Hands on vs Hands Off for Perineal Laceration

Different strategies have been adopted in the late first and/or second stage of labor to decrease the incidence of perineal lacerations. These strategies include not only the hands-on technique, but also warm compresses, perineal massage, the use of oil or jelly, the Ritgen maneuver and a new perineal protection device. The review by Aasheim reported a decreased risk of third- and fourth-degree lacerations in the perineal massage group (two studies, RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.94).4 This review also showed a similar reduction in third- and fourth-degree lacerations with warm compresses (two studies, RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.84), but no significant changes with use of a Ritgen maneuver. Additional reviews have evaluated delayed versus immediate pushing, with no significant difference in perineal trauma.

Regarding how the interventions may work, initially the hands-on technique was hypothesized to control the velocity of the crowning process and therefore decrease perineal trauma. Given the fact that the hands-on approach has been found to be possibly associated with more perineal lacerations instead of less, some have proposed that the harm may be caused by the hands-on approach's additional pressure resulting in some perineal ischemia. Moreover, using one intervention (e.g. hands-on) may predispose to use other interventions (e.g. episiotomy), which have themselves been proven to increase perineal trauma.

Perhaps a combination of perineal interventions, such as massage or compresses, with a hands-off approach and avoidance of episiotomy, will prove to show improved perineal outcomes. Larger studies, including evaluation specific for nulliparous subjects, are required to make definitive recommendations for management.