Comparative effectiveness of physical interventions for preventing perineal trauma during vaginal delivery: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

预防阴道分娩过程中会阴损伤的物理干预措施的比较效果:系统评价和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析

阅读:2

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Perineal trauma during vaginal delivery affects most primiparous women, causing significant maternal morbidity including chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, and impaired quality of life. While various physical interventions have been proposed for prevention, their comparative effectiveness remains unclear due to limited head-to-head trials. This Bayesian network meta-analysis systematically compared the efficacy and safety of all available physical interventions for preventing perineal trauma during vaginal delivery. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials comparing physical interventions including massage, warm compresses, exercise, hands-on/off techniques, lubrication, education, or their combinations for perineal protection. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.0. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed using R Studio. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were calculated to rank interventions. RESULTS: Thirty-one randomized controlled trials involving 10,745 participants across 15 countries were included, of whom the majority were primiparous women with term singleton pregnancies enrolled in high-resource settings. For overall perineal laceration prevention, antenatal pelvic floor exercise ranked first (RR = 0.50, 95%CrI 0.28-0.87; SUCRA = 86.58%); for episiotomy prevention, massage combined with warm compresses ranked first (RR = 0.53, 95%CrI 0.28-0.93; SUCRA = 90.08%); for intact perineum promotion, massage demonstrated statistically significant superiority (RR = 1.93, 95%CrI 1.16-3.29); for severe perineal pain reduction, warm compresses had the highest SUCRA probability (SUCRA = 74.51%), though pain findings are exploratory given sparse network structures and wide credible intervals. All physical interventions demonstrated excellent neonatal safety. Education-only interventions showed no protective effects (RR = 1.03). CONCLUSION: Antenatal pelvic floor exercise represents the optimal first-line prevention strategy with 50% risk reduction. For women without prior training, warm compresses and intrapartum massage provide effective alternatives. Findings for pain outcomes should be interpreted as exploratory. Broader implementation of evidence-based physical interventions as evidence-informed strategies could help reduce the burden of perineal trauma, particularly among primiparous women in well-resourced settings, though generalizability to multiparous women and low-resource environments requires further investigation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42025633266.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。