Effects of Episioguide – a 60° mediolateral episiotomy guide device – on post suture episiotomy angle: a randomized controlled trial

Main Article Content

Chatsaran Thanapongpibul
Maysita Suksamarnwong


Objective: To compare the post-suture episiotomy angles between women who had or did not have their incisions made using the Episioguide, a 60° mediolateral episiotomy (MLE) guide device.

Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at the HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Medical Center, Nakhon Nayok, Thailand. Eligible women were randomized into two groups, the first including women who had a MLE using the Episioguide and the second with women who had a conventional MLE. The primary outcome was a comparison of the rates of post-suture episiotomy angles in the safe zone (30°-60°) between the groups.

Results: 112 eligible pregnant women were recruited, of whom 88 underwent randomization, 44 each in the Episioguide and conventional MLE groups. The procedures using the Episioguide had a significantly higher rate of achieved post-suture episiotomy angles in the desired 30°-60° range (RR = 1.526, 95% CI = 1.023-2.277, p-value = 0.032), and there was a statistically significant difference in mean post suture angles between the two groups, 34.636° ± 9.445° in the Episioguide group and 27.614° ± 9.267° in the standard procedure group (mean difference = 7.022, 95% CI = 3.057-10.988, p-value = 0.001).

Conclusion: Using the Episioguide to perform a MLE achieved a significantly higher rate of post-suture episiotomy angles in the safe zone compared with conventional MLE.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Original Article
Author Biography

Maysita Suksamarnwong, Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University


1. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Casey BM, et al. Williams Obstetrics, 25th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2018.
2. Sooklim R, Thinkhamrop J, Lumbiganon P, et al. The outcomes of midline versus medio-lateral episiotomy. Reprod Health. 2007; 4:10.
3. Lewicky-Gaupp C, Leader-Cramer A, Johnson LL, Kenton K, Gossett DR. Wound complications after obstetric anal sphincter injuries. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(5):1088-1093.
4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Committee on Practice Bulletins Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 165: Prevention and Management of Obstetric Lacerations at Vaginal Delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128(1):e1-e15.
5. Norderval S, Nsubuga D, Bjelke C, Frasunek J, Myklebust I, Vonen B. Anal incontinence after obstetric sphincter tears: incidence in a Norwegian county. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004; 83(10):989-994.
6. Pereira GMV, Hosoume RS, de Castro Monteiro MV, Juliato CRT, Brito LGO. Selective episiotomy versus no episiotomy for severe perineal trauma: a systematic review with meta-analysis [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 24]. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;10.1007/s00192-020-04308-2. doi:10.1007/s00192-020-04308-2.
7. WHO recommendations: Intrapartum care for a positive childbirth experience. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.
8. Drusany Staric K, Lukanovic A, Petrocnik P, Zacesta V, Cescon C, Lucovnik M. Impact of mediolateral episiotomy on incidence of obstetrical anal sphincter injury diagnosed by endoanal ultrasound. Midwifery. 2017; 51: 40-43.
9. Stedenfeldt M, Pirhonen J, Blix E, Wilsgaard T, Vonen B, Øian P. Episiotomy characteristics and risks for obstetric anal sphincter injuries: a case-control study. BJOG. 2012; 119(6): 724-730.
10. Kalis V, Landsmanova J, Bednarova B, Karbanova J, Laine K, Rokyta Z. Evaluation of the incision angle of mediolateral episiotomy at 60 degrees. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;112(3):220-224.
11. Naidu M, Kapoor DS, Evans S, Vinayakarao L, Thakar R, Sultan AH. Cutting an episiotomy at 60 degrees: how good are we?. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(6):813-816.
12. Sawant G, Kumar D. Randomized trial comparing episiotomies with Braun-Stadler episiotomy scissors and EPISCISSORS-60(®). Med Devices (Auckl). 2015;8:251-254.
13. van Roon Y, Kirwin C, Rahman N, et al. Comparison of obstetric anal sphincter injuries in nulliparous women before and after introduction of the EPISCISSORS-60(®) at two hospitals in the United Kingdom. Int J Womens Health. 2015;7: 949-955.
14. van Roon Y, Vinayakarao L, Melson L, Percival R, Pathak S, Pradhan A. Comparative study of episiotomy angles achieved by cutting with straight Mayo scissors and the EPISCISSORS-60 in a birth simulation model. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(7):1063-1066.
15. Koh LM, van Roon Y, Pradhan A, Pathak S. Impact of the EPISCISSORS-60 mediolateral episiotomy scissors on obstetric anal sphincter injuries: a 2-year data review in the United Kingdom. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(9):1729-1734.
16. Divakova O, Khunda A, Ballard PA. Episcissors-60™ and obstetrics anal sphincter injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(3):605-612. doi:10.1007/s00192-019-03901-4