DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20151611

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

Pranav Sood, Anupa Sood, Rajeev Sood, Shivani Sood, Manisha Sood

Abstract


Background: The objective of the stusy was to ascertain any differences in fetomaternal outcomes in induced and spontaneous labour among primiparous women delivering at term without an identified indication for induction.

Methods: This was a prospective study of 500 women with spontaneous labour and 204 women with induced labour who were delivered at 37 weeks to 40+6 weeks gestation, all without identified medical and obstetrical indications for induction.

Results: Initial Bishop score in the induced group was low (≤5) in 78% compared to 46% in spontaneous group (p<0.001). Mean duration of total labour (9.1+4.42 Vs 8+4.41 hours), first stage of labour (8.5+2.3 Vs 7.4+1.6 hours) was significantly short in induced group as compared to spontaneous group (p<0.001). Induced subjects had higher incidence of caesarean delivery compared with spontaneous group (p=0.016), interestingly incidence of instrumental delivery was insignificantly higher in spontaneous group compared to induced group (7.8% vs. 3.9%, p=0.06), no difference was found regards second and third stage, duration of rupture of membranes, vaginal lacerations, 1 minute and 5 minute Apgar scores, admission to NICU and hospital stay.

Conclusions: Primipara who has spontaneous onset of labour the initial mean Bishop score is more compared to the subjects who have induced labour.  The study demonstrated a significant increase in rate of caesarean section when Bishop Score was ≤5 (p=0.047). Compared to those with spontaneous labour, primiparas with induced labour are more likely to have short duration of labour specially the first stage and higher incidence of caesarean delivery.

 


Keywords


Induction of labour, Spontaneous labour, Caesarean delivery, Instrumental delivery, Neonatal outcome

Full Text:

PDF

References


Chua S, Arulkumaran S. Intrapartum care. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;37:25-35.

Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, Cheng YW, GIenger A, Little SE et al. Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Elective Induction of Labor. Stanford: UCSF Evidences Based Practical centre (US). 2009 Report No. 09-E005.

Richardson A, Mmata C. Government Statistical Services for the Department of Health 2007. NHS Maternity Statistics, England. [Internet] 2005-2006.

Dunne C, Silva O, Schmidt G, Natale R. Outcomes of elective labour induction and elective caesarean section in low risk pregnancies between 37 and 41 weeks gestation. J Obstet Gynecol Canada .2009, 31(12):1124-30.

Peregrine E, O`Brien P, Omar R, Jauniaux E. Clinical and ultrasound parameters to predict the risk of caesarean delivery after induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107:227-33.

Smith LP, Nagourney BA, McLean FH, Usher RH. Hazards and benefits of elective induction of labour. Am J Obstet Gynecol .1984;148:579.

Yudkin P, Frumar AM, Turnbull AC. A retrospective study of induction of labour. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1979;86:257-65.

Johnson DP, Davis NR, Brown AJ. Risk of caesarean delivery after induction at term in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:1565-72.

Vrouenraets FPJM, Roumen FJME, Dehing CJG, Van den Akker ESA, Aarts MJB, Scheve EJT et al. Bishop score and risk of caesarean delivery after induction of labour in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:690-7.

Macer JA, Macer CL, Chan LS. Elective induction versus spontaneous labour: A retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:1690-7.

Dublin S, Rochelle ML, Kaplan RC, Watts DH, Critchlow CW. Maternal and Neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol .2000;183:986-94.

Prysak M, Castronova FC. Elective induction versus spontaneous labour: A Case-Control analysis of safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol .1998;92:47-52.

Seyb ST, Berka RJ, Socol ML, Dooley SL. Risk of caesarean delivery with elective induction of labour at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:600-7.

Tylleskar J, Finnstrom O, Leijon I, Hedenskog S, Ryden G. Spontaneous labor and elective induction-A prospective randomised study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1979;58:513-8.

Maslow AS, Sweeny AL. Elective induction of labour as a risk factor for caesarean delivery among low risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95: 917-22.

Hoffman M, Vahratian A, Sciscione A, Troendle J, Zhang J. Comparison of labour progression between induced and noninduced Multiparous women. Obstetrics and Gynaecology; 2006:107: 1029-1034.

Cammu H, Martens G, Ruyssinck G, Amy JJ. Outcome after elective labour induction in nulliparous women: A matched cohort study. Am J

Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:240-4.