A comparative study of spontaneous versus induced labor in primi and multiparous women at tertiary care centre

Priyanka Damor; Suresh Kumar Chavhan

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20222307

Authors

Priyanka Damor Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, RNT Medical College, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
Suresh Kumar Chavhan Department of Paediatrics, RNT Medical College, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20222307

Keywords:

Primigravida, Multigravida, Induction of labor

Abstract

Background: Objectives of the study were to compare progression of spontaneous versus induced labor in primigravida and multigravida women.

Methods: Pregnant women admitted in labor room of RNT medical college Udaipur during January 2021 to June 2021 were selected for this study. A total of 200 pregnant women were selected and divided into two groups. Women in group A were induced while in group B were women with spontaneous onset of labour. Labor progression in both was compared.

Results: In group A, the mean duration of active phase in primigravida was 4.08+2.30 hr. In group A, the mean duration of the second stage in a primigravida was 25.5+8.15 min and in a multigravida was 17.38+9.95 min. In group B,the mean duration of second stage in a primigravida was 41.3+9.6 min, while in a multigravida was 22.72+6.2h. The mean duration of active phase in group A in the primigravida and multigravida was almost similar, showing that induction does not have any effect on the duration of active phase. The mean duration of the second stage of group A in primigravida was 25 min and multigravida were 17 min showing that induction reduces the duration of the second stage.

Conclusions: Induction of labor when done at the right gestational age for correct indication is beneficial to women as it reduces the complications caused due to the continuation of high-risk pregnancies.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Konar H. Induction of labor in textbook of obstetrics. In: Dutta’Sdc, editor. Textbook of obstetrics. 8th ed. New delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers Pvt Ltd.; 2015:598.

Sagarika B, Lakshmi MM. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor at term: prospective study of outcome and complications. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;4899-907.

Grivell RM, Reilly AJ, Oakey H, chan A, Dodd JM. Maternal and neonatal outcomes following induction of labor: A cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91:198-203.

Roos N, Sahlin L, Ekman-Ordeberg G, Kieler H, Stephasson O. Maternal risk factors for post term pregnancy and cesarean delivery following labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89:1003-10.

Jonsson M, cnattingius S, Wikstrom AK. Elective induction of labor and the risk of cesarean section in low-risk parous women: A cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:198-203.

Abisowo OY, Oyinyechi AJ, Olusegun FA, Oyedokun OY, Motunrayo AF, Abimbola OT. Feto-maternal outcome of induced vs spontaneous labour in a Nigerian Tertiary Maternity Unit. Trop J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;34:21-7.

Ostborg TB, Romundstad PR, Eggebo TM. Duration of the active phase of labor in spontaneous and induced labors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96: 120-7.

Singh A, Rao SB, Sherigar B, D’souza R, Soumya R, Kaveri V. Comparison of progress of labour and maternofetal outcome among induced versus spontaneous labour in nulliparous women using modified WHO partograph. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2018;7:415-8.

Patel O, Pradhan S, Naik B. Comparative study of labour progress and delivery outcome among induced versus spontaneous labour in nulliparous women using modified WHO partograph. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2017;6:1844-9.

Yadav K, Ranga M, Nama A. Comparative study of induced and spontaneous labour in nulliparous women using modified WHO partograph. Int J Repro contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2014;20:14-9.