The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Obstetric anal sphincter lacerations
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the frequency of obstetric anal sphincter laceration and to identify characteristics associated with this complication, including modifiable risk factors. METHODS: A population-based, retrospective study of over 2 million vaginal deliveries at California hospitals was performed, using information from birth certificates and discharge summaries for 1992 through 1997. We excluded preterm births, stillbirths, breech deliveries, and multiple gestations. The main outcome measure was obstetric anal sphincter laceration (third and fourth degree). RESULTS: The frequency of anal sphincter lacerations was 5.85% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.82, 5.88), decreasing significantly from 6.35% (95% CI 6.27, 6.43) in 1992 to 5.43% (95% CI 5.35, 5.51) in 1997 (P <.01). Using logistic regression analysis, we identified primiparity as the dominant risk factor (odds ratio [OR] for women with prior vaginal birth 0.15; 95% CI 0.14, 0.15). Birth weight over 4000 g was also highly significant (OR 2.17; 95% CI 2.07, 2.27). Lacerations occurred more often among women of certain racial and ethnic groups: Indian women (OR 2.5; 95% CI 2.23, 2.79) and Filipina women (OR 1.63; 95% CI 1.50, 1.77) were at highest risk. Episiotomy decreased the likelihood of third-degree lacerations (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.78, 0.85), but increased the risk of fourth-degree lacerations (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.05, 1.19). Operative delivery increased the risk of sphincter laceration, with vacuum delivery (OR 2.30; 95% CI 2.21, 2.40) presenting a greater risk than forceps delivery (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.37, 1.52). CONCLUSION: Anal sphincter lacerations are strongly associated with primiparity, macrosomia, and operative vaginal delivery. Of the modifiable risk factors, operative vaginal delivery remains the dominant independent variable.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Maternal Morbid Obesity and the Risk of Adverse Pregnancy Outcome
Cedergren, M. I. (2004) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000107291.46159.00 · Cited by 1,248
Gurol‐Urganci, I., Cromwell, D., Edozien, L., Mahmood, T., Adams, E., Richmond, D., Templeton, A., & van der Meulen, J. (2013) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12363 · Cited by 391
Fenner, D. E., Genberg, B., Brahma, P., Marek, L., & DeLancey, J. O. L. (2003) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2003.09.030 · Cited by 332
Risk factors and obstetric complications associated with macrosomia
Stotland, N. E., Caughey, A. B., Breed, E. M., & Escobar, G. J. (2004) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.08.010 · Cited by 301
Esakoff, T. F., Cheng, Y. W., Sparks, T. N., & Caughey, A. B. (2009) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.035 · Cited by 264
Metadata
- Authors
- Handa, V
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 2001-08
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 225-230
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2081434828
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Obstetric anal sphincter lacerations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01445-4
- The paper
- Handa, V. (2001). Obstetric anal sphincter lacerations. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01445-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.