Obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review of information available on the internet.

OBJECTIVE: There is no systematic evaluation of online health information pertaining to obstetric anal sphincter injury. Therefore, we evaluated the accuracy, credibility, reliability, and readability of online information concerning obstetric anal sphincter injury. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple search engines were searched. The first 30 webpages were identified for each keyword and considered eligible if they provided information regarding obstetric anal sphincter injury. Eligible webpages were assessed by two independent researchers for accuracy (prioritised criteria based upon the RCOG Third and Fourth Degree Tear guideline); credibility; reliability; and readability. RESULTS: Fifty-eight webpages were included. Seventeen webpages (30%) had obtained Health On the Net certification, or Information Standard approval and performed better than those without such approvals (p = 0.039). The best overall performing website was http://www.pat.nhs.uk (score of 146.7). A single webpage (1%) fulfilled the entire criteria for accuracy with a score of 18: www.tamesidehospital.nhs.uk . Twenty-nine webpages (50%) were assessed as credible (scores ≥7). A single webpage achieved a maximum credibility score of 10: www.meht.nhs.uk . Over a third (21 out of 58) were rated as poor or very poor. The highest scoring webpage was http://www.royalsurrey.nhs.uk (score 62). No webpage met the recommended Flesch Reading Ease Score above 70. The intra-class coefficient between researchers was 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.96) for accuracy and reliability assessments. CONCLUSION: Online information concerning obstetric anal sphincter injury often uses language that is inappropriate for a lay audience and lacks sufficient accuracy, credibility, and reliability

Impact of episiotomy on pelvic floor disorders and their influence on women's wellness after the sixth month postpartum: a retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The role of episiotomy as a protective factor against pelvic floor disorders postpartum has been debated for many years, but its routine use has been hitherto discouraged in the literature. Comparisons between restrictive and routine use of episiotomy in existent literature, however, fail to include any consideration relating to quality of life. The aim of this study, therefore, is to state the role of episiotomy in preserving the perineum from damage, in order to prevent the influence of pelvic floor disorders on women's psycho-physical wellness after the sixth month postpartum.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A follow-up telephone interview was performed among 377 primiparous and secondiparous Caucasian women who had a child by spontaneous or operative vaginal delivery in 2006 using a self-created questionnaire and King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mean age at delivery was 35.26 (±4.68) years and episiotomy was performed in 59.2% of women. Multivariate linear regression shows episiotomy associated to higher quality of life after the sixth month postpartum by correlating with inferior values of King's Health Questionnaire (p < 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Episiotomy appears to be a protective factor for women's wellness. Women who had episiotomy and who experienced perineal symptoms have a better psycho-physical health status in the 12.79 months (±3.3) follow-up.</p

A systematic review of non-invasive modalities used to identify women with anal incontinence symptoms after childbirth

© 2018, The International Urogynecological Association. Introduction and hypothesis: Anal incontinence following childbirth is prevalent and has a significant impact upon quality of life (QoL). Currently, there is no standard assessment for women after childbirth to identify these symptoms. This systematic review aimed to identify non-invasive modalities used to identify women with anal incontinence following childbirth and assess response and reporting rates of anal incontinence for these modalities. Methods: Ovid Medline, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Collaboration, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched for studies using non-invasive modalities published from January 1966 to May 2018 to identify women with anal incontinence following childbirth. Study data including type of modality, response rates and reported prevalence of anal incontinence were extracted and critically appraised. Results: One hundred and nine studies were included from 1602 screened articles. Three types of non-invasive modalities were identified: validated questionnaires/symptom scales (n = 36 studies using 15 different instruments), non-validated questionnaires (n = 50 studies) and patient interviews (n = 23 studies). Mean response rates were 92% up to 6 weeks after childbirth. Non-personalised assessment modalities (validated and non-validated questionnaires) were associated with reporting of higher rates of anal incontinence compared with patient interview at all periods of follow-up after childbirth, which was statistically significant between 6 weeks and 1 year after childbirth (p < 0.05). Conclusions: This systematic review confirms that questionnaires can be used effectively after childbirth to identify women with anal incontinence. Given the methodological limitations associated with non-validated questionnaires, assessing all women following childbirth for pelvic-floor symptomatology, including anal incontinence, using validated questionnaires should be considered