ABSTRACT

Conclusion:

Antenatal perineal massage is effective in reducing the episiotomy necessity and the duration of the second stage of labor compared to the control group, but no significant difference was found with intrapartum perineal massage. So, we recommend starting intrapartum perineal massage in patients who have not started in the antenatal period.

Results:

14 (25.5%) patients in AG, 11 (18.6%) patients in IG, and 5 (8.6%) patients in CG were delivered without performing episiotomy (p=0.04). The rate of having an intact perineum (no perineal laceration) was statistically significantly higher in AG (eight in AG, three in IG, two in CG) (p=0.03). Third degree perineal laceration was less common in both AG and IG compared to CG. However, there was a statistically significant difference only between AG and CG (p=0.04).

Materials and Methods:

One hundred and seventy-three nulliparous pregnant women who delivered at 37–42 weeks of gestation were included in the study. Of these pregnants, 55 were in the antenatal massage group (AG), 59 were in the intrapartum massage group (IG), and 59 were in the control group (CG). Among these groups, demographic data of the patients, whether vacuum was applied during delivery, duration of the second stage of labor, whether episiotomy was performed, the degree-of-perineal injury, if any, and 1st and 5th minute Apgar scores were compared.

Objectives:

We aimed to compare antepartum and intrapartum perineal massage in nulliparous patients to a control group in terms of “reducing the episiotomy necessity, duration of the second stage of labor, obstetric outcomes, and perineal injury”; and aimed to see if these two massages were superior to each other.