OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a previously identified modification of Viennese method of perineal protection remains most effective for reduction of perineal tension in cases with substantially smaller or larger fetal heads. METHODS: A previously designed finite element model was used to compare perineal tension of different modifications of the Viennese method of perineal protection to "hands-off" technique for three different sizes of the fetal head. Quantity and extent of tension throughout the perineal body during vaginal delivery at the time when the suboccipito-bregmatic circumference passes between the fourchette and the lower margin of the pubis was determined. RESULTS: The order of effectiveness of different modifications of manual perineal protection was similar for all three sizes of fetal head. The reduction of perineal tension was most significant in delivery simulations with larger heads. The final position of fingers 2cm anteriorly from the fourchette (y = +2) consistently remains most effective in reducing the tension. The extent of finger movement along the anterior-posterior (y-axis) contributes to the effectiveness of manual perineal protection. CONCLUSION: Appropriately performed Viennese manual perineal protection seems to reduce the perineal tension regardless of the fetal head size, and thus the method seems to be applicable to reduce risk of perineal trauma for all parturients.

Biomedical Centre Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen Charles University Pilsen Czech Republic

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology University Hospital Pilsen Czech Republic

Department of Obstetrics Oslo University Hospital Oslo Norway

National Library of Finland Helsinki Finland

New Technologies Research Centre University of West Bohemia Pilsen Czech Republic

NTIS New Technologies for Information Society Faculty of Applied Sciences University of West Bohemia Pilsen Czech Republic

University of Helsinki Helsinki Finland

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Laine K, Skjeldestad FE, Sandvik L, Staff AC. Prevalence and Risk Indicators for Anal Incontinence among Pregnant Women. ISRN Obstet Gynecol 2013. May 29;2013:947572 doi: 10.1155/2013/947572 PubMed DOI PMC

Laine K, Skjeldestad FE, Sanda B, Horne H, Spydslaug A, Staff AC. Prevalence and risk factors for anal incontinence after obstetric anal sphincter rupture. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011;90:319–324. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2010.01057.x PubMed DOI

Norderval S, Nsubuga D, Bjelke C, Frasunek J, Myklebust I, Vonen B. Anal incontinence after obstetric sphincter tears: incidence in a Norwegian county. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83:989–994. doi: 10.1111/j.0001-6349.2004.00647.x PubMed DOI

Sundquist JC. Long-term outcome after obstetric injury: a retrospective study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:715–718. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01398.x PubMed DOI

Fodstad K, Staff AC, Laine K. Sexual activity and dyspareunia the first year postpartum in relation to degree of perineal trauma. Int Urogynecol J. 2016. May 16. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed

Gurol-Urganci I, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, Mahmood TA, Adams EJ, Richmond DH, et al. Third- and fourth-degree perineal tears among primiparous women in England between 2000 and 2012: time trends and risk factors. BJOG. 2013;120:1516–1525. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12363 PubMed DOI

Baghestan E, Irgens LM, Børdahl PE, Rasmussen S. Trends in risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injuries in Norway. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:25–34. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181e2f50b PubMed DOI

Laine K, Gissler M, Pirhonen J. Changing incidence of anal sphincter tears in four Nordic countries through the last decades. See comment in PubMed Commons belowEur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;146:71–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.04.033 PubMed DOI

Räisänen SH, Vehviläinen-Julkunen K, Gissler M, Heinonen S. The increased incidence of obstetric anal sphincter rupture—An emerging trend in Finland. Prev Med. 2009;49:535–540. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.10.005 PubMed DOI

Jangö H, Langhoff-Roos J, Rosthøj S, Sakse A. Modifiable risk factors of obstetric anal sphincter injury in primiparous women: a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210:59.e1–6. PubMed

Laine K, Rotvold W, Staff AC. Are obstetric anal sphincter ruptures preventable?- Large and consistent rupture rate variations between the Nordic countries and between delivery units in Norway. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:94–100. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12024 PubMed DOI

Hals E, Øian P, Pirhonen T, Gissler M, Hjelle S, Nilsen EB et al. A multicenter interventional program to reduce the incidence of anal sphincter tears. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:901–908. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181eda77a PubMed DOI

McCandlish R, Bowler U, van Asten H, Berridge G, Winter C, Sames L et al. A randomised controlled trial of care of the perineum during second stage of normal labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105:1262–1272. PubMed

Mayerhofer K, Bodner-Adler B, Bodner K, Rabl M, Kaider A, Wagenbichler P et al. Traditional care of the perineum during birth. A prospective, randomized, multicenter study of 1,076 women. J Reprod Med. 2002;47:477–482. PubMed

Laine K, Pirhonen T, Rolland R, Pirhonen J. Decreasing the incidence of anal sphincter tears during delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:1053–1057. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31816c4402 PubMed DOI

Laine K, Skjeldestad FE, Sandvik L, Staff AC. Incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injuries after training to protect the perineum: cohort study. BMJ Open. 2012;17;2(5). pii: e001649. PubMed PMC

Stedenfeldt M, Øian P, Gissler M, Blix E, Pirhonen J. Risk factors for obstetric anal sphincter injury after a successful multicenter intervention programme. BJOG. 2014;121:83–91. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12274 PubMed DOI

Aglialoro M. [The contribution of the Salerno School to the historical evolution of protection and suturing of the perineum in labor]. Minerva Med. 1970. November 14;61:5201–5203. PubMed

DeWees WB. Relaxation and management of the perineum during parturition. Journal of American Medical Association 1889; 14:841–848.

Jansova M, Kalis V, Rusavy Z, Zemcik R, Lobovsky L, Laine K. Modeling manual perineal protection during vaginal delivery. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:65–71. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2164-1 PubMed DOI

Zemčík R, Karbanova J, Kalis V, Lobovsky L, Jansova J, Rusavy Z. Stereophotogrammetry of the perineum during vaginal delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;119:76–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.05.018 PubMed DOI

Virtual Performance Solution. Version 2011 [software]. ESI Group. 2011.

Jansova M, Kalis V, Lobovsky L, Hyncik L, Karbanova J, Rusavy Z. The role of thumb and index-finger placement in manual perineal protection. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:1533–1540. doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2425-7 PubMed DOI

Stotland NE, Caughey AB, Breed EM, Escobar GJ. Risk factors and obstetric complications associated with macrosomia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;87:220–226. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.08.010 PubMed DOI

Kalis V, Karbanova J, Bukacova Z, Bednarova B, Rokyta Z, Kralickova M. Anal dilation during labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;109:136–139. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.11.024 PubMed DOI

Reginelli A, Mandato Y, Cavaliere C, Pizza NL, Russo A, Cappabianca S, et al. Three-dimensional anal endosonography in depicting anal-canal anatomy. Radiol Med. 2012;117:759–771. doi: 10.1007/s11547-011-0768-4 PubMed DOI

Knowles AM, Knowles CH, Scott SM, Lunniss PJ. Effects of age and gender on three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography measurements: development of normal ranges. Tech Coloproctol 2008;12:323–329. doi: 10.1007/s10151-008-0443-5 PubMed DOI

Berger MB, Doumouchtsis SK, Delancey JO. Bony pelvis dimensions in women with and without stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2013;32:37–42. doi: 10.1002/nau.22275 PubMed DOI PMC

Dietz HP, Shek C, Clarke B. Biometry of the pubovisceral muscle and levator hiatus by three-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25:580–585. doi: 10.1002/uog.1899 PubMed DOI

Svabik K, Shek KL, Dietz HP. How much does the levator hiatus have to stretch during childbirth? BJOG 2009;116:1657–1662. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02321.x PubMed DOI

Schimpf MO, Harvie HS, Omotosho TB, Epstein LB, Jean-Michel M, Olivera CK, et al. Does vaginal size impact sexual activity and function? Int Urogynecol J 2010;21:447–452. doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-1051-2 PubMed DOI PMC

Ashton-Miller JA, Delancey JO. On the biomechanics of vaginal birth and common sequelae. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2009;11:163–176. doi: 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-061008-124823 PubMed DOI PMC

Polaskova P, Kubena A, Calda P. [Prenatal growth curves of the Czech population]. Ceska Gynekol. 2014;79:276–282. PubMed

Fretheim A, Odgaard-Jensen J, Røttingen JA, Reinar LM, Vangen S, Tanbo T. The impact of an intervention programme employing a hands-on technique to reduce the incidence of anal sphincter tears: interrupted time-series reanalysis. BMJ Open 2013;3(10):e003355 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003355 PubMed DOI PMC

Basu M, Smith D, Edwards R; STOMP project team. Can the incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injury be reduced? The STOMP experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016. July;202:55–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.04.033 PubMed DOI

Li X, Kruger JA, Nash MP, Nielsen PM. Modeling childbirth: elucidating the mechanisms of labor. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. 2010;2:460–470. doi: 10.1002/wsbm.65 PubMed DOI

Birth and Regulation of head Extension to Guide Manual perineal Assistance (BREGMA) study: a prospective cohort study

Finite element modeling of maximum stress in pelvic floor structures during the head expulsion (FINESSE) study

Feasibility and safety of antepartum tactile imaging

Metrics of perineal support (MOPS) study