Perineal techniques during the second stage of labour for reducing perineal trauma and postpartum complications
Kerry Dwan,Tilly Fox,Vittoria Lutje,Tina Lavender,Tracey A Mills
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd016148
IF: 8.4
2024-10-29
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is responsible for around 27% of global maternal deaths. Perineal tears are common in vaginal births and a significant contributor to excessive blood loss. A diversity of perineal techniques are utilised to prevent perineal trauma and reduce the incidence of PPH; however, they lack evidence‐based comparisons to understand their effects. To assess the effect of perineal techniques during the second stage of labour on the incidence of and morbidity associated with perineal trauma to prevent postpartum complications. We searched four databases and two trial registers up to 16 April 2024. We checked references, searched citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women in the second stage of labour who intended to give birth vaginally, comparing any perineal techniques with control or another perineal technique. We excluded studies that performed perineal techniques outside the second stage of labour. Our critical outcomes were second‐, third‐ and fourth‐degree tears measured immediately after birth, and PPH ≥ 500 mL measured within 24 hours after birth. We used the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool to assess bias in the included RCTs. We synthesised results for each outcome within each comparison using meta‐analysis where possible. Where this was not possible due to the nature of the data, we synthesised results narratively. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We included a total of 17 studies with 13,695 participants. Hands off (or poised) versus hands on Hands off (poised) may result in little to no difference in second‐degree tears (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32 to 1.64; 2 studies; low‐certainty evidence) and third‐ or fourth‐degree tears when data are combined (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.99; 2 studies; low‐certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of hands off (poised) on third‐degree tears and fourth‐degree tears when reported separately (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.27; 1 study; very low‐certainty evidence and RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 71.22; 1 study; very low‐certainty evidence). Hands off (poised) may result in little to no difference in PPH ≥ 500 mL (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.47; 1 study; low‐certainty evidence). Hands off (poised) probably results in little to no difference in breastfeeding two days after birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.06; 1 study; moderate‐certainty evidence) and perineal pain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.01; 1 study; moderate‐certainty evidence). Vocalisation versus control Vocalisation may result in a reduction in second‐degree tears (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.38; 1 study; low‐certainty evidence) and third‐degree tears (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.32; 1 study; low‐certainty evidence), but the CIs are wide and include the possibility of no effect. No events were reported for fourth‐degree tears (low‐certainty evidence). Vocalisation may increase maternal satisfaction (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.51; 1 study; low‐certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of vocalisation on perineal pain (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.58; 1 study; very low‐certainty evidence). Warm compress on the perineum versus control (hands off or no warm compress) Warm compress on the perineum may result in little to no difference in second‐degree tears (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.21; 2 studies; low‐certainty evidence), but likely results in a reduction in third‐ or fourth‐degree tears (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.79; 3 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). Evidence from two smaller studies is very uncertain about the effect of warm compress on the perineum on third‐degree tears (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.04 to 7.05; 2 studies; very low‐certainty evidence) or fourth‐degree tears (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.06; 2 studies; very low‐certainty evidence) when reported separately. Warm compress likely results in a large reduction in perineal pain (mean difference (MD) ‐0.81, 95% CI ‐1.18 to ‐0.44; 1 study; moderate‐certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of warm compress on the perineum on maternal satisfaction and PPH ≥ 500 mL. Massage of the perineum versus control (hands off or no usual care) Massage of the perineum may have little to no effect on second‐degree tears (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; 4 studies; low‐certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of massage of the perineum on third‐degree tears (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.02; 4 studies; very low‐certainty evidence). Massage of the perineum may reduce fourth‐degree tears but the CIs are wide and include the possibility of no effect (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.61; 4 studies; low‐certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that massage likely results in little to no difference in perineal pain (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90, 1.05; 1 study -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal