Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis

Background To investigate the association between type of episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among 6,187 women with type 3 Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of women presenting in labor to 28 obstetric centres in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan between November 2001 and March 2003. Data were analysed using cross tabulations and multivariable logistic regression to determine if type of episiotomy by FGM classification had a significant impact on key maternal outcomes. Our main outcome measures were anal sphincter tears, intrapartum blood loss requiring an intervention, and postpartum haemorrhage. Results Type of episiotomy performed varied significantly by FGM status. Among women without FGM, the most common type of episiotomy performed was posterior lateral (25.4 %). The prevalence of the most extensive type of episiotomy, anterior and posterior lateral episiotomy increased with type of FGM. Among women without FGM, 0.4 % had this type of episiotomy. This increased to 0.6 % for women with FGM Types 1, 2 or 4 and to 54.6 % of all women delivering vaginally with FGM Type 3. After adjustment, women with an anterior episiotomy, (AOR = 0.15 95 %; CI 0.06–0.40); posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.68 95 %; CI 0.50–0.94) or both anterior and posterior lateral episiotomies performed concurrently (AOR = 0.21 95 % CI 0.12–0.36) were all significantly less likely to have anal sphincter tears compared to women without episiotomies. Women with anterior episiotomy (AOR = 0.08; 95%CI 0.02–0.24), posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.17 95 %; CI 0.05–0.52) and the combination of the two (AOR = 0.04 95 % CI 0.01–0.11) were significantly less likely to have postpartum haemorrhage compared with women who had no episiotomy. Conclusions Among women living with FGM Type 3, episiotomies were protective against anal sphincter tears and postpartum haemorrhage. Further clinical and research is needed to guide clinical practice of when episiotomies should be performed. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Rodriguez, Maria I. [verfasserIn] Seuc, Armando Say, Lale Hindin, Michelle J.

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2016

Schlagwörter:	Female genital mutilation Episiotomy FGM Circumcision Obstetrics

Anmerkung:	© The Author(s). 2016

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Reproductive health - London : BioMed Central, 2004, 13(2016), 1 vom: 10. Okt.
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:13 ; year:2016 ; number:1 ; day:10 ; month:10

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9

Katalog-ID:	SPR029188660

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR029188660
003	DE-627
005	20230519124122.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR029188660
035			\|a (SPR)s12978-016-0242-9-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Rodriguez, Maria I. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis
264		1	\|c 2016
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © The Author(s). 2016
520			\|a Background To investigate the association between type of episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among 6,187 women with type 3 Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of women presenting in labor to 28 obstetric centres in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan between November 2001 and March 2003. Data were analysed using cross tabulations and multivariable logistic regression to determine if type of episiotomy by FGM classification had a significant impact on key maternal outcomes. Our main outcome measures were anal sphincter tears, intrapartum blood loss requiring an intervention, and postpartum haemorrhage. Results Type of episiotomy performed varied significantly by FGM status. Among women without FGM, the most common type of episiotomy performed was posterior lateral (25.4 %). The prevalence of the most extensive type of episiotomy, anterior and posterior lateral episiotomy increased with type of FGM. Among women without FGM, 0.4 % had this type of episiotomy. This increased to 0.6 % for women with FGM Types 1, 2 or 4 and to 54.6 % of all women delivering vaginally with FGM Type 3. After adjustment, women with an anterior episiotomy, (AOR = 0.15 95 %; CI 0.06–0.40); posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.68 95 %; CI 0.50–0.94) or both anterior and posterior lateral episiotomies performed concurrently (AOR = 0.21 95 % CI 0.12–0.36) were all significantly less likely to have anal sphincter tears compared to women without episiotomies. Women with anterior episiotomy (AOR = 0.08; 95%CI 0.02–0.24), posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.17 95 %; CI 0.05–0.52) and the combination of the two (AOR = 0.04 95 % CI 0.01–0.11) were significantly less likely to have postpartum haemorrhage compared with women who had no episiotomy. Conclusions Among women living with FGM Type 3, episiotomies were protective against anal sphincter tears and postpartum haemorrhage. Further clinical and research is needed to guide clinical practice of when episiotomies should be performed.
650		4	\|a Female genital mutilation \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Episiotomy \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a FGM \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Circumcision \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Obstetrics \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Seuc, Armando \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Say, Lale \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Hindin, Michelle J. \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Reproductive health \|d London : BioMed Central, 2004 \|g 13(2016), 1 vom: 10. Okt. \|w (DE-627)389462543 \|w (DE-600)2149029-6 \|x 1742-4755 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:13 \|g year:2016 \|g number:1 \|g day:10 \|g month:10
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9 \|z kostenfrei \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 13 \|j 2016 \|e 1 \|b 10 \|c 10

Indexfelder

author_variant	m i r mi mir a s as l s ls m j h mj mjh
matchkey_str	article:17424755:2016----::psooynosercucmsmnwmniigihyefmlgntlui
hierarchy_sort_str	2016
publishDate	2016
allfields	10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9 doi (DE-627)SPR029188660 (SPR)s12978-016-0242-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rodriguez, Maria I. verfasserin aut Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background To investigate the association between type of episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among 6,187 women with type 3 Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of women presenting in labor to 28 obstetric centres in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan between November 2001 and March 2003. Data were analysed using cross tabulations and multivariable logistic regression to determine if type of episiotomy by FGM classification had a significant impact on key maternal outcomes. Our main outcome measures were anal sphincter tears, intrapartum blood loss requiring an intervention, and postpartum haemorrhage. Results Type of episiotomy performed varied significantly by FGM status. Among women without FGM, the most common type of episiotomy performed was posterior lateral (25.4 %). The prevalence of the most extensive type of episiotomy, anterior and posterior lateral episiotomy increased with type of FGM. Among women without FGM, 0.4 % had this type of episiotomy. This increased to 0.6 % for women with FGM Types 1, 2 or 4 and to 54.6 % of all women delivering vaginally with FGM Type 3. After adjustment, women with an anterior episiotomy, (AOR = 0.15 95 %; CI 0.06–0.40); posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.68 95 %; CI 0.50–0.94) or both anterior and posterior lateral episiotomies performed concurrently (AOR = 0.21 95 % CI 0.12–0.36) were all significantly less likely to have anal sphincter tears compared to women without episiotomies. Women with anterior episiotomy (AOR = 0.08; 95%CI 0.02–0.24), posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.17 95 %; CI 0.05–0.52) and the combination of the two (AOR = 0.04 95 % CI 0.01–0.11) were significantly less likely to have postpartum haemorrhage compared with women who had no episiotomy. Conclusions Among women living with FGM Type 3, episiotomies were protective against anal sphincter tears and postpartum haemorrhage. Further clinical and research is needed to guide clinical practice of when episiotomies should be performed. Female genital mutilation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Episiotomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 FGM (dpeaa)DE-He213 Circumcision (dpeaa)DE-He213 Obstetrics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Seuc, Armando aut Say, Lale aut Hindin, Michelle J. aut Enthalten in Reproductive health London : BioMed Central, 2004 13(2016), 1 vom: 10. Okt. (DE-627)389462543 (DE-600)2149029-6 1742-4755 nnns volume:13 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 13 2016 1 10 10
spelling	10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9 doi (DE-627)SPR029188660 (SPR)s12978-016-0242-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rodriguez, Maria I. verfasserin aut Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background To investigate the association between type of episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among 6,187 women with type 3 Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of women presenting in labor to 28 obstetric centres in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan between November 2001 and March 2003. Data were analysed using cross tabulations and multivariable logistic regression to determine if type of episiotomy by FGM classification had a significant impact on key maternal outcomes. Our main outcome measures were anal sphincter tears, intrapartum blood loss requiring an intervention, and postpartum haemorrhage. Results Type of episiotomy performed varied significantly by FGM status. Among women without FGM, the most common type of episiotomy performed was posterior lateral (25.4 %). The prevalence of the most extensive type of episiotomy, anterior and posterior lateral episiotomy increased with type of FGM. Among women without FGM, 0.4 % had this type of episiotomy. This increased to 0.6 % for women with FGM Types 1, 2 or 4 and to 54.6 % of all women delivering vaginally with FGM Type 3. After adjustment, women with an anterior episiotomy, (AOR = 0.15 95 %; CI 0.06–0.40); posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.68 95 %; CI 0.50–0.94) or both anterior and posterior lateral episiotomies performed concurrently (AOR = 0.21 95 % CI 0.12–0.36) were all significantly less likely to have anal sphincter tears compared to women without episiotomies. Women with anterior episiotomy (AOR = 0.08; 95%CI 0.02–0.24), posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.17 95 %; CI 0.05–0.52) and the combination of the two (AOR = 0.04 95 % CI 0.01–0.11) were significantly less likely to have postpartum haemorrhage compared with women who had no episiotomy. Conclusions Among women living with FGM Type 3, episiotomies were protective against anal sphincter tears and postpartum haemorrhage. Further clinical and research is needed to guide clinical practice of when episiotomies should be performed. Female genital mutilation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Episiotomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 FGM (dpeaa)DE-He213 Circumcision (dpeaa)DE-He213 Obstetrics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Seuc, Armando aut Say, Lale aut Hindin, Michelle J. aut Enthalten in Reproductive health London : BioMed Central, 2004 13(2016), 1 vom: 10. Okt. (DE-627)389462543 (DE-600)2149029-6 1742-4755 nnns volume:13 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 13 2016 1 10 10
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9 doi (DE-627)SPR029188660 (SPR)s12978-016-0242-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rodriguez, Maria I. verfasserin aut Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background To investigate the association between type of episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among 6,187 women with type 3 Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of women presenting in labor to 28 obstetric centres in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan between November 2001 and March 2003. Data were analysed using cross tabulations and multivariable logistic regression to determine if type of episiotomy by FGM classification had a significant impact on key maternal outcomes. Our main outcome measures were anal sphincter tears, intrapartum blood loss requiring an intervention, and postpartum haemorrhage. Results Type of episiotomy performed varied significantly by FGM status. Among women without FGM, the most common type of episiotomy performed was posterior lateral (25.4 %). The prevalence of the most extensive type of episiotomy, anterior and posterior lateral episiotomy increased with type of FGM. Among women without FGM, 0.4 % had this type of episiotomy. This increased to 0.6 % for women with FGM Types 1, 2 or 4 and to 54.6 % of all women delivering vaginally with FGM Type 3. After adjustment, women with an anterior episiotomy, (AOR = 0.15 95 %; CI 0.06–0.40); posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.68 95 %; CI 0.50–0.94) or both anterior and posterior lateral episiotomies performed concurrently (AOR = 0.21 95 % CI 0.12–0.36) were all significantly less likely to have anal sphincter tears compared to women without episiotomies. Women with anterior episiotomy (AOR = 0.08; 95%CI 0.02–0.24), posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.17 95 %; CI 0.05–0.52) and the combination of the two (AOR = 0.04 95 % CI 0.01–0.11) were significantly less likely to have postpartum haemorrhage compared with women who had no episiotomy. Conclusions Among women living with FGM Type 3, episiotomies were protective against anal sphincter tears and postpartum haemorrhage. Further clinical and research is needed to guide clinical practice of when episiotomies should be performed. Female genital mutilation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Episiotomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 FGM (dpeaa)DE-He213 Circumcision (dpeaa)DE-He213 Obstetrics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Seuc, Armando aut Say, Lale aut Hindin, Michelle J. aut Enthalten in Reproductive health London : BioMed Central, 2004 13(2016), 1 vom: 10. Okt. (DE-627)389462543 (DE-600)2149029-6 1742-4755 nnns volume:13 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 13 2016 1 10 10
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9 doi (DE-627)SPR029188660 (SPR)s12978-016-0242-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rodriguez, Maria I. verfasserin aut Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background To investigate the association between type of episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among 6,187 women with type 3 Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of women presenting in labor to 28 obstetric centres in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan between November 2001 and March 2003. Data were analysed using cross tabulations and multivariable logistic regression to determine if type of episiotomy by FGM classification had a significant impact on key maternal outcomes. Our main outcome measures were anal sphincter tears, intrapartum blood loss requiring an intervention, and postpartum haemorrhage. Results Type of episiotomy performed varied significantly by FGM status. Among women without FGM, the most common type of episiotomy performed was posterior lateral (25.4 %). The prevalence of the most extensive type of episiotomy, anterior and posterior lateral episiotomy increased with type of FGM. Among women without FGM, 0.4 % had this type of episiotomy. This increased to 0.6 % for women with FGM Types 1, 2 or 4 and to 54.6 % of all women delivering vaginally with FGM Type 3. After adjustment, women with an anterior episiotomy, (AOR = 0.15 95 %; CI 0.06–0.40); posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.68 95 %; CI 0.50–0.94) or both anterior and posterior lateral episiotomies performed concurrently (AOR = 0.21 95 % CI 0.12–0.36) were all significantly less likely to have anal sphincter tears compared to women without episiotomies. Women with anterior episiotomy (AOR = 0.08; 95%CI 0.02–0.24), posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.17 95 %; CI 0.05–0.52) and the combination of the two (AOR = 0.04 95 % CI 0.01–0.11) were significantly less likely to have postpartum haemorrhage compared with women who had no episiotomy. Conclusions Among women living with FGM Type 3, episiotomies were protective against anal sphincter tears and postpartum haemorrhage. Further clinical and research is needed to guide clinical practice of when episiotomies should be performed. Female genital mutilation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Episiotomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 FGM (dpeaa)DE-He213 Circumcision (dpeaa)DE-He213 Obstetrics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Seuc, Armando aut Say, Lale aut Hindin, Michelle J. aut Enthalten in Reproductive health London : BioMed Central, 2004 13(2016), 1 vom: 10. Okt. (DE-627)389462543 (DE-600)2149029-6 1742-4755 nnns volume:13 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 13 2016 1 10 10
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9 doi (DE-627)SPR029188660 (SPR)s12978-016-0242-9-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Rodriguez, Maria I. verfasserin aut Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background To investigate the association between type of episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among 6,187 women with type 3 Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of women presenting in labor to 28 obstetric centres in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan between November 2001 and March 2003. Data were analysed using cross tabulations and multivariable logistic regression to determine if type of episiotomy by FGM classification had a significant impact on key maternal outcomes. Our main outcome measures were anal sphincter tears, intrapartum blood loss requiring an intervention, and postpartum haemorrhage. Results Type of episiotomy performed varied significantly by FGM status. Among women without FGM, the most common type of episiotomy performed was posterior lateral (25.4 %). The prevalence of the most extensive type of episiotomy, anterior and posterior lateral episiotomy increased with type of FGM. Among women without FGM, 0.4 % had this type of episiotomy. This increased to 0.6 % for women with FGM Types 1, 2 or 4 and to 54.6 % of all women delivering vaginally with FGM Type 3. After adjustment, women with an anterior episiotomy, (AOR = 0.15 95 %; CI 0.06–0.40); posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.68 95 %; CI 0.50–0.94) or both anterior and posterior lateral episiotomies performed concurrently (AOR = 0.21 95 % CI 0.12–0.36) were all significantly less likely to have anal sphincter tears compared to women without episiotomies. Women with anterior episiotomy (AOR = 0.08; 95%CI 0.02–0.24), posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.17 95 %; CI 0.05–0.52) and the combination of the two (AOR = 0.04 95 % CI 0.01–0.11) were significantly less likely to have postpartum haemorrhage compared with women who had no episiotomy. Conclusions Among women living with FGM Type 3, episiotomies were protective against anal sphincter tears and postpartum haemorrhage. Further clinical and research is needed to guide clinical practice of when episiotomies should be performed. Female genital mutilation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Episiotomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 FGM (dpeaa)DE-He213 Circumcision (dpeaa)DE-He213 Obstetrics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Seuc, Armando aut Say, Lale aut Hindin, Michelle J. aut Enthalten in Reproductive health London : BioMed Central, 2004 13(2016), 1 vom: 10. Okt. (DE-627)389462543 (DE-600)2149029-6 1742-4755 nnns volume:13 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 13 2016 1 10 10
language	English
source	Enthalten in Reproductive health 13(2016), 1 vom: 10. Okt. volume:13 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:10
sourceStr	Enthalten in Reproductive health 13(2016), 1 vom: 10. Okt. volume:13 year:2016 number:1 day:10 month:10
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Female genital mutilation Episiotomy FGM Circumcision Obstetrics
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Reproductive health
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Rodriguez, Maria I. @@aut@@ Seuc, Armando @@aut@@ Say, Lale @@aut@@ Hindin, Michelle J. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2016-10-10T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	389462543
id	SPR029188660
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR029188660</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519124122.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR029188660</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12978-016-0242-9-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rodriguez, Maria I.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background To investigate the association between type of episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among 6,187 women with type 3 Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of women presenting in labor to 28 obstetric centres in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan between November 2001 and March 2003. Data were analysed using cross tabulations and multivariable logistic regression to determine if type of episiotomy by FGM classification had a significant impact on key maternal outcomes. Our main outcome measures were anal sphincter tears, intrapartum blood loss requiring an intervention, and postpartum haemorrhage. Results Type of episiotomy performed varied significantly by FGM status. Among women without FGM, the most common type of episiotomy performed was posterior lateral (25.4 %). The prevalence of the most extensive type of episiotomy, anterior and posterior lateral episiotomy increased with type of FGM. Among women without FGM, 0.4 % had this type of episiotomy. This increased to 0.6 % for women with FGM Types 1, 2 or 4 and to 54.6 % of all women delivering vaginally with FGM Type 3. After adjustment, women with an anterior episiotomy, (AOR = 0.15 95 %; CI 0.06–0.40); posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.68 95 %; CI 0.50–0.94) or both anterior and posterior lateral episiotomies performed concurrently (AOR = 0.21 95 % CI 0.12–0.36) were all significantly less likely to have anal sphincter tears compared to women without episiotomies. Women with anterior episiotomy (AOR = 0.08; 95%CI 0.02–0.24), posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.17 95 %; CI 0.05–0.52) and the combination of the two (AOR = 0.04 95 % CI 0.01–0.11) were significantly less likely to have postpartum haemorrhage compared with women who had no episiotomy. Conclusions Among women living with FGM Type 3, episiotomies were protective against anal sphincter tears and postpartum haemorrhage. Further clinical and research is needed to guide clinical practice of when episiotomies should be performed.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Female genital mutilation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Episiotomy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">FGM</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Circumcision</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Obstetrics</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Seuc, Armando</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Say, Lale</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hindin, Michelle J.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Reproductive health</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2004</subfield><subfield code="g">13(2016), 1 vom: 10. Okt.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)389462543</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2149029-6</subfield><subfield code="x">1742-4755</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:13</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:10</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">13</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">10</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Rodriguez, Maria I.
spellingShingle	Rodriguez, Maria I. misc Female genital mutilation misc Episiotomy misc FGM misc Circumcision misc Obstetrics Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis
authorStr	Rodriguez, Maria I.
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)389462543
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1742-4755
topic_title	Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis Female genital mutilation (dpeaa)DE-He213 Episiotomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 FGM (dpeaa)DE-He213 Circumcision (dpeaa)DE-He213 Obstetrics (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Female genital mutilation misc Episiotomy misc FGM misc Circumcision misc Obstetrics
topic_unstemmed	misc Female genital mutilation misc Episiotomy misc FGM misc Circumcision misc Obstetrics
topic_browse	misc Female genital mutilation misc Episiotomy misc FGM misc Circumcision misc Obstetrics
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Reproductive health
hierarchy_parent_id	389462543
hierarchy_top_title	Reproductive health
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)389462543 (DE-600)2149029-6
title	Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR029188660 (SPR)s12978-016-0242-9-e
title_full	Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis
author_sort	Rodriguez, Maria I.
journal	Reproductive health
journalStr	Reproductive health
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2016
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Rodriguez, Maria I. Seuc, Armando Say, Lale Hindin, Michelle J.
container_volume	13
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Rodriguez, Maria I.
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9
title_sort	episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis
title_auth	Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis
abstract	Background To investigate the association between type of episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among 6,187 women with type 3 Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of women presenting in labor to 28 obstetric centres in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan between November 2001 and March 2003. Data were analysed using cross tabulations and multivariable logistic regression to determine if type of episiotomy by FGM classification had a significant impact on key maternal outcomes. Our main outcome measures were anal sphincter tears, intrapartum blood loss requiring an intervention, and postpartum haemorrhage. Results Type of episiotomy performed varied significantly by FGM status. Among women without FGM, the most common type of episiotomy performed was posterior lateral (25.4 %). The prevalence of the most extensive type of episiotomy, anterior and posterior lateral episiotomy increased with type of FGM. Among women without FGM, 0.4 % had this type of episiotomy. This increased to 0.6 % for women with FGM Types 1, 2 or 4 and to 54.6 % of all women delivering vaginally with FGM Type 3. After adjustment, women with an anterior episiotomy, (AOR = 0.15 95 %; CI 0.06–0.40); posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.68 95 %; CI 0.50–0.94) or both anterior and posterior lateral episiotomies performed concurrently (AOR = 0.21 95 % CI 0.12–0.36) were all significantly less likely to have anal sphincter tears compared to women without episiotomies. Women with anterior episiotomy (AOR = 0.08; 95%CI 0.02–0.24), posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.17 95 %; CI 0.05–0.52) and the combination of the two (AOR = 0.04 95 % CI 0.01–0.11) were significantly less likely to have postpartum haemorrhage compared with women who had no episiotomy. Conclusions Among women living with FGM Type 3, episiotomies were protective against anal sphincter tears and postpartum haemorrhage. Further clinical and research is needed to guide clinical practice of when episiotomies should be performed. © The Author(s). 2016
abstractGer	Background To investigate the association between type of episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among 6,187 women with type 3 Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of women presenting in labor to 28 obstetric centres in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan between November 2001 and March 2003. Data were analysed using cross tabulations and multivariable logistic regression to determine if type of episiotomy by FGM classification had a significant impact on key maternal outcomes. Our main outcome measures were anal sphincter tears, intrapartum blood loss requiring an intervention, and postpartum haemorrhage. Results Type of episiotomy performed varied significantly by FGM status. Among women without FGM, the most common type of episiotomy performed was posterior lateral (25.4 %). The prevalence of the most extensive type of episiotomy, anterior and posterior lateral episiotomy increased with type of FGM. Among women without FGM, 0.4 % had this type of episiotomy. This increased to 0.6 % for women with FGM Types 1, 2 or 4 and to 54.6 % of all women delivering vaginally with FGM Type 3. After adjustment, women with an anterior episiotomy, (AOR = 0.15 95 %; CI 0.06–0.40); posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.68 95 %; CI 0.50–0.94) or both anterior and posterior lateral episiotomies performed concurrently (AOR = 0.21 95 % CI 0.12–0.36) were all significantly less likely to have anal sphincter tears compared to women without episiotomies. Women with anterior episiotomy (AOR = 0.08; 95%CI 0.02–0.24), posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.17 95 %; CI 0.05–0.52) and the combination of the two (AOR = 0.04 95 % CI 0.01–0.11) were significantly less likely to have postpartum haemorrhage compared with women who had no episiotomy. Conclusions Among women living with FGM Type 3, episiotomies were protective against anal sphincter tears and postpartum haemorrhage. Further clinical and research is needed to guide clinical practice of when episiotomies should be performed. © The Author(s). 2016
abstract_unstemmed	Background To investigate the association between type of episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among 6,187 women with type 3 Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of women presenting in labor to 28 obstetric centres in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan between November 2001 and March 2003. Data were analysed using cross tabulations and multivariable logistic regression to determine if type of episiotomy by FGM classification had a significant impact on key maternal outcomes. Our main outcome measures were anal sphincter tears, intrapartum blood loss requiring an intervention, and postpartum haemorrhage. Results Type of episiotomy performed varied significantly by FGM status. Among women without FGM, the most common type of episiotomy performed was posterior lateral (25.4 %). The prevalence of the most extensive type of episiotomy, anterior and posterior lateral episiotomy increased with type of FGM. Among women without FGM, 0.4 % had this type of episiotomy. This increased to 0.6 % for women with FGM Types 1, 2 or 4 and to 54.6 % of all women delivering vaginally with FGM Type 3. After adjustment, women with an anterior episiotomy, (AOR = 0.15 95 %; CI 0.06–0.40); posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.68 95 %; CI 0.50–0.94) or both anterior and posterior lateral episiotomies performed concurrently (AOR = 0.21 95 % CI 0.12–0.36) were all significantly less likely to have anal sphincter tears compared to women without episiotomies. Women with anterior episiotomy (AOR = 0.08; 95%CI 0.02–0.24), posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.17 95 %; CI 0.05–0.52) and the combination of the two (AOR = 0.04 95 % CI 0.01–0.11) were significantly less likely to have postpartum haemorrhage compared with women who had no episiotomy. Conclusions Among women living with FGM Type 3, episiotomies were protective against anal sphincter tears and postpartum haemorrhage. Further clinical and research is needed to guide clinical practice of when episiotomies should be performed. © The Author(s). 2016
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9
remote_bool	true
author2	Seuc, Armando Say, Lale Hindin, Michelle J.
author2Str	Seuc, Armando Say, Lale Hindin, Michelle J.
ppnlink	389462543
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9
up_date	2024-07-03T23:52:45.874Z
_version_	1803603951878144000
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR029188660</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519124122.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR029188660</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12978-016-0242-9-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rodriguez, Maria I.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background To investigate the association between type of episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among 6,187 women with type 3 Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of women presenting in labor to 28 obstetric centres in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan between November 2001 and March 2003. Data were analysed using cross tabulations and multivariable logistic regression to determine if type of episiotomy by FGM classification had a significant impact on key maternal outcomes. Our main outcome measures were anal sphincter tears, intrapartum blood loss requiring an intervention, and postpartum haemorrhage. Results Type of episiotomy performed varied significantly by FGM status. Among women without FGM, the most common type of episiotomy performed was posterior lateral (25.4 %). The prevalence of the most extensive type of episiotomy, anterior and posterior lateral episiotomy increased with type of FGM. Among women without FGM, 0.4 % had this type of episiotomy. This increased to 0.6 % for women with FGM Types 1, 2 or 4 and to 54.6 % of all women delivering vaginally with FGM Type 3. After adjustment, women with an anterior episiotomy, (AOR = 0.15 95 %; CI 0.06–0.40); posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.68 95 %; CI 0.50–0.94) or both anterior and posterior lateral episiotomies performed concurrently (AOR = 0.21 95 % CI 0.12–0.36) were all significantly less likely to have anal sphincter tears compared to women without episiotomies. Women with anterior episiotomy (AOR = 0.08; 95%CI 0.02–0.24), posterior lateral episiotomy (AOR = 0.17 95 %; CI 0.05–0.52) and the combination of the two (AOR = 0.04 95 % CI 0.01–0.11) were significantly less likely to have postpartum haemorrhage compared with women who had no episiotomy. Conclusions Among women living with FGM Type 3, episiotomies were protective against anal sphincter tears and postpartum haemorrhage. Further clinical and research is needed to guide clinical practice of when episiotomies should be performed.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Female genital mutilation</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Episiotomy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">FGM</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Circumcision</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Obstetrics</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Seuc, Armando</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Say, Lale</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hindin, Michelle J.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Reproductive health</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2004</subfield><subfield code="g">13(2016), 1 vom: 10. Okt.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)389462543</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2149029-6</subfield><subfield code="x">1742-4755</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:13</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:10</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-016-0242-9</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">13</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">10</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.400069

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Episiotomy and obstetric outcomes among women living with type 3 female genital mutilation: a secondary analysis

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?