Verifying Post-delivery Anal Sphincter Integrity Using Perineal Ultrasound: Impact on Immediate Care

The secondary objectives of this study are:

A. Compare the anal incontinence score (measured by the Wexner score, qualitative and quantitative assessment) at 3 months between the two groups.

B. To assess the safety of perineal ultrasound in the group with "ultrasound" using a visual analog scale for discomfort

C. Assess the inter and intra operator consistency of perineal ultrasound snapshot readings

D. Evaluate and compare the rate of infectious complications of perineal sutures between the two groups at 3 months.

E. Evaluate and compare the quality of life (questionnaires PFIQ, PFDI, SF36, Euroqol) between the two groups at 3 months.

Inclusion criteria

• The patient must have given her informed and signed consent
• The patient must be insured or beneficiary of a health insurance plan
• The patient is available for 3 months of follow-up
• Paturient, vaginal births only
• Presence of >= stage 2 perineal lesion
• Patient accepts a priori the performance of a perineal ultrasound

Exclusion criteria

• The patient is participating in another study (excepting BBBOX (2011-A00327-36), ElastoMAP (2013-A01148-37), ElastoDéclench, BAKRI, Papillo PMA, GrossPath, LXRs, DGPostPartum, "scalp lactates", and UpSideDown studies)
• The patient is in an exclusion period determined by a previous study
• The patient is under judicial protection, under tutorship or curatorship
• The patient refuses to sign the consent
• It is impossible to correctly inform the patient
• Delivery by C-section
• Intact perineum after delivery (no indication for perineal surgery in light of absence of vaginal lesion)
• Emergency situation preventing time for perineal ultrasound
• History of anal incontinence before giving birth
• Allergy to ultrasound gel