessed the tissue-level injury. Analyses were conducted in STATA with significance at p<0.05.
Results: Out of 125 women screened initially, n=42 were randomised to episiotomy and no-episiotomy groups, while n=83 were excluded due to caesarean section or instrumental delivery. The episiotomy group had a shorter second stage of labour (p=0.034) and longer tears (p=0.047). More women in the no-episiotomy group used analgesics within 24 hours (p=0.048), but none after 36 hours. There was no significant difference in perineal pain, subjective tear grading, or pelvic-floor dysfunction, anal and urinary incontinence in both groups. Furthermore, biomarkers showed a significant increase in MDA (p=0.005) in the no-episiotomy group and increased TNF-α (p=0.042) in the episiotomy group, while CK and IL-6 changes were not significant.
Conclusions: Considering no additional clinical benefits of episiotomy compared to no-episiotomy in terms of perineal pain, pelvic-floor dysfunction, or most biomarkers, routine episiotomy should be discouraged in clinical practice.
References
Bączek G, Rychlewicz S, Sys D, Rzońca P, Teliga-Czajkowska J. Episiotomy for medical indications during vaginal birth-retrospective analysis of risk factors determining the performance of this procedure. J Clin Med. 2022;11(15):4334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11154334
Barjon K, Vadakekut ES, Mahdy H. Episiotomy. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025.
Sagi-Dain L, Sagi S. The role of episiotomy in prevention and management of shoulder dystocia: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2015;70(5):354-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/OGX.0000000000000179
Abdelgalil MS, Amer BE, Eldesouky E, Darwish MY, Farag E, Mohamed A, et al. Network meta-analysis of episiotomy approaches: comparing routine, restrictive, and non-episiotomy strategies and their effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes in primiparous patients. Reprod Health. 2025;22:161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-025-02132-9
Hartmann K, Viswanathan M, Palmieri R, Gartlehner G, Thorp J, Lohr KN. Outcomes of routine episiotomy: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293(17):2141-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.17.2141
Gu S, Pei J, Zhou C, Zhao X, Wan S, Zhang J, et al. Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal births in Shanghai hospitals, China: a comparison of policies. BMC pregn Child. 2022;22(1):475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04790-0
Verghese TS, Champaneria R, Kapoor DS, Latthe PM. Obstetric anal sphincter injuries after episiotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(10):1459-67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-2956-1
Lund NS, Persson LKG, Jangö H, Gommesen D, Westergaard HB. Episiotomy in vacuum-assisted delivery affects the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Dec;207:193-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.10.013
Eason E, Labrecque M, Wells G, Feldman P. Preventing perineal trauma during childbirth: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95(3):464-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-200003000-00030
Nehal T, Mishra P. Comparison of restrictive use of episiotomy versus routine episiotomy in primigravida undergoing vaginal birth at tertiary care hospital. J Contemp Clin Pract. 2025;11:84-91.
Lins VML, Katz L, Vasconcelos FBL, Coutinho I, Amorim MM. Factors associated with spontaneous perineal lacerations in deliveries without episiotomy in a university maternity hospital in the city of Recife, Brazil: a cohort study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(18):3062-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1457639
Shmueli A, Gabbay Benziv R, Hiersch L, Ashwal E, Aviram R, Yogev Y, et al. Episiotomy - risk factors and outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(3):251-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2016.1169527
McDonald EA, Gartland D, Small R, Brown SJ. Dyspareunia and childbirth: a prospective cohort study. BJOG. 2015;122(5):672-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13263
Alrida NA, Ababneh A, Al-Sharif K, Arabiat D, Alshraidah J, Al-Zu’bi B. A systematic review of the use of routine versus selective episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cureus. 2024;16(7):e65865. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.65865
Carroli G, Mignini L. Episiotomy for vaginal birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(1):CD000081. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000081.pub2
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Management of Third- and Fourth-Degree Perineal Tears (Green-top Guideline No. 29), 2015. Available at: https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/browse-all-guidance/green-top-guidelines/third-and-fourth-degree-perineal-tears-management-green-top-guideline-no-29/. Accessed 13 October 2025.
Sultan AH, Thakar R. Third and fourth degree tears. InPerineal and anal sphincter trauma: diagnosis and clinical management. London: Springer London; 2009:33-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-503-5_4
Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA. Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut. 1999;44(1):77-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.44.1.77
Lim R, Liong ML, Lau YK, Yuen KH. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the ICIQ-UI SF and ICIQ-LUTSqol in the Malaysian population. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(2):438-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22950
Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.025
Thakur M, Bal H, Tambe V, Singireddy N. Evaluation of episiotomy in present day obstetric practice. Med J Dr. DY Patil Vidyapeeth. 2020;13(5):529-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/mjdrdypu.mjdrdypu_338_19
Austad KE, Rao SR, Hibberd PL, Patel AB. Trends and determinants of the use of episiotomy in a prospective population-based registry from central India. BMC Pregn Childb. 2024;24(1):598. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06762-y
Singh S, Thakur T, Chandhiok N, Dhillon BS. Pattern of episiotomy use & its immediate complications among vaginal deliveries in 18 tertiary care hospitals in India. Ind J Med Res. 2016;143(4):474-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-5916.184304
Mahendru R. Shortening the second stage of labor? J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2010;11(2):95-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5152/jtgga.2010.07
Giri DK, Mandal D, Chaudhuri S. Routine episiotomy versus selective episiotomy in nulliparous women at term-randomized comparative trial. Int J Reproduct Contracep Obstetr Gynecol. 2020;9(12):5019-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20205240
Gün İ, Doğan B, Özdamar Ö. Long- and short-term complications of episiotomy. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;13(3):144-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4274/tjod.00087
Bø K, Hilde G, Tennfjord MK, Engh ME. Does episiotomy influence vaginal resting pressure, pelvic floor muscle strength and endurance, and prevalence of urinary incontinence 6 weeks postpartum? Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(3):683-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22995
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
