Hazards and benefits of elective induction of labor

Smith, L.P.; Nagourney, Beth A.; McLean, Frances H.; Usher, Robert H.

doi:10.1016/0002-9378(84)90752-x

Cited by 71 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Meconium-stained amniotic fluid is recorded less often in induced labor in our study, which is consistent with other studies [6,7,10]. This finding supports the hypothesis that meconium, with or without accompanying fetal distress, may play a role in the initiation of spontaneous labor [6].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Intervention Rates after Elective Induction of Labor Compared to Labor with a Spontaneous Onset

Gemund¹,

Hardeman²,

Scherjon³

et al. 2003

Gynecol Obstet Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Elective induction of labor has become a widely used procedure in obstetrics. A number of studies have shown an increased incidence of operative deliveries. The objective of this study was to evaluate the rate of interventions in our hospital, including operative delivery. Methods: A matched cohort study in which labor of 122 electively induced women and 122 women with labor with a spontaneous onset were analyzed retrospectively. These women were matched for parity and gestational age. Results: Pain relief, fetal scalp blood sampling and operative deliveries were recorded more frequently in the electively induced labor group. Cesarean delivery was found in 15% of women with induced labor, and in 1% of labors with a spontaneous onset (relative risk 18 (95% CI 2.4–132.7)). No differences were found in neonatal outcomes. Conclusions: Elective induction of labor leads to increased intervention rates during labor. The rate of cesarean delivery is high, particular in nulliparous women and multiparous women without a previous vaginal birth.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Intervention Rates after Elective Induction of Labor Compared to Labor with a Spontaneous Onset

Gemund¹,

Hardeman²,

Scherjon³

et al. 2003

Gynecol Obstet Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study meconium stained liquor as an indication for cesarean section is found in 3 cases, which accounts for 4.8% in the induced group and among the spontaneous group meconium stained liquor is taken as an indication in 4 cases which accounts to 16.6%. This result is comparable with the previous trials done by Cole et al, Smith et al and Kato K et al [11][12][13] This can be explained by the hypothesis that fetus in stress induces labor and hence meconium can be observed in cases of spontaneous group than the induced group. However, meconium and its associated complications are less in induced group than the spontaneous group.…”

Section: 8supporting

confidence: 91%

“…5 The risk of neonatal complications was comparable between both the groups with 14% in induced group and 8.5% in spontaneous group. This is comparable with the studies done by Macer et al, Smith et al, Prysak et al 5,7,12 In all these studies the neonatal complications among the induced and spontaneous group were comparable and hence indicating that elective induction per se does not pose any harm to fetus. The most common complication in the induced group is hyperbilirubinemia that is 17 cases.…”

Section: 8supporting

confidence: 89%

Elective induction versus spontaneous labor at term: prospective study of outcome and complications

Babu¹,

Manjeera²

2017

Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study aims at identifying the association between inductions of labor in nullipara and multipara to caesarean delivery and other associated maternal and neonatal outcomes.Methods: The study subjects were divided into two groups, elective induction group and spontaneous labor group. They were matched for maternal age, parity and gestational age. Duration of first and second stage of labor, mode of delivery, if caesarean section, indication for caesarean section and its relation to Bishop score, maternal age, birth weight was analyzed. Maternal intrapartum and post-partum complications and fetal outcome were also analyzed.Results: Out of the 400 women in the study, 200 were induced and 200 were those who went into spontaneous labor. The rate of cesarean section rate among induced group is 31% and was statistically significant. But the analysis of the same after excluding risk factors like nulliparity, Bishop score <5 and birth weight >3.5 kg it was found that the rate of cesarean section is 37.1%, but was statistically not significant when compared to the spontaneous group.There was significant decrease in the duration of second stage of labor in the induced primipara group with p value of 0.038. There was no significant difference in the maternal and neonatal complications.Conclusions: This study concludes that elective induction in carefully selected low risk population, excluding the above-mentioned risk factors does not pose any increased risk of cesarean section. Elective induction does not cause any increased risk to mother and fetus.

show abstract

“…The present study is comparable to Smith LP et al (1984) (7% infants in group 1 and 6.8% in group 2 had 1 minute apgar score <7) 6 , Macer JA et al (1992) (3.2% in group 1 and 4.7% in group 2), 10 Dunne C et al (2009) who reported the 1 minute apgar score separately among primipara (9.2% infants in group 1 and 9.3% in group 2) and multipara (6.3% in group 1 and 5% in group 2). 4 All these studies including the present study demonstrated no significant difference as regards the percentage of infants with apgar score <7 at 1 minute between the study and control groups.…”

supporting

confidence: 88%

“…caesarean delivery rates in group 2 among the primipara subjects which was statistically significant. 6 Dublin S et al (2000) reported 9.9% and 19.4% caesarean delivery rates in group 1 and group 2 among primiparas which was statistically significant. 11 Dunne C et al (2009) also showed significant difference in caesarean delivery rates among primiparas (6.6% and 13.3% in group 1 and group 2 respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

To ascertain any differences in fetomaternal outcomes in induced and spontaneous labour among primiparous women delivering at term without an identified indication for induction

Sood

et al. 2016

Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hazards and benefits of elective induction of labor

Cited by 71 publications

References 12 publications

Intervention Rates after Elective Induction of Labor Compared to Labor with a Spontaneous Onset

Intervention Rates after Elective Induction of Labor Compared to Labor with a Spontaneous Onset

Elective induction versus spontaneous labor at term: prospective study of outcome and complications

To ascertain any differences in fetomaternal outcomes in induced and spontaneous labour among primiparous women delivering at term without an identified indication for induction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About