Is mediolateral episiotomy angle associated with postpartum perineal pain in primiparous women?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to elucidate the relationship between mediolateral episiotomy (MLE) angle and postpartum perineal pain. METHODS: This study was designed prospectively. Primiparous women with MLE in the postpartum period were included in the study and divided into three groups according to episiotomy angle ranges (Group 1: <40°, Group 2: 40°-60°, and Group 3: >60°). Postpartum perineal pain was quantified with the short-form McGill Pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ) consisting of the following three parts: Sensory-affective-verbal descriptions, visual pain scale (VPS), and present pain intensity scale (PPI). Postpartum perineal pain scores on days 1 and 7 were compared among the angle group. RESULTS: postpartum day. At 7 days postpartum, total pain score was found significantly high in Group 1 [Med; IQR (min-max)=0; 4 (0-5)] compared with Group 2 [Med; IQR (min-max)=0; 0(0-5)]. The pain scores obtained from the sensory, affective, VPS, and PPI parts of the questionnaire were [Med; IQR (min-max)=0; 1 (0-2)], [Med; IQR (min-max)=0; 1 (0-1)], [Med; IQR (min-max)=0; 2 (0-2)], and [Med; IQR (min-max)=0; 0.25 (0-1)], respectively, in Group 1. For Group 2, pain scores obtained from the sensory, affective, and PPI were [Med; IQR (min-max)=0; 0(0-1)]; and VPS was [Med; IQR (min-max)=0; 0(0-2)]. No significant differences were observed between Groups 1 and 2 for each part of the questionnaire on day 7. Percentage of need for analgesics on day 7 was found significantly higher in Group 1 (42.9%) than Group 2 (31.2%). CONCLUSION: MLE at an angle <40° to the midline is associated with a higher score of perineal pain and an increase need for analgesics during the early postpartum days.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".