Postpartum perineal repair performed by midwives: A randomised trial comparing two suture techniques leaving the skin unsutured
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare a continuous suture technique with interrupted stitches using inverted knots for postpartum perineal repair of second-degree lacerations and episiotomies. Design A double-blind randomised controlled trial. Setting A Danish university hospital with more than 4800 deliveries annually. Population A total of 400 healthy primiparous women with a vaginal delivery at term. Method Randomisation was computer-controlled. Structured interviews and systematic assessment of perineal healing were performed by research midwives blinded to treatment allocation at 24–48 hours, 10 days and 6 months postpartum. Pain was evaluated using a visual analogue scale and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Wound healing was evaluated using the REEDA scale and by assessment of gaping wounds >0.5 cm. Analysis complied with the intention-to-treat principle. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was perineal pain 10 days after delivery. Secondary outcomes were wound healing, patient satisfaction, dyspareunia, need for resuturing, time elapsed during repair and amount of suture material used. Results A total of 400 women were randomised; 5 women withdrew their consent, leaving 395 for follow up. The follow-up rate was 98% for all assessments after delivery. No difference was seen in perineal pain 10 days after delivery. No difference was seen in wound healing, patient satisfaction, dyspareunia or need for resuturing. The continuous suture technique was significantly faster (15 versus 17 minutes, P = 0.03) and less suture material was used (one versus two packets, P < 0.01). Conclusion Interrupted, inverted stitches for perineal repair leaving the skin unsutured appear to be equivalent to the continuous suture technique in relation to perineal pain, wound healing, patient satisfaction, dyspareunia and need for resuturing. The continuous technique, however, is faster and requires less suture material, thus leaving it the more cost-effective of the two techniques evaluated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".