DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20201055

Evaluation of induction of labour in a tertiary care hospital

Janupalli Kiran Poornima, Vijayalakshmi K., Anuradha C. R., Famida ., Sai Latha R.

Abstract


Background: The objective is to evaluate the preferred methods for labor induction, including incidence of caesarean section, operative and normal vaginal delivery rate, need for oxytocin augmentation, and Apgar score at 1 and 5 min.

Methods: This was a hospital-based study carried out in 110 inductions of labour during the study period. misoprostol 50 mcg was inserted in posterior fornix of vaginal in cases with PROM and intracervical 0.5 mg Dinoprostone for other causes in whom induction was decided. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were observed. collected data were analyzed using SPSS and MS excel.

Results: Most preferred methods of induction of labour were observed to be Dinoprostone and Misoprostol, augmentation was done by oxytocin. normal delivery rate was 54% in Dinoprostone gel and 58.3% in misoprostol group. Caesarean and operative vaginal delivery rates were 42.8%, 3% in Dinoprostone gel group and 33.3%, 8.3% respectively in misoprostol group. Mean Apgar scores were observed to be similar in both methods of induction at 1st and 5th minutes.

Conclusions: It was found that misoprostol had higher percentage of normal and operative vaginal delivery and need for oxytocin augmentation than Dinoprostone. Neonatal outcome as predicted by Apgar score were similar in both groups.


Keywords


Apgar scores, Dinoprostone, Induction of labour, Misoprostol

Full Text:

PDF

References


Laughon SK, Zhang J, Grewal J, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Reddy UM. Induction of labor in a contemporary obstetric cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:486.e481-489.

Crane JM. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49:573-84.

Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;1:CD000941.

Tang OS, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Ho PC. Misoprostol: pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side-effects. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99 (Suppl 2):S160-S167.

Shannon CS, Winikoff B. Misoprostol: An Emerging Technology for Women’s Health: Report of a Seminar. New York, NY: Population Council; 2004:7-8.

Hawkins JS, Wing DA. Current pharmacotherapy options for labor induction. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2012;13:2005-14.

Church S, Van Meter A, Whitfield R. Dinoprostone compared with misoprostol for cervical ripening for induction of labor at term. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2009;54:405-11.

World Health Organization. WHO Recommendations for Induction of labour. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/ 44531/1/9789241501156_eng.pdf. Accessed 15th May 2016.

Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BW, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;14(3):CD001233.

Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ, Medley N, Dias S, et al. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(65):1-584.

Daniel‐Spiegel E, Weiner Z, Ben‐Shlomo I, Shalev E. For how long should oxytocin be continued during induction of labour?. An Inter J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;111(4):331-4.

Heimstad R, Romundstad PR, Eik-Nes SH, Salvesen KÅ. Outcomes of pregnancy beyond 37 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(3):500-8.

Heimstad R, Skogvoll E, Mattsson LÅ, Johansen OJ, Eik-Nes SH, Salvesen KÅ. Induction of labor or serial antenatal fetal monitoring in post-term pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(3):609-17.

ACOG technical bulletin. Induction of labor. Number 217--December 1995 (replaces no. 157, July 1991). American College of Obstetricians Gynecologists: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1996;53(1):65-72.

Sheela CN, Mhaskar A, George S. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol and oral misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostol gel for induction of labour at term. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2007;57(4):327-30.

Patil KP, Swamy MK, Rao Radhika K. Oral Misoprostol vs. intra-cervical cerviprime for cervical ripening and labour induction. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2005;55(2):128-31.

Murthy BK, Arkalgud MS. Misoprostol alone versus a combination of cerviprime and oxytocin for induction of labour. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2006;56(5):413-6.

Parmar M, Aherwar R, Jahan I. Comparative study of 25 µg vaginal misoprostol v/s cerviprime gel for induction of labour at term. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2014;3(4):887-92.