• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of bmjBMJ helping doctors make better decisionsSearch bmj.comLatest content
BMJ. Apr 2, 1994; 308(6933): 887–891.
PMCID: PMC2539832

Third degree obstetric anal sphincter tears: risk factors and outcome of primary repair.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES--To determine (i) risk factors in the development of third degree obstetric tears and (ii) the success of primary sphincter repair. DESIGN--(i) Retrospective analysis of obstetric variables in 50 women who had sustained a third degree tear, compared with the remaining 8553 vaginal deliveries during the same period. (ii) Women who had sustained a third degree tear and had primary sphincter repair and control subjects were interviewed and investigated with anal endosonography, anal manometry, and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency measurements. SETTING--Antenatal clinic in teaching hospital in inner London. SUBJECTS--(i) All women (n = 8603) who delivered vaginally over a 31 month period. (ii) 34 women who sustained a third degree tear and 88 matched controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Obstetric risk factors, defecatory symptoms, sonographic sphincter defects, and pudendal nerve damage. RESULTS--(i) Factors significantly associated with development of a third degree tear were: forceps delivery (50% v 7% in controls; P = 0.00001), primiparous delivery (85% v 43%; P = 0.00001), birth weight > 4 kg (P = 0.00002), and occipito-posterior position at delivery (P = 0.003). No third degree tear occurred during 351 vacuum extractions. Eleven of 25 (44%) women who were delivered without instruments and had a third degree tear did so despite a posterolateral episiotomy. (ii) Anal incontinence or faecal urgency was present in 16 women with tears and 11 controls (47% v 13%; P = 0.00001). Sonographic sphincter defects were identified in 29 with tears and 29 controls (85% v 33%; P = 0.00001). Every symptomatic patient had persistent combined internal and external sphincter defects, and these were associated with significantly lower anal pressures. Pudendal nerve terminal motor latency measurements were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS--Vacuum extraction is associated with fewer third degree tears than forceps delivery. An episiotomy does not always prevent a third degree tear. Primary repair is inadequate in most women who sustain third degree tears, most having residual sphincter defects and about half experiencing anal incontinence, which is caused by persistent mechanical sphincter disruption rather than pudendal nerve damage. Attention should be directed towards preventive obstetric practice and surgical techniques of repair.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.4M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Images in this article

Click on the image to see a larger version.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • INGRAHAM HA, GARDNER MM, HEUS EG. A report on 159 third degree lacerations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1949 Apr;57(4):730–735. [PubMed]
  • BARTER RH, PARKS J, TYNDAL C. Median episiotomies and complete perineal lacerations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1960 Oct;80:654–662. [PubMed]
  • SIEBER EH, KROON JD. Morbidity in the third-degree laceration. Obstet Gynecol. 1962 May;19:677–680. [PubMed]
  • Haadem K, Dahlström JA, Ling L. Anal sphincter competence in healthy women: clinical implications of age and other factors. Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Nov;78(5 Pt 1):823–827. [PubMed]
  • Mellerup Sørensen S, Bondesen H, Istre O, Vilmann P. Perineal rupture following vaginal delivery. Long-term consequences. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1988;67(4):315–318. [PubMed]
  • Nielsen MB, Hauge C, Rasmussen OO, Pedersen JF, Christiansen J. Anal endosonographic findings in the follow-up of primarily sutured sphincteric ruptures. Br J Surg. 1992 Feb;79(2):104–106. [PubMed]
  • Orrom WJ, Williams JG, Rothenberger DA, Wong WD. Portable anorectal manometry. Br J Surg. 1990 Aug;77(8):876–877. [PubMed]
  • Frenckner B, Euler CV. Influence of pudendal block on the function of the anal sphincters. Gut. 1975 Jun;16(6):482–489. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Henry MM. Neurophysiological assessment of the pelvic floor. Gut. 1988 Jan;29(1):1–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Law PJ, Bartram CI. Anal endosonography: technique and normal anatomy. Gastrointest Radiol. 1989 Fall;14(4):349–353. [PubMed]
  • Sultan AH, Nicholls RJ, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Beynon J, Bartram CI. Anal endosonography and correlation with in vitro and in vivo anatomy. Br J Surg. 1993 Apr;80(4):508–511. [PubMed]
  • Gass MS, Dunn C, Stys SJ. Effect of episiotomy on the frequency of vaginal outlet lacerations. J Reprod Med. 1986 Apr;31(4):240–244. [PubMed]
  • Green JR, Soohoo SL. Factors associated with rectal injury in spontaneous deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 1989 May;73(5 Pt 1):732–738. [PubMed]
  • Fischer SR. Factors associated with the occurrence of perineal lacerations. J Nurse Midwifery. 1979 Jan-Feb;24(1):18–26. [PubMed]
  • Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Thomas JM, Bartram CI. Anal-sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med. 1993 Dec 23;329(26):1905–1911. [PubMed]
  • Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Bartram CI, Hudson CN. Anal sphincter trauma during instrumental delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1993 Dec;43(3):263–270. [PubMed]
  • Johanson RB, Rice C, Doyle M, Arthur J, Anyanwu L, Ibrahim J, Warwick A, Redman CW, O'Brien PM. A randomised prospective study comparing the new vacuum extractor policy with forceps delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993 Jun;100(6):524–530. [PubMed]
  • Chalmers JA, Chalmers I. The obstetric vacuum extractor is the instrument of first choice for operative vaginal delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989 May;96(5):505–506. [PubMed]
  • Thacker SB, Banta HD. Benefits and risks of episiotomy: an interpretative review of the English language literature, 1860-1980. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1983 Jun;38(6):322–338. [PubMed]
  • Sleep J, Grant A, Garcia J, Elbourne D, Spencer J, Chalmers I. West Berkshire perineal management trial. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1984 Sep 8;289(6445):587–590. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Thorp JM, Jr, Bowes WA., Jr Episiotomy: can its routine use be defended? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989 May;160(5 Pt 1):1027–1030. [PubMed]
  • Larsson PG, Platz-Christensen JJ, Bergman B, Wallstersson G. Advantage or disadvantage of episiotomy compared with spontaneous perineal laceration. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1991;31(4):213–216. [PubMed]
  • Browning GG, Motson RW. Results of Parks operation for faecal incontinence after anal sphincter injury. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1983 Jun 11;286(6381):1873–1875. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Corman ML. Anal sphincter reconstruction. Surg Clin North Am. 1980 Apr;60(2):457–463. [PubMed]
  • Pezim ME, Spencer RJ, Stanhope CR, Beart RW, Jr, Ready RL, Ilstrup DM. Sphincter repair for fecal incontinence after obstetrical or iatrogenic injury. Dis Colon Rectum. 1987 Jul;30(7):521–525. [PubMed]
  • Burnett SJ, Spence-Jones C, Speakman CT, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Bartram CI. Unsuspected sphincter damage following childbirth revealed by anal endosonography. Br J Radiol. 1991 Mar;64(759):225–227. [PubMed]
  • Bek KM, Laurberg S. Risks of anal incontinence from subsequent vaginal delivery after a complete obstetric anal sphincter tear. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992 Sep;99(9):724–726. [PubMed]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • MedGen
    MedGen
    Related information in MedGen
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...