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

Authors

  • Pranav Sood Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, HP, India
  • Rajeev Sood Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, HP, India
  • Shivani Sood Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, HP, India
  • Manisha Sood LTMMC, Sion, Mumbai

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7439/ijbr.v7i8.3294

Keywords:

Type 2 diabetes mellitus, CVD, Ferritin

Abstract

Background : To ascertain any differences in fetomaternal outcomes in induced and spontaneous labour among multiparous women delivering at term without an identified indication for induction. Methods : This was a prospective study of 212 women with spontaneous labour and 104 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 58.7% compared to 40.6% in spontaneous group (p=0.002). Mean duration of total labour (8.8+4.4vs 7.58+4.4hours), first stage of labour (8.26+2.4vs 7.02+1.3hours) was significantly short in induced group as compared to spontaneous group (p 0.001). Caesarean section rate was found to be insignificantly higher in induced group (18.3%) compared to (16.5% in) spontaneous group (p=0.69). Instrumental delivery rate was also higher in induced group (10.6%) as compared to spontaneous group (8.5%) but statistically insignificant (p=0.54), 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 : Multiipara who have spontaneous onset of labour the initial mean Bishop score is more compared to the subjects who have induced labour. The study did not demonstrate an increase in rate of caesarean section when Bishop score was ?5 (p=0.97). Compared to those with spontaneous labour, multiparas with induced labour are more likely to have short duration of labour specially the first stage but the mode of delivery is not affected.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Pranav Sood, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, HP, India
    Medical Officer, Department of Obs and Gynae
  • Rajeev Sood, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, HP, India
    Associate Professor, Department of Obs and Gynae
  • Shivani Sood, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, HP, India
    SR, Department of pathology
  • Manisha Sood, LTMMC, Sion, Mumbai
    JR, Department of physiology

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.

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.

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.

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.

Downloads

Published

2016-08-30

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles

How to Cite

1.
To ascertain any differences in fetomaternal outcomes in induced and spontaneous labour among multiparous women delivering at term without an identified indication for induction. Int Jour of Biomed Res [Internet]. 2016 Aug. 30 [cited 2025 Mar. 12];7(8):609-13. Available from: https://ssjournals.co.in/index.php/ijbr/article/view/3294