Study of comparison of maternal and fetal outcomes in spontaneous labour and induced labour

Apurva A. Mankar, Bhaskar K. Murthy, Vaibhav B. Patil


Background: There has been consistent proportionate increase in the cases of induction of labor, but both maternal and neonatal effects of it remain poorly analysed previously. The present study was undertaken with the objective of comparison of maternal and fetal outcomes between groups of patients undergoing induction of labor and those having spontaneous labor.

Methods: In this comparative prevalence study, the participants selected by predefined criteria were divided into 2 groups on the basis of progression of labor. They were spontaneous labor (group A) and induction of labor (group B). All the participants were assessed for various relevant maternal and neonatal outcomes and valid comparisons drawn.

Results: A total of 1300 participants were studied. Proportion of patients requiring caesarean section was significantly higher in induction group (39.17%) against the spontaneous labor group (15.37%), with fetal distress being the commonest indication in both groups. The commonest complication noted was postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) (2.96% in group A and 1.98% in group B, p<0.05). Mean birth weight of babies was 2.76±0.42 kgs in spontaneous labor group and 2.68±0.48 kgs in induction of labor group (p>0.05). Incidences of NICU admissions and neonatal deaths were significantly higher in induction of labor group.

Conclusions: Induction of labor should be employed judiciously by assessing the maternal and fetal condition and confirming relevant indication and should only be done if continuation of pregnancy is relatively more hazardous to either mother or baby.


Induction of labor, Spontaneous labor, Maternal outcome, Fetal outcome

Full Text:



Chelmow DA, Kilpatrick SJ, Laros RK. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after prolonged latent phase. Obstetr Gynecol. 1993;81(4):486-91.

McNiven PS, Williams JI, Hodnett E, Kaufman K, Hannah ME. An early labor assessment program: a randomized, controlled trial. Birth. 1998;25(1):5-10.

Stock SJ, Ferguson E, Duffy A, Ford I, Chalmers J, Norman JE. Outcomes of elective induction of Labor compared with expectant management: population based study. BMJ. 2012:344.

Rayburn WF, Zhang J. Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies. Obstetr Gynecol. 2002;100(1):164-7.

Simpson KR, Atterbury J. Trends and issues in labor induction in the United States: implications for clinical practice. J Obstetr Gynecol Neonat Nurs. 2003;32(6):767-79.

Vogel JP, Souza JP, Gülmezoglu AM. Patterns and outcomes of induction of labor in Africa and Asia: a secondary analysis of the WHO global survey on maternal and neonatal health. PloS One. 2013;8(6):65612.

Norwitz E, Robinson J, Repke J. Labor and delivery. In: Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL, eds. Obstetrics: normal and problem pregnancies. 4th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2002: 353-94.

Sarvanan N, Jha N, Dhodapkar SB, Kandasamy R. Fetomaternal outcome in medically indicated induction of labor at term gestation. J Clinic Diagn Res. 2017;11(11).

Cammu H, Martens G, Ruyssinck G, Amy JJ. Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: a matched cohort study. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. 2002;186(2):240-4.

Kandemir O, Dede H, Yalvac S, Aldemir O, Yirci B. The effect of parity on labor induction with prostaglandin E2 analogue (dinoprostone): an evaluation of 2090 cases. J Preg Child Health. 2015;2(149):2.

Gardosi J, Vanner T, Francis A. Gestational age and induction of labor for prolonged pregnancy. BJOG Int J Obstetr Gynaecol. 1997;104(7):792-7.

Sujata P, Chanania K, Hansa J, Chanania K. Comparative study between elective induction of labor and spontaneous labor. Adv Biores. 2017;8(2).

Tripathy P, Baby P. Induction of labor by prostaglandin: a review for indications and risk for cesarean section. Asian J Pharmaceut Clinic Res. Vol. 2017;10(10):75-81.

Pant L, Mansukhani GN, Garud M. Fetal outcome following induction and augmentation of Labor by oxytocic agents. J Obstet Gynaecol Ind. 1991;41(4):472-5.

Misra M, Vavre S. Labor induction with intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel and intravenous oxytocin in women with a very unfavourable cervix. Austral N Z J Obstetr Gynaecol. 1994;34(5):511-5.

Arulkumaran S, Gibb DM, TambyRaja RL, Heng SH, Ratnam SS. Failed induction of labor. Austral N Z J Obstetr Gynaecol. 1985;25(3):190-3.

Xenakis EM, Piper JM, Conway DL, Langer O. Induction of labor in the nineties: conquering the unfavorable cervix. Obstetr Gynecol. 1997;90(2):235-9.

Bueno B, San-Frutos L, Perez-Medina T, Barbancho C, Troyano J, Bajo J. The labor induction: integrated clinical and sonographic variables that predict the outcome. Journal of perinatology. 2007;27(1):4-8.

Babu S, Manjeera ML. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor at term: prospective study of outcome and complications. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6:4899-907.

Macer JA, Macer CL, Chan LS. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. 1992;166(6):1690-7.

Tan PC, Valiapan SD, Tay PY, Omar SZ. Concurrent oxytocin with dinoprostone pessary versus dinoprostone pessary in labor induction of nulliparas with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised placebo‐controlled trial. BJOG Int J Obstetr Gynaecol. 2007;114(7):824-32.

Menticoglou SM, Hall PF. Routine induction of labor at 41 weeks gestation: nonsensus consensus. BJOG Int J Obstetr Gynaecol. 2002;109(5):485-91.