title: Hands on or hands off the perineum: a survey of care of the perineum in labour (HOOPS).
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  There seems to be a temporal association between increasing use of "hands off" the perineum in labour and reduced use of episiotomy with an increasing rate of anal sphincter injuries. We aimed to determine how common the practice of "hands off" the perineum is.
  
  
  METHODS
  An observational postal questionnaire study of 1,000 midwives in England in which the main objective was to obtain an estimate of the number of midwives practising either "hands on" or "hands off" was conducted.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Six hundred and seven questionnaires were returned; 299 (49.3%, 95% CI 45.2-53.3%) midwives prefer the "hands-off" method. Less-experienced midwives were more likely to prefer the "hands off" (72% vs. 41.4%, p < 0.001). A higher proportion of midwives in the "hands-off" group would never do an episiotomy (37.1% vs. 24.4%, p = 0.001) for indications other than fetal distress.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The "hands off" the perineum technique is prevalent in the management of labour. We hypothesise that a possible consequence might be an increased incidence of obstetric anal sphincter injury.
authors: The Chilterns, Women's Health, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK. ruben.trochez@nhs.net
authors: Ruben
authors: R
authors: Trochez
authors: Malcolm
authors: M
authors: Waterfield
authors: Robert M
authors: RM
authors: Freeman
references: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001 Mar;80(3):229-34
references: 11207488
references: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Dec;105(12):1262-72
references: 9883917
references: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010 Jun;150(2):142-6
references: 20359810
references: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010 Feb;108(2):97-100
references: 19922933
references: Birth. 2006 Jun;33(2):117-22
references: 16732776
references: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Feb 23;6:5
references: 16504090
references: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998 Nov;77(10):974-7
references: 9849840
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Jun;107(6):1261-8
references: 16738150
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2008 May;111(5):1053-7
references: 18448735
references: BJOG. 2006 Feb;113(2):190-4
references: 16411997
references: BJOG. 2000 Jul;107(7):926-31
references: 10901566
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Oct;116(4):901-908
references: 20859154
references: BJOG. 2008 Jun;115(7):857-65
references: 18485164
references: BJOG. 2001 Apr;108(4):383-7
references: 11305545
references: BJOG. 2005 Aug;112(8):1156-8
references: 16045535
references: Prev Med. 2009 Dec;49(6):535-40
references: 19850070
references: Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2009 May;394(3):535-8
references: 19048278
references: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001 Mar;80(3):256-61
references: 11207492
references: J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003 Nov;23(6):611-4
references: 14617460
references: Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005 Apr;271(4):307-10
references: 15024575
references: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Sep;146(1):71-5
references: 19482405
references: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008 Oct;103(1):5-8
references: 18674760
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Dec;108(6):1394-401
references: 17138772
references: Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Feb;105(2):307-13
references: 15684157
references: J Reprod Med. 2002 Jun;47(6):477-82
references: 12092017
references: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(10):1252-8
references: 17068686
references: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(7):856-60
references: 16817086
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):MR000008
references: 19588449
references: BJOG. 2008 Jan;115(2):234-8
references: 17999696
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21;(1):CD000081
references: 19160176