Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Holy Family Hospital, Nazareth, Israel | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The incidence of a perineal tears during labor is 70 to 90%, while in 96% of the cases it's a minor perineal tear (grade 1). In about 3% to 4% the perineal tear is major and involve the external (grade 3) and the internal anal sphincter (grade 4). Episiotomy, which is considered an iatrogenic grade 2 tear, is performed in about 12% of vaginal deliveries.
Complications related to perineal tears include bleeding, the most common, that may lead to the development of vaginal or perineal hematoma. Additionally, local infection can develop and complicate the recovery from the injury. In rare cases, abscesses may occur and in rarer cases necrotizing fasciitis or recto-vaginal fistula may also evolve.
The "gold standard" method for repairing perineal tears is to use absorbable (preferably fast-absorbing) sutures. Grade 1 tears that do not bleed and do not disrupt the anatomical structure of the perineum usually do not require repair. Grade 2 tears are usually sewn in a continuous absorbent suture and less in the form of single stitches.
The use of adhesive glue to repair skin injuries began 20 years ago and the main adhesive used is dermabond® (Ethicon Inc. octyl-2-cyanoacrylate). The use of glue is faster and lead to less pain than the use of stitches or staples. It can be used for a variety of large or small, traumatic or iatrogenic wounds, with a cosmetic result, infection rate, and dehiscence rate similar to those achieved by stitches or staples.
In light of this, the investigators intend to conduct a randomized trial that will examine the advantages and disadvantages of the use of glue compared to the traditional sutures for closure of the skin in perineal tears grade 1 and 2 and episiotomies after vaginal delivery.
The investigators hypothesis is that the use of adhesive glue to close the skin in perineal tears grade 1 and 2 (including episiotomy), will be faster and associated with less pain compared to the traditional suturing method, without a significant difference in the rate of complications.
Trial design: Randomized controlled trial.
Objectives: To examine the effect of adhesive glue compared to fast-absorbable running sutures on pain sensation following repairing perineal skin in cases of tears grade 1 and 2.
Trial population: Women delivering vaginally at Emek Medical Center, and experience a spontaneous perineal tear, grade 1 or 2, or episiotomy.
Trial course:
Eligible patients will be asked to participate in this trial before perineal tear repair. Following providing an explanation about the trial, patients will be asked to provide written informed consent to participate in the trial.
The patients will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups in a 1:1 ratio:
Sample size In order to detect a reduction of 20% in the VAS (visual analogue pain score) within 2 hours of the procedure between the groups [from 40% to 20% in the running sutures and glue groups, respectively) with a level of significance of 95% (α = 0.05 - two tailed) and a power of 80% (β = 0.2) a sample size of 182 women (91 per group) is needed.
Data collected during the study:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| control group | No Intervention | Standard technique: Suturing the perineal skin with fast-absorbable running sutures (Vicryl Rapide 3-0). | |
| intervention group | Active Comparator | Closing the perineal skin using adhesive glue- exofin® (Octyl-2-cyanoacrylate) |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| exofin® | Device | Perineal skin will be closed by adhesive glue - exofin® (Octyl-2-cyanoacrylate). |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Pain intensity | Pain intensity will be measured by asking the woman to describe the pain related to the procedure using a 0 (no pain) to 100 VAS (intolerable pain) | within 2 hours after completing the procedure |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nitzan Sela, MD | Contact | +972528244803 | nitzanse@clalit.org.il | |
| Raed Salim, MD | Contact | salim_ra@clalit.org.il |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Raed Salim, MD | Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel | Study Chair |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMEK Medical center | Recruiting | Afula | 1834111 | Israel |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23497085 | Background | Smith LA, Price N, Simonite V, Burns EE. Incidence of and risk factors for perineal trauma: a prospective observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 Mar 7;13:59. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-59. | |
| 26224381 | Background | Vale de Castro Monteiro M, Pereira GM, Aguiar RA, Azevedo RL, Correia-Junior MD, Reis ZS. Risk factors for severe obstetric perineal lacerations. Int Urogynecol J. 2016 Jan;27(1):61-7. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2795-5. Epub 2015 Jul 30. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Eligible patients will be asked to participate in this trial before perineal tear repair.
The patients will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups in a 1:1 ratio:
Not provided
Not provided
Cosmetic result will be assessed 4-6 weeks after the repair by a doctor who did not participate in tear suturing immediately after delivery, and is not aware to the repair method used.
| 25585333 | Background | Friedman AM, Ananth CV, Prendergast E, D'Alton ME, Wright JD. Variation in and factors associated with use of episiotomy. JAMA. 2015 Jan 13;313(2):197-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.14774. No abstract available. |
| 22304364 | Background | Kalis V, Laine K, de Leeuw JW, Ismail KM, Tincello DG. Classification of episiotomy: towards a standardisation of terminology. BJOG. 2012 Apr;119(5):522-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03268.x. Epub 2012 Feb 3. |
| 27797099 | Background | Leeman L, Rogers R, Borders N, Teaf D, Qualls C. The Effect of Perineal Lacerations on Pelvic Floor Function and Anatomy at 6 Months Postpartum in a Prospective Cohort of Nulliparous Women. Birth. 2016 Dec;43(4):293-302. doi: 10.1111/birt.12258. Epub 2016 Oct 31. |
| 23152204 | Background | Kettle C, Dowswell T, Ismail KM. Continuous and interrupted suturing techniques for repair of episiotomy or second-degree tears. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11(11):CD000947. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000947.pub3. |
| 25089271 | Background | Feigenberg T, Maor-Sagie E, Zivi E, Abu-Dia M, Ben-Meir A, Sela HY, Ezra Y. Using adhesive glue to repair first degree perineal tears: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:526590. doi: 10.1155/2014/526590. Epub 2014 Jun 26. |
| 14769312 | Background | Singer AJ, Thode HC Jr. A review of the literature on octylcyanoacrylate tissue adhesive. Am J Surg. 2004 Feb;187(2):238-48. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2003.11.017. |
| 25864727 | Background | Seijmonsbergen-Schermers AE, Sahami S, Lucas C, Jonge Ad. Nonsuturing or Skin Adhesives versus Suturing of the Perineal Skin After Childbirth: A Systematic Review. Birth. 2015 Jun;42(2):100-15. doi: 10.1111/birt.12166. Epub 2015 Apr 11. |
| 19353332 | Background | Mota R, Costa F, Amaral A, Oliveira F, Santos CC, Ayres-De-Campos D. Skin adhesive versus subcuticular suture for perineal skin repair after episiotomy--a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(6):660-6. doi: 10.1080/00016340902883133. |
| 20596233 | Background | Fearmonti R, Bond J, Erdmann D, Levinson H. A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty. 2010 Jun 21;10:e43. |
| 30134424 | Background | Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 198: Prevention and Management of Obstetric Lacerations at Vaginal Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Sep;132(3):e87-e102. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002841. |
| 27333357 | Background | American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 165: Prevention and Management of Obstetric Lacerations at Vaginal Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jul;128(1):e1-e15. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001523. |