Buscar en
Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecología
Toda la web
Inicio Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecología Revisión sistemática de la episiotomía
Información de la revista
Vol. 47. Núm. 7.
Páginas 330-337 (Enero 2004)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 47. Núm. 7.
Páginas 330-337 (Enero 2004)
Acceso a texto completo
Revisión sistemática de la episiotomía
Systematic review of episiotomy
Visitas
12852
M.L. Mozo
Autor para correspondencia
m_mozo@yahoo.es

Correspondencia: Hospital Universitario de Getafe. Carretera de Toledo, km 12,500. Getafe. Madrid. España
, I. Solís, N. Gómez
Unidad de Paritorio y Urgencias. Servicio de Obstetricia y Ginecología. Hospital Universitario de Getafe. Getafe. Madrid. España
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Resumen
Situación

La episiotomía es la cirugía más frecuente en todo el mundo. Tradicionalmente se le han atribuido numerosas ventajas que han sido ampliamente discutidas desde los años setenta. Aun así, los profesionales de la obstetricia siguen aplicándola de manera sistemática. En un esfuerzo más por reducir el daño perineal durante el nacimiento, que puede ser causa de morbilidad del suelo pélvico a corto y largo plazo, se analizan punto por punto las consecuencias de la realización de dicha técnica.

Metodología

Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática de la bibliografía en lengua inglesa. Los estudios aleatorizados se identificaron de las distintas bases de datos y fuentes primarias. Se consultaron las siguientes bases de datos: Medline, CINHAL y Cochrane.

Objetivos

Analizar las ventajas, desventajas y consecuencias de la episiotomía; aumentar el conocimiento actual con relación a una técnica tan extendida en obstetricia, y disminuir el daño perineal durante el nacimiento, así como sus consecuencias a largo y corto plazo.

Conclusión

La conclusión fue determinante. Toda la bibliografía recomienda un uso restrictivo de la episiotomía. Hay situaciones muy concretas, como el sufrimiento fetal agudo o la sospecha de distocia de hombros, en las que su uso es recomendado. Deberíamos abogar por un uso más moderado de una técnica, que no parece presentar ninguna de las ventajas por las que se extendió su uso.

Palabras clave:
Ventajas
desventajas de la episiotomía
Sufrimiento fetal
Daño perineal
Abstract
Background

Episiotomy is the most frequent surgical intervention throughout the world. The technique has traditionally been thought to present numerous advantages, which have been widely debated since the 1970s. Nevertheless, the procedure is still systematically applied by obstetricians.

In an attempt to reduce perineal damage during delivery, which may cause short- and long-term pelvic floor disorders, we performed a step-by-step analysis of the effects of this technique.

Methodology

We performed a systematic search of the literature published in English. Randomized studies were identified from the various databases and primary sources The following databases were consulted: MedLine, CINHAL and Cochrane.

Objectives

To analyze the advantages, disadvantages and effects of episiotomy. To increase current knowledge of this widespread technique in obstetrics. To reduce perineal damage during delivery as well as its short- and long-term consequences.

Conclusion

The conclusion was clear. All studies recommend restrictive use of episiotomy. The technique is recommended in highly specific situations such as acute fetal distress or suspected shoulder dystocia. The use of this technique should be curtailed as it does not seem to present any of the advantages which led to its widespread use.

Keywords:
Advantages versus disadvantages of episiotomy
Fetal injury
Perineal damage
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
Bibliografía
[1.]
F.G. Cunningham, P.C. Macdonald, et al.
Williams Obstetricia. Ed. Panamericana. Manejo del trabajo de parto y del parto normales.
Os Aires, 20.a, pp. 315
[2.]
M.G. Myers-Helfgott, A.W. Helfgott.
Routine use of episiotomy in modern obstetrics.
Should it be performed? Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am, 26 (1999), pp. 305-325
[3.]
J.S. Maier, J.A. Maloni.
Nurse advocacy for selective versus routine episiotomy.
J ObsteT GyNecol Neonatal Nurs, 26 (1997), pp. 155-161
[4.]
S. Way.
Social construccion of episiotomy.
Journal Clinical Nursing, 19987 (1998), pp. 113-117
[5.]
L. Kane Low, L.S. Seng, T.L. Murtland, D. Oakley.
Clinician-specific episiotomy rates: impact on perineal outcomes.
J Midwifery Women’s Health, 45 (2000), pp. 87-93
[6.]
J.N. Robinson, E.R. Norwitz, A.P. Cohen, E. Liberman.
Predictors of episiotomy use at first spontaneous vaginal delivery.
Obstetrics And Gynaecology, 96 (2000), pp. 214-217
[7.]
F. Althabe, J.M. Belizan, E. Bergel.
Episiotomy rates in primiparous women in latin america: hospital based descriptive study.
Bmj, 324 (2002), pp. 945-946
[8.]
J. Goldberg, D. Holzt, T. Hyslop, J.E. Tolosa.
Has use of episiotomy decreased? Examination of episiotomy rates from 1983 to 2000.
Obstet Gynecol, 99 (2002), pp. 395-400
[9.]
A.H. Sultan, M. Kamm, C. Bartram, C. Hundson.
Perineal management and delivery.
Obstet Gyneacol, 6 (1994), pp. 18-23
[10.]
C. Barwise.
Episiotomy decision making.
BRJ Midwifery, 6 (1998), pp. 787-790
[11.]
R.J. Woolley.
Benefits and risks of episiotomy: a review of the english language literature since 1980. Part II.
Obstet Gynecol, 50 (1998), pp. 821-835
[12.]
G. Carroli, J. Belizan.
Episiotomy for vaginal birth. (Cochrane Review).
En: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, Update Software, (2002),
[13.]
J. Sleep, A. Grant, J. García, D. Eldelbourne, J. Spencer, I. Chalmers.
West Berkshire Perineal Management Trial.
Br Med J (Clin Res ed), 8,289 (1984), pp. 587-590
[14.]
R.B. Harrison, M. Brennan, P.M. North, J.V. Reed, E.A. Wickham.
Is routine use of episiotomy necessary?.
Bmj, 288 (1984), pp. 1471-1475
[15.]
M.C. Klein, R.J. Gauthier, S.H. Jorgesen, J.M. Robbins, J. Kaczorowski, B. Johnson, et al.
Does episiotomy prevent perineal trauma and pelvic floor relaxation?.
Jordemodern, 106 (1993), pp. 375-377
[16.]
Argentina Episiotomy Trial Collaborative Group.
Routine use versus selective episiotomy: A randomized control trial.
Lancet, 324 (1993), pp. 1517-1518
[17.]
M.M. Eltorkey, M.A. Al Hualm, A.M. Kurdi, T.O. Sabagh, F. Clarke.
Episiotomy, elective or selective: a report of random allocation trial.
J Obstet Gynecol, 14 (1994), pp. 317-320
[18.]
W. Charles, M.D. Nager, J.P. Heliwell.
Episiotomy increases perineal laceration lenth in primiparous women.
Am J Obstet Gyneacol, 185 (2001), pp. 444-450
[19.]
D.R. Hueston.
Factors associated with the use of episiotomy during vaginal delivery.
Obstetrics and Gyneacology, 87 (1996), pp. 1001-1005
[20.]
B. Bodner-Adler, K. Bodner, A. Kaider, P. Wagenbichler, S. Leodolter, P. Hussein, et al.
Risk factors for third–degree perineal tears in vaginal delivery and analysis of episiotomy tipes.
J Reprod Med, 46 (2001), pp. 752-756
[21.]
F. Imoh-Ita, A. Fowler.
Are delayed and misdirected episiotomies predisposing factors for pelvic floor disfuntion and third degree tears?.
Medscape Women’s Health e-Journal, 7 (2002),
[22.]
M.J. Renfrew, W. Hannah, L. Albers, E. Floid.
Practices that minimize trauma to genital tract in childbirth: a systematic review of the literature.
Birth, 25 (1998), pp. 143-160
[23.]
J. Sleep, A. Grant.
West Berkshire Perineal Management Trial: three years follow up.
Br Med J (Cin Res Ed), 26,295 (1987), pp. 745-751
[24.]
G. Rockner, A. Jonasson, A. Ohund.
The effect of mediolateral episiotomyon pelvic floor muscle strenght evaluated with vaginal cones.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 70 (1991), pp. 51-54
[25.]
L.B. Signorello, B.L. Harlow, A.K. Chekos, J.T. Repke.
Midline episiotomy and anal incontinence retrospective cohort study.
Bmj, 320 (2000), pp. 86-90
[26.]
L. Viktrup.
The Risk Of Lower Urinary Tract Simptoms Five Years After The First Delivery.
Neuruol Urodyn, 21 (2002), pp. 2-29
[27.]
L.B. Signorello, B.L. Harlow, A.K. Chekos, J.T. Repke.
Postpartum sexual functioning and its relationship to perineal trauma: a retrospective cohort study of primiparous women.
Am J Obstet Gynecol, 184 (2001), pp. 881-888
[28.]
J. Borghi, J. Fox Rushby, E. Bergel, E. Abalos, G. Hutton, G. Carroli.
The cost effectiveness of routine versus restrictive episiotomy in argentina.
Am J Obstet Gynecol, 186 (2002), pp. 221-228
[29.]
K. Bodner, B. Bodner-Adle, F. Wierrani, K. Mayerhofer, C. Fousek, A. Niedermay, W. Grunberger.
Effects of water birth on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Wien Klin Wochenschr, 114 (2002), pp. 391-395
[30.]
E. Eason, M. Labreque, G. Wells, P. Feldman.
Preventing perineal trauma during childbirth: a systematic review.
Obstet And Gyneacol, 95 (2000), pp. 464-471
[31.]
G. Stamp, C. Kruzins, C. Crowthe.
Perineal massage in labour and prevention of perineal trauma: randomised controlled trial.
Bmj, 322 (2001), pp. 1277-1280
Copyright © 2004. Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia
Opciones de artículo
Herramientas
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos