Induction of labor with three different techniques at 41 weeks of gestation or spontaneous follow-up until 42 weeks in women with definitely unfavorable cervical scores

Gelişen, Orhan; Çalışkan, Eray; Dilbaz, Serdar; Ozdas, E.; Dilbaz, Berna; Haberal, Alı

doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.08.013

Cited by 70 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] The details of our search can be found in Figure 1. The studies' details are summarised in Table 1, and their quality assessment is detailed in Table 2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis

Fox

Roman³

et al. 2011

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics &Amp; Gynaecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There are a number of agents used for cervical ripening prior to the induction of labour. Two commonly used agents are intravaginal misoprostol and a transcervical Foley catheter.Objective To review the evidence comparing misoprostol and transcervical Foley catheter placement for induction of labour, and perform a meta-analysis comparing these two induction agents.Search strategy We conducted database searches of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library Database, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website. Bibliographies of all relevant articles were reviewed.Selection criteria Prospective, randomised trials comparing the use of intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical Foley catheter for the purpose of cervical ripening and induction of labour were included. We excluded studies in which the patients in these two intervention groups also received other induction agents concurrently, such as oral misoprostol, oxytocin, or other prostaglandins.Data collection and analysis The primary outcomes selected were time to delivery, and the rates of caesarean section, uterine tachysystole, and chorioamnionitis. Random-effects generalised linear models with a poisson distribution and log link function were used to compare the two induction agents across the studies.Main results Nine studies (1603 patients) were identified as eligible to be included in this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in the mean time to delivery (mean difference 1.08 ± 2.19 hours shorter for misoprostol, P = 0.2348), the rate of caesarean delivery (RR 0.991; 95% CI 0.768, 1.278), or in the rate of chorioamnionitis (RR 1.130; 95% CI 0.611, 2.089) between women who received misoprostol compared with transcervical Foley catheter. Patients who received misoprostol had significantly higher rates of tachysystole compared with women who received a transcervical Foley catheter (RR 2.844; 95% CI 1.392, 5.812).Conclusions Intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical Foley catheter have similar effectiveness as induction agents. Transcervical Foley catheter is associated with a lower incidence of tachysystole.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis

Fox

Roman³

et al. 2011

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics &Amp; Gynaecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[26] Similarly, Gelisen O et al in 2007 also reported 4.3% of babies were admitted in NICU among induced patient but another study done by Nielsen P et al in 2005 reported that there was no NICU admission of baby in induced group. [27,28] Peters M in 1995 reported 1% of neonatal death in induction groups. [29] Lampe LG also reported 0.05% of neonatal death in contrast to Praysak M who reported that there was no neonatal death in induced patients.…”

Section: Indications For Inductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome of Induction of Labor: A Prospective Study

Lamichhane¹,

Subedi²,

Banerjee³

et al. 2016

AIMDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Induction is defined as artificial initiation of uterine contraction with the aim of achieving the normal vaginal delivery. It is most widely accepted obstetrical intervention worldwide. The most common indication for induction is post dated pregnancy. Objective: To assess the outcome of induction in both mother and baby. Methods: During our study period, 391 patients were selected for induction due to various indications. Most of them were induced with tablet Misoprostol and only those with higher degree of gravida were induced with Dinoprostone gel intracervically and maternal and fetal outcome was seen.Results: Out of 4020 patients, induction rate was 9.72%. Among them 98.2% were induced with Misoprostol. Most of the induced age group was in between 20-30 years of age with primigravida 62%. Among them 48.59% were in between 40-41 weeks of gestation with 93% of having poor bishops score. About 67.7% had normal vaginal delivery with 4.86%, assisted with instrumental delivery. Cesarean section was seen in 32.3% of patients. Most common indications for LSCS were for failed induction (44%). Regarding the fetal outcome 99.7% born alive, 97.92% went to mother side, 2.07% admitted and 0.51% expired. Beside this, 88.7% had birth weight between 2.5 to 3.5 kg and 87.4% had clear liquor and 99.22% had the good apgar score. Conclusion: Though the cesarean section rate is higher in this study in comparison of WHO references to be not more than 15% but still the induction is beneficial in high-risk pregnancy where continuing the pregnancy is more hazardous than to termination.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have shown that the rate of induced vaginal delivery is significantly higher in multiparous women compared to nulliparous women (4)(5)(6)(7) . In addition, some other studies have reported that no significant difference was found between the patients delivered by vaginal delivery and cesarean section (8,9) . In our study, the rate of induced vaginal delivery was significantly higher in multiparous women compared to nulliparous women (p=0.019; p<0.05).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%