Cited by 80Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsPregnancy-related medical research

Delivery mode and the risk of levator muscle avulsion: a meta-analysis

Friedman, Talia, Eslick, Guy D., Dietz, Hans Peter·2019·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis Female pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition, with a lifetime risk for surgery of 10-20%. Pregnancy and childbirth are the commonest modifiable risk factors for POP, and avulsion of the levator ani muscle is likely to be an etiological factor. Avulsion is more common in instrumental delivery. However, we were unable to identify a meta-analysis on this issue. Our aim was to perform a systemic review and quantitative meta-analysis of the prevalence of avulsion relative to delivery mode.Methods Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar) were searched for studies published between 1991 and 1 October 2018 without language restrictions.Results Twenty studies met inclusion criteria, and 14 were prospective. Seventeen used sonographic techniques; three were magnetic resonance (MR) studies. For this review, three comparisons were performed: forceps vs. vacuum (9 studies), forceps vs. normal vaginal delivery (NVD) (12 studies), and vacuum vs. NVD (12 studies). The first meta-analysis showed an increased risk for avulsion following forceps compared with vacuum, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.57 and confidence interval (CI) 3.21-6.51, p < 0.001. The second showed an increased risk for avulsion following forceps compared with NVD, with an OR of 6.94 (4.93-9.78), p < 0.001. The third showed no significant increased risk for avulsion following vacuum compared with NVD, with an OR of 1.31 (1.00-1.72), p = 0.051.Conclusions Forceps is a strong risk factor for avulsion, with an OR of 6.94 (4.93-9.78) compared with NVD and an OR of 4.57 (3.21-6.51) compared with vacuum birth.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-018-3827-8

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Friedman, T., Eslick, G. D., & Dietz, H. P.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Dietz, Hans Peter
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2019-01-16
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
901-907
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W2910602652
Cited by
80
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 4
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
Keywords
levator ani muscle avulsion, female pelvic organ prolapse, mode of delivery, forceps delivery, vacuum extraction, instrumental delivery, normal delivery, birth trauma, risk factors
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Wounds and Injuries, Muscle, Skeletal, Delivery, Obstetric

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review