A cross-sectional study for induction to delivery interval with sweeping of membrane followed by misoprostol

Anmol A. Vaishnav; Chirom Pritamkumar Singh; Saiprittam Kar; Beena Gurung; Neiketouzo Kulnu; Botoxu Swu

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20260187

Authors

Anmol A. Vaishnav Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India
Chirom Pritamkumar Singh Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India
Saiprittam Kar Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India
Beena Gurung Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India
Neiketouzo Kulnu Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India
Botoxu Swu Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, Manipur, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20260187

Keywords:

Induction, Labor outcomes, Membrane sweeping, Misoprostol, Term pregnancy

Abstract

Background: Post-term pregnancy carries increased maternal and neonatal risks, necessitating timely and effective induction. Membrane sweeping is a simple mechanical technique that promotes endogenous prostaglandin release and may enhance the cervical-ripening effect of misoprostol. This study evaluated whether membrane sweeping before misoprostol improves induction outcomes in term nulliparous women.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 78 low-risk nulliparous women ≥40 weeks. Group 1 (n=39) received misoprostol alone, and group 2 (n=39) underwent membrane sweeping followed by misoprostol. Primary outcome was the induction-to-delivery interval; secondary outcomes included latency period, induction-to-full dilatation, labor duration, oxytocin requirement, maternal complications, and neonatal outcomes. Standard statistical tests and logistic regression were applied using IBM SPSS v1.0.0.1406.

Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable (mean age 26.47 years, BMI 23.38 kg/m², gestational age 40.32 weeks, Bishop score 4.37). Membrane sweeping significantly shortened duration of labor and time to full dilatation (p<0.05). The mean induction-to-delivery interval was 18.01 hours, with a faster trend in the sweeping group. Latency period strongly correlated with full dilatation (r=0.853) and induction-to-delivery interval (r=0.876) (p<0.001). Maternal and neonatal complications were similar. Mean APGAR scores were 6.87 at 1 minute and 8.88 at 5 minutes; mean birth weight 3.11 kg.

Conclusions: Membrane sweeping before misoprostol is a safe and effective adjunct that improves labor progression without increasing maternal or neonatal risks.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Kirmeyer S, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics National Vital Statistics System. Births: final data for 2005. Nat Vital Stat Rep. 2007;56(6):1-103.

Divon MY, Haglund B, Nisell H, Otterblad PO, Westgren M. Fetal and neonatal mortality in the postterm pregnancy: the impact of gestational age and fetal growth restriction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178(4):726-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70482-X

Bakketeig LS, Bergsjo P. Post-term pregnancy: magnitude of the problem. Effect care Pregnancy Childbirth. 1989;1:765-75.

Taylor B, Cross-Sudworth F, Rimmer M, Quinn L, Morris RK, Johnston T, et al. Induction of labour care in the UK: a cross-sectional survey of maternity units. PloS One. 2024;19(2):e0297857. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297857

Zenzmaier C, Leitner H, Brezinka C, Oberaigner W, König-Bachmann M. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor: a population-based study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(5):1175-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4354-4

Norwitz ER, Snegovskikh VV, Caughey AB. Prolonged pregnancy: when should we intervene? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;50(2):547-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e31804c9b11

Arrowsmith S, Wray S, Quenby S. Maternal obesity and labour complications following induction of labour in prolonged pregnancy. BJOG. 2011;118(5):578-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02889.x

American College of Nurse‐Midwives, Carlson NS, Dunn Amore A, Ellis JA, Page K, Schafer R. American college of nurse‐midwives clinical bulletin number 18: induction of labor. J Midwifery Women’s Health. 2022;67(1):140-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13337

ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 Pt 1):386-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5

Fridman M, Korst LM, Chow J, Lawton E, Mitchell C, Gregory KD. Trends in maternal morbidity before and during pregnancy in California. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(Suppl 1):S49-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301583

American College of Nurse-Midwives; Midwives Alliance of North America; National Association of Certified Professional Midwives. Supporting healthy and normal physiologic childbirth: a consensus statement by the American College of Nurse-Midwives, Midwives Alliance of North America, and the National Association of Certified Professional Midwives. J Midwife Womens Health. 2012;57(5):529-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-2011.2012.00218.x

Dublin S, Johnson KE, Walker RL, Avalos LA, Andrade SE, Beaton SJ, et al. Trends in elective labor induction for six United States health plans, 2001-2007. J Women's Health. 2014;23(11):904-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2014.4779

Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, Tita AT, 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566

Pransukhbhai PY, Londhe P. Study of maternal and fetal outcome in postdate pregnancy in tertiary care hospital. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2020;9(9):3585-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20203556

Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Casey BM, et al. Physiology of labor. In: Williams Obstetrics. 24th edn. McGraw Hill Education; 2014:408-432.

Applegate M, Wiggins M, Bailit JL. Are trends in the proportions of non-medically indicated inductions different by Medicaid status? J Perinatol. 2015;35(5):353-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2014.218

Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BW, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub2

Akins ML, Luby-Phelps K, Bank RA, Mahendroo M. Cervical softening during pregnancy: regulated changes in collagen cross-linking and composition of matricellular proteins in the mouse. Biol Reprod. 2011;84(5):1053-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.110.089599

Mei JY, Silverman NS. Group B Streptococcus in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin. 2023;50(2):375-87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2023.02.009

Finucane EM, Murphy DJ, Biesty LM, Gyte GM, Cotter AM, Ryan EM, et al. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000451.pub3

Boulvain M, Stan CM, Irion O. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000451.pub2

Boulvain M, Irion O, Marcoux S, Fraser W. Sweeping of the membranes to prevent post‐term pregnancy and to induce labour: a systematic review. BJOG. 1999;106(5):481-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08302.x

Boulvain M, Irion O. Stripping/sweeping the membranes for inducing labour or preventing post-term pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;2:CD000451-.

Wiriyasirivaj B, Vutyavanich T, Ruangsri RA. A randomized controlled trial of membrane stripping at term to promote labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87(5):767-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844(96)00015-4

Goldenberg M, Dulitzky M, Feldman B, Zolti M, Bider D. Stretching of the cervix and stripping of the membranes at term: a randomised controlled study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996;66(2):129-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-2115(96)02405-0

El‐Torkey MO, Grant JM. Sweeping of the membranes is an effective method of induction of labour in prolonged pregnancy: a report of a randomized trial. BJOG. 1992;99(6):455-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1992.tb13780.x

Cammu H, Haitsma V. Sweeping of the membranes at 39 weeks in nulliparous women: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 1998;105(1):41-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb09348.x

Wong SF, Hui SK, Choi H, Ho LC. Does sweeping of membranes beyond 40 weeks reduce the need for formal induction of labour? BJOG. 2002;109(6):632-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01193.x

Gupta R, Vasishta K, Sawhney H, Ray P. Safety and efficacy of stripping of membranes at term. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1998;60(2):115-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(97)00249-X

Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(4):698-704. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000157436.68847.3b

Bhatia A, Teo PL, Li M, Lee JY, Chan MX, Yeo TW, et al. Dinoprostone vaginal insert (DVI) versus adjunctive sweeping of membranes and DVI for term induction of labor. J Obstet Gynecol Res. 2021;47(9):3171-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.14907

Tan PC, Jacob R, Omar SZ. Membrane sweeping at initiation of formal labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;107(3):569-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000200094.89388.70

McColgin SW, Bennett WA, Roach H, Cowan BD, Martin Jr JN, Morrison JC. Parturitional factors associated with membrane stripping. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;169(1):71-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(93)90134-5

Kabiri D, Paltiel O, Ofek-Shlomai N, Nir-Paz R, Sompolinsky Y, Ezra Y. Membrane stripping in group B streptococcus carriers does not impede adequate intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis: a retrospective study. Front Med. 2024;11:1368998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1368998

Yildirim G, Güngördük K, Karadağ Öİ, Aslan H, Turhan E, Ceylan Y. Membrane sweeping to induce labor in low-risk patients at term pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. J Matern Fet Neonat Med. 2010;23(7):681-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/14767050903387078

Hassan AM. Membrane sweeping to induce labor in post-term pregnant women: success rate and outcomes. Cureus. 2023;15(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.36942

Liu J, Song G, Meng T, Zhao G. Membrane sweeping added to formal induction method to increase the spontaneous vaginal delivery: a meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;297:623-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4643-y

Nyamzi MG, Isah DA, Offiong RA, Isah AY. Effectiveness of sweeping of membranes in reducing the incidence of elective induction of labor for postdate pregnancies. Arch Med Surg. 2019;4:15-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/archms.archms_36_18

Day L, Fleener D, Andrews J. 86: Membrane sweeping with labor induction- a randomized control trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201(6):S47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.10.101