There is also a 2006 Cochrane Review about the benefits of perinatal massage.

Interestingly it says that perinatal massage either by hand or with a machine makes a significant difference to chance of having tear sutured in women giving birth the first time. It says that the results are better for women who massage on average 1.5 times a week but NOT for women who massage more frequently.

They couldn't find any difference between using machines or hands. But they also said no one has ever run a test comparison between machine and hand.

It doesn't seem to make any difference to whether you tear or not, or have an episiotomy, just whether you get stitched. I don't quite get that but anyway....

here's the abstract and an extract for those of you who don't want to get the article from the cochrane review database.

Beckmann MM, Garrett AJ. Antenatal perineal massage for reducing perineal trauma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006.

Background
Perineal trauma following vaginal birth can be associated with significant short- and long-term morbidity. Antenatal perineal massage has been proposed as one method of decreasing the incidence of perineal trauma.

Objectives
To assess the effect of antenatal perineal massage on the incidence of perineal trauma at birth and subsequent morbidity.

Main results
Three trials (2434 women) comparing digital perineal massage with control were included. All were of good quality. Antenatal perineal massage was associated with an overall reduction in the incidence of trauma requiring suturing (three trials, 2417 women, relative risk (RR) 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 0.96), number needed to treat (NNT) 16 (10 to 39)). This reduction was statistically significant for women without previous vaginal birth only (three trials, 1925 women, RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.96), NNT 14 (9 to 35)). Women who practised perineal massage were less likely to have an episiotomy (three trials, 2417 women, RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.97), NNT 23 (13 to 111)). Again this reduction was statistically significant for women without previous vaginal birth only (three trials, 1925 women, RR 0.85 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.97), NNT 20 (11 to 110)). No differences were seen in the incidence of 1st or 2nd degree perineal tears or 3rd/4th degree perineal trauma. Only women who have previously birthed vaginally reported a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of pain at threemonths postpartum (one trial, 376 women, RR 0.68 (95%CI 0.50 to 0.91) NNT 13 (7 to 60)). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of instrumental deliveries, sexual satisfaction, or incontinence of urine, faeces or flatus for any women who practised perineal massage compared with those who did not massage.

Authors’ conclusions
Antenatal perineal massage reduces the likelihood of perineal trauma (mainly episiotomies) and the reporting of ongoing perineal pain and is generally well accepted by women. As such, women should be made aware of the likely benefit of perineal massage and provided with information on how to massage.

In the article itself it says:

(A) Perineal trauma requiring suturing
Perineal massage was associatedwith an overall 9%reduction in the incidence of trauma requiring suturing (three trials, 2417 women, relative risk (RR) 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 0.96), number needed to treat (NNT) 16 (10 to 39)). This reduction was statistically significant for women without previous vaginal birth only (three trials, 1925 women, RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.96), NNT 14 (9 to 35)). Subgroup analysis revealed
that women who massaged up to an average of 1.5 times per week experienced a 17% reduction (two trials, 1500 women, RR 0.83 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.92), NNT 9 (6 to 18)), women who massaged an average of 1.5 to 3.4 times perweek experienced a 8%reduction (two trials, 1650 women, RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.00), NNT 22 (10 to 208)), while women who massage more than 3.5 times per week did not experience a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of trauma requiring suturing (two trials, 1598 women, RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.02)).