Lustrum study of labour induction

Prabha P. Sawant; Shilpa N. Chaudhari; Kishorkumar Hol; Shraddha Shastri

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20221940

Authors

Prabha P. Sawant Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Shilpa N. Chaudhari Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Kishorkumar Hol Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Shraddha Shastri Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20221940

Keywords:

Induction, Cesarean, Prostaglandins, PIH, IUGR

Abstract

Background: The rate of labor induction is steadily increasing. Approximately one out of four pregnant women has their labor induced. Over the years, various professional societies have recommended the use of induction of labor in circumstances in which the risk of waiting for the onset of spontaneous labor are judged by clinicians to be greater than the risks associated with shortening duration of pregnancy by induction. This study was carried out to categories indications and to know trends of indication over 5 years.

Methods: This retrospective analytical study was conducted over a period of five years from 01 June 2016 to 31 May 2021 at the department of obstetrics and gynecology, tertiary care hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India. The rate, indications and trend in indications of labor induction was calculated over the study period. The data so collected was presented with graphical representation.

Results: There was a total of 10407 deliveries during the study period out of which, 865 were induced. So, the rate of labor induction in the study was found to be 8.31%. Post-datism accounts for 54.4% followed by pregnancy induced hypertension remains the major obstetric cause accounting for 16.6% of labour induction. Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) accounted for 3.6% causes of labour induction.

Conclusions: Vaginal birth has lesser morbidity and mortality involving both the mother and the child compared to caesarean and will always be regarded as the superior mode of delivery. Apart from post-datism, the commoner obstetric indications for induction of labour are PIH and IUGR. Increasing trend in the incidence of pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH) and IUGR is observed and therefore probably correlating to foetal distress after induction of labour causing increased trend of need for caesarean section over the five years.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

Prabha P. Sawant, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Smt. Kashibai Navale Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Department of OBGY

References

WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labor. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press. 2011. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501156_eng.pdf. Accessed on 24 February 2022.

ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins - Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2):386-97.

Complications of labor induction. NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 70. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK). London: RCOG Press. 2008.

Osmundson S, Ou-Yang RJ, Grobman WA. Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:583-7.

Gibson KS, Waters TP, Bailit JL. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in electively induced low-risk term pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(3):249.

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;344:2838.

Cheng YW, Kaimal AJ, Snowden JM, Nicholson JM, Caughey AB. Induction of labor compared to expectant management in low-risk women and associated perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(6):502.

Darney BG, Snowden JM, Cheng YW. Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:761-9.

Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, Tita ATN, Silver RM, Mallett G, et al. Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513-23.

Chawla S, Singh SK, Saraswat M, Vardhan S. Induction of labor: Our experience. J Mar Med Soc. 2017;19:96-8.

Patterson JA, Roberts CL, Ford JB, Morris JM. Trends and outcomes of induction of labor among nullipara at term. Aust N Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;51:510-17.

Brun R, Spoerri E, Schäffer L, Zimmermann R, Haslinger C. Induction of labor and postpartum blood loss. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):265.

Lueth GD, Kebede A, Medhanyie AA. Prevalence, outcomes and associated factors of labor induction among women delivered at public hospitals of MEKELLE town (a hospital based cross sectional study). BMC Preg Childbirth. 2020;20:203.

Mozurkewich EL, Chilimigras JL, Berman DR, Perni UC, Romero VC, King VJ, et al. Methods of induction of labor: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2011;11(84).

Alfirevic Z, Kelly AJ, Dowswell T. Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Rev. 2009;4:CD003246.

Guerra GV, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, Faúndes A, Morais SS, Gülmezoglu AM, et al. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor in Latin America. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89:657-65.