Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction and hypothesisSecondary anal sphincter repair for a dehisced obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) is required following 2.6% of primary repairs. There is growing evidence that instead of delaying repair for 3–6 months, early secondary repair of the anal sphincter can be completed within 14 days. Our aims were to review the literature and to describe experiences in our unit.MethodsThis is a narrative review of all published cases reporting outcomes of early secondary repair of dehisced OASIs. In addition, we report a series from Croydon University Hospital (CUH) between 2010 and 2019.ResultsNinety patients from five studies were identified on literature search. Six patients from CUH were included in the case series. Overall, the most common complications following secondary repair included skin dehiscence [10.3% (n = 10)], infection [5.2% (n = 5)] and fistula formation [8.2% (n = 8)]. In our case series, following secondary repair, normal manometric incremental squeeze pressure was found in five women (83%). Also, on endoanal ultrasound, internal anal sphincter (IAS) defects were found in 75% with a history of IAS injury (n = 4). There were no full-thickness external anal sphincter defects. Compared to those requiring primary repair alone, residual defects were significantly larger in those who also underwent secondary repair (Starck score 2.1 vs. 5.7, p = 0.01).ConclusionEarly secondary repair is a feasible surgical procedure for the reconstruction of dehisced OASIs. This case series and review of the literature can be used to support clinicians in the management of primary OASI repair dehiscence.

Introduction and hypothesisEndoanal ultrasound (EAUS) and anal manometry are used in the assessment women with a history of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI), both postpartum and in a subsequent pregnancy, to aid counselling regarding mode of delivery (MOD).MethodsA prospective observational study between 2012 to 2020 was completed. Women were reviewed 3 months postpartum following OASI and in the second half of a subsequent pregnancy. Anorectal symptoms were measured using the validated St Mark’s Incontinence Score (SMIS: asymptomatic to mild symptoms = ≤ 4). Anal manometry (incremental maximum squeeze pressure [iMSP: normal = > 20 mmHg]) and EAUS (abnormal = sphincter defect > 1 h in size) were performed.ResultsOne hundred forty-six women were identified and 67.8% had an anal sphincter defect ≤ 1 h in size postnatally. In those with a defect ≤ 1 h, postpartum mean iMSP and SMIS significantly improved in a subsequent pregnancy (p = 0.04 and p = 0.01, respectively). In women with a defect > 1 h, there was no significant difference between the mean iMSP or SMIS score postnatally compared to a subsequent pregnancy. At both time points, significantly more women had an anal sphincter defect ≤ 1 h and SMIS of ≤ 4 (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively) compared to those with a defect < 1 h. In addition, significantly more women had an anal sphincter defect ≤ 1 h and iMSP ≥ 20 mmHg (p < 0.001). Overall, out of the 146 women included in this study, 76 (52.1%) with a defect ≤ 1 h also had an iMSP ≥ 20 mmHg and SMIS ≤ 4 at 3 months postpartum.ConclusionsWomen who remain asymptomatic with normal anal manometry and no abnormal sphincter defects on EAUS postnatally do not need to have these investigations repeated in a subsequent pregnancy and can be recommended to have a vaginal delivery. If our protocol was modified, over half of the women in this study could have had their MOD recommendation made in the postnatal period alone.

Introduction and hypothesisOASI complicates approximately 6% of vaginal deliveries. This risk is increased with operative vaginal deliveries (OVDs), particularly forceps. However, there is conflicting evidence supporting the use of mediolateral/lateral episiotomy (MLE/LE) with OVD. The aim of this study was to assess whether MLE/LE affects the incidence of OASI in OVD.MethodsElectronic searches were performed in OVID Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Randomised and non-randomised observational studies investigating the risk of OASI in OVD with/without MLE/LE were eligible for inclusion. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated using Revman 5.3. Risk of bias of was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 and ROBINS-I tool. The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).ResultsA total of 703,977 patients from 31 studies were pooled for meta-analysis. MLE/LE significantly reduced the rate of OASI in OVD (OR 0.60 [95% CI 0.42–0.84]). On sub-group analysis, MLE/LE significantly reduced the rate in nulliparous ventouse (OR 0.51 [95% CI 0.42–0.84]) and forceps deliveries (OR 0.32 [95% CI 0.29–0.61]). In multiparous women, although the incidence of OASI was lower when a ventouse or forceps delivery was performed with an MLE/LE, this was not statistically significant. Heterogeneity remained significant across all studies (I2 > 50). The quality of all evidence was downgraded to “very low” because of the critical risk of bias across many studies.ConclusionsMLE/LE may reduce the incidence of OASI in OVDs, particularly in nulliparous ventouse or forceps deliveries. This information will be useful in aiding clinical decision-making and counselling in the antenatal period and during labour.

Background A mediolateral episiotomy is recommended when indicated at a 60° angle at crowning, to avoid obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIs) by episiotomies angled too close or distant to the anus. This study surveyed obstetricians in India regarding the recommended episiotomy angle and their ability to correctly draw the angle. Methods Workshops were conducted in India to share knowledge in the prevention and repair of OASIs. A questionnaire was distributed prior to the workshop. Participants were asked to describe the recommended episiotomy angle and to draw this on a paper replica of the perineum. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess the inter-rater reliability between the angle stated and drawn. A 2° difference was deemed acceptable. Standard errors of measurement (SEM) were calculated to measure the range of error of each measurement. Results One hundred and forty doctors participated. 47.9% described the angle of an episiotomy to be 60°. Only 2.2% drew an angle of 60°, but 8.7% ( n  = 12) drew between 58 and 62°. Only 5.8% ( n  = 6) of doctors correctly drew the episiotomy angle they described. There was poor agreement ICC = 0.18 (− 0.01 to 0.36) with a SEM of ± 12.2° Conclusions Knowledge surrounding the recommended episiotomy angle is lacking. Doctors are failing to estimate their desired episiotomy angle. This highlights the need for national guidelines, the creation and validation of structured training programmes to improve accuracy, or using fixed-angle devices such as the EPISCISSORS-60 or other proven measurement aids to minimise preventable harm due to human error.