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-

Efficacy of perineal massage during the second stage of labor for the prevention of perineal injury: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Effects of perineal massage at different stages on perineal and postpartum pelvic floor function in primiparous women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Effects of Perineal Massage During Childbirth on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Primiparous Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Antenatal perineal massage benefits in reducing perineal trauma and postpartum morbidities: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Effect of Prenatal Perineal Massage on Postpartum Perineal Injury and Postpartum Complications: A Meta-Analysis

Antenatal perineal massage for reducing perineal trauma

Effect of Perineal Massage on the Rate of Episiotomy

The Effectiveness of Perineal Warm Compresses During the Second Stage of Labor on Reducing Perineal Trauma and Relieving Postpartum Perineal Pain in Primiparous Women: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Effects of Perineal Warm Compresses during the Second Stage of Labor on Reducing Perineal Trauma and Relieving Postpartum Perineal Pain in Primiparous Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Effects of different techniques during the second stage of labour on reducing perineal laceration: An overview of systematic reviews.

The Effect of Perineum Massage Applied With and Without an Instrument in the Active Phase of Labor Birth Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial

[Methods of preventing perineal injury and dysfunction during pregnancy: CNGOF Perineal prevention and protection in obstetrics]

Scientific evidence on perineal trauma during labor: Integrative review

Effect of Perineal Massage and Warm Compresses Technique in Postpartum Pelvic Floor Dysfunction. A Secondary Analysis from a Randomised Controlled Trial

Perineal techniques during the second stage of labour for reducing perineal trauma and postpartum complications

The Effects of Hands on and Hands Off/poised Techniques on Maternal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Labor Analgesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Non-Pharmacological Complementary and Alternative Approaches to Pain during First Stage of Labor

Effectiveness of sacral massage during labor in pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis

[The possibility of antepartal prevention of episiotomy and perineal tears during delivery]

Risk Factors for Severe Perineal Lacerations During Childbirth: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis of Cohort Studies

The effect of warm compresses on perineal tear and pain intensity during the second stage of labor: A randomized controlled trial