Labour outcomes with defibulation at delivery in immigrant Somali and Sudanese women with type III female genital mutilation/cutting
There is a scarcity of studies on labour outcomes with defibulation. This study assessed the outcomes of labour with defibulation at delivery in women with type III female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) compared to labour without defibulation.
We identified and reviewed the records of all Somali and Sudanese women who delivered at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, between January 2012 and December 2016. Labour outcomes of women with type III FGM/C who delivered vaginally with defibulation at delivery were compared to the outcomes of women without type III FGM/C who delivered vaginally without defibulation. Data extracted from the records included demographics, registration status, and labour outcomes.
During the study period, 1086 Somali and Sudanese women delivered at our institution, with 42% delivering by caesarean section. Among the 631 women with vaginal delivery, 27% had type III FGM/C and delivered with defibulation while 73% did not have type III FGM/C and delivered without defibulation. Demographic and clinical factors were similar between the two groups who delivered vaginally. The outcomes of labour with defibulation at delivery in women with type III FGM/C were not different from women without defibulation, except in regards to instrumental delivery and maternal blood loss. There were also no statistically significant differences between the two groups in neonatal outcomes.
Defibulation at delivery is an effective minor surgical procedure that should be in the armamentarium of the healthcare providers managing women with type III FGM/C.
- World Health Organization. WHO guidelines on the management of health complications from female genital mutilation. Geneva: WHO; 2016. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/206437/1/9789241549646_eng.pdf?ua=1 [cited 2020 July 6].
- United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund. Female genital mutilation/cutting: a global concern. Geneva: UNICEF; 2016. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/media/files/FGMC_2016_brochure_final_UNICEF_SPREAD.pdf [cited 2020 July 6].
- UNFPA/UNICEF. Joint evaluation of the UNFPA-UNICEF joint programme on the abandonment of female genital mutilation: accelerating change phase I and II: 2008–2017. Available at: https://www.unfpa.org/updates/joint-evaluation-unfpa-unicef-joint-programme-abandonment-female-genital-mutilation [cited 2020 July 6].
- World Health Organization. Female genital mutilation. Geneva: WHO; 2016. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ [cited 2020 July 6]
- Berg RC, Underland V, Odgaard-Jensen J, Fretheim A, Vist GE. Effects of female genital cutting on physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2014;4(11):e006316. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006316
- Berg RC, Underland V. The obstetric consequences of female genital mutilation/cutting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:496564. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/496564
- Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Female genital mutilation and its management. Green-top guideline No. 53. Available at: https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg53/ [cited 2020 July 6].
- Rosenberg LB, Gibson K, Shulman JF. When cultures collide: female genital cutting and U.S. obstetric practice. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(4):931–4. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181998ed3
- Koukoui S. Female genital cutting/mutilation: a challenge for patients and clinicians. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39(12):1185–7. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2017.06.027
- Okusanya BO, Oduwole OA, Nwachukwu NS, Meremikwu M. Deinfibulation for preventing or treating complications in women living with type III female genital mutilation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;136:13–20. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12056
- Berg RC, Taraldsen S, Said MA, Sørbye IK, Vangen S. The effectiveness of surgical interventions for women with FGM/C: a systematic review. BJOG. 2018;125(3):278–87. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14839
- Rouzi AA, Al-Sibiani SA, Al-Mansouri NM, Al-Sinani NS, Al-Jahdali EA, Darhouse K. Defibulation during vaginal delivery for women with type III female genital mutilation. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(1):98–103. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182590343
- Abdulcadir J, Rodriguez MI, Say L. Research gaps in the care of women with female genital mutilation: an analysis. BJOG. 2015;122(3):294–303. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13217
- Public Policy Advisory Network on Female Genital Surgeries in Africa. Seven things to know about female genital surgeries in Africa. Hastings Cent Rep. 2012;42(6):19–27. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.81
- Raouf SA, Ball T, Hughes A, Holder R, Papaioannou S. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes for women with reversed and non-reversed type III female genital mutilation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;113(2):141–3. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.10.028
- Paliwal P, Ali S, Bradshaw S, Hughes A, Jolly K. Management of type III female genital mutilation in Birmingham, UK: a retrospective audit. Midwifery. 2014;30(3):282–8. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2013.04.008
- Rouzi AA, Aljhadali EA, Amarin ZO, Abduljabbar HS. The use of intrapartum defibulation in women with female genital mutilation. BJOG. 2001;108(9):949–51. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00227.x
- De Silva S. Obstetric sequelae of female circumcision. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1989;32(3):233–40. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-2243(89)90041-5
- Berg RC, Taraldsen S, Said MA, Sørbye IK, Vangen S. Reasons for and Experiences With Surgical Interventions for Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C): A Systematic Review. J Sex Med. 2017;14(8):977–90. doi:.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.05.016