Does the Epi-No(®) birth trainer prevent vaginal birth-related pelvic floor trauma? A multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial.

I Kamisan Atan, K L Shek, S Langer, R Guzman Rojas, J Caudwell-Hall, J O Daly, H P Dietz

Journal: BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2016;123(6):995-1003

PMID: 26924418

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Vaginal childbirth may result in levator ani injury secondary to overdistension during the second stage of labour. Other injuries include perineal and anal sphincter tears. Antepartum use of a birth trainer may prevent such injuries by altering the biomechanical properties of the pelvic floor. This study evaluates the effects of Epi-No(®) use on intrapartum pelvic floor trauma.

DESIGN

Multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Two tertiary obstetric units in Australia.

POPULATION

Nulliparous women carrying an uncomplicated singleton term pregnancy.

METHODS

Participants were assessed clinically and with 4D translabial ultrasound in the late third trimester, and again at 3-6 months postpartum. Women randomised to the intervention group were asked to use the Epi-No(®) device from 37 weeks of gestation until delivery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Levator ani, anal sphincter, and perineal trauma diagnosed clinically and/or with translabial ultrasound imaging.

RESULTS

Of 660 women randomised, 504 (76.4%) returned for assessment at a mean of 5 months postpartum. There was no significant difference in the incidence of levator avulsion [12 versus 15%; relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.51-1.32; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.03, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.09; P = 0.39], irreversible hiatal overdistension (13 versus 15%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52-1.42; ARR 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09; P = 0.51), clinical anal sphincter trauma (7 versus 6%; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49-2.60; ARR -0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.06; P = 0.77), and perineal tears (51 versus 53%; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78-1.17; ARR 0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.13; P = 0.65). A marginally higher rate of significant defects of the external anal sphincter on ultrasound was observed in the intervention group (21 versus 14%; RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.97-2.20; ARR -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.05; P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

Antenatal use of the Epi-No(®) device is unlikely to be clinically beneficial in the prevention of intrapartum levator ani damage, or anal sphincter and perineal trauma.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

No evidence of a protective effect of the Epi-No(®) device on intrapartum pelvic floor rauma.

© 2016 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Address: Sydney Medical School Nepean, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.; Sydney Medical School Nepean, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; Liverpool Clinical School, Liverpool Hospital, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; Sydney Medical School Nepean, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.; Facultad de Medicina, Clínica Alemana - Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.; Hospital Clínico de la Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.; Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.