Search

Aim: The aim was to evaluate the influence of a half day, hands‐on, workshop on the detection and repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIs). Method: Starting in February 2011, hands‐on workshops for the diagnosis and repair of OASIs were delivered by trained urogynaecologists in departments of tertiary medical centres in Israel. The structure of the hands‐on workshop resembles the workshop organized at the International Urogynecological Association annual conferences. Participants included medical staff, midwives and surgical residents from each medical centre. We collected data regarding the rate of OASIs, 1 year before and 1 year following the workshop, in 11 medical centres. The study population was composed of parturients with the following inclusion criteria: singleton pregnancy, vertex presentation and vaginal delivery. Pre‐viable preterm gestations (< 24 weeks), birth weight < 500 g, stillborn, and those with major congenital anomalies, multifoetal pregnancies, breech presentations and caesarean deliveries were excluded from the analysis. Results: In the reviewed centres, 70 663 (49.3%) women delivered prior to the workshop (pre‐workshop group) and 72 616 (50.7%) women delivered following the workshop (post‐workshop group). Third‐ or fourth‐degree perineal tears occurred in 248 women (0.35%) before the workshop, and in 328 (0.45%) following the workshop, a significant increase of 28.7% (P = 0.002). The increase in diagnosis was significant also in women with third‐degree tears alone, 226 women (0.32%) before the workshop and 298 (0.41%) following the workshop, an increase of 28.3% (P = 0.005). Conclusion: The detection rate of OASIs has significantly increased following the hands‐on workshop. The implementation of such programmes is crucial for increasing awareness and detection rates of OASI following vaginal deliveries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We wanted to evaluate whether secundiparas who achieved vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) were at an increased risk for obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) compared to primiparas who delivered vaginally, with a stratification by the mode of delivery-spontaneous or operative vaginal delivery., Material and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of primiparous women who delivered by vacuum-assisted delivery between March 2011 and June 2019. Primiparas delivering vaginally and secundiparas undergoing VBAC were compared. The cohort was further stratified into two categories: spontaneous vaginal delivery and operative vaginal delivery., Results: Overall, 23 822 primiparas who delivered vaginally and 1596 secundiparas who underwent VBAC were analyzed. Operative vaginal delivery was performed in 4561 deliveries. OASI rate did not differ between the VBAC and primipara groups (1.3% vs 1.8%, P = .142). A total of 20 857 women delivered by spontaneous vaginal delivery, among them 1180 (5.7%) women were secundiparas and 19 677 (94.3%) were primiparas. OASI rate was comparable between the secundiparas undergoing VBAC and primiparas delivering vaginally (17 [1.4%] vs 338 [1.7%], P = .436). A total of 4561 women delivered by operative vaginal delivery, among them 416 (9.1%) were secundiparas and 4145 (90.9%) were primiparas. The rate of operative vaginal deliveries was higher among the VBAC group compared with the primipara group (6.1% vs 17.4%, P < .001). However, women undergoing successful VBAC had lower rates of OASI compared with primiparas (3 [0.7%] vs 96 [2.3%]; odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% CI 0.09-0.97, P = .032). After multivariate logistic regression including all statistically significant factors, OASI was not associated with VBAC in spontaneous or operative vaginal deliveries (adjusted OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51-1.40 and 0.39, 95% CI 0.12-1.28, respectively)., Conclusions: Secundiparas undergoing VBAC were not at a higher risk of OASI when compared with primiparas delivering vaginally, either in spontaneous or operative vaginal deliveries. This information might aid when counseling women contemplating a trial of labor after cesarean--to address their concerns regarding the risks and benefits of VBAC., (© 2020 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

Evaluation of a battalion medical unit drill in a chemical warfare environment was carried out by comparing two respiratory protective devices: a new protective device (the Chemical Team Respirator) and the mask currently used in the Israel Defense Forces (the M-15). After a medical deployment drill conducted with 24 participants and 14 inspectors, comfort, communication, and various aspects of activity were evaluated by structured questionnaires. The new device, consisting of a hood, nose cup, and air blower system, was found to be preferable to the M-15 mask for physical and respiratory comfort, quality of visual field, and performance. The communication capabilities of the unit members, on the other hand, were severely limited by the hearing reduction caused by the hood of the new protective device. We conclude that the new device proved superior to the current mask by facilitating better performance of the team at the drill. Interference with hearing must be dealt with technically or bypassed by modifications in the unit's mode of communication.