Hazards and benefits of elective induction of labor at term


  • Perveena Fareed Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GMC Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
  • Suzaira Bashir Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GMC Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
  • Sameer Ahmed Lone Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GMC Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India




Apgar score, Caesarean section, Elective induction, Neonatal intensive care unit admission


Background: The objective of this study was to compare the rates of caesarean section and neonatal outcome in patients with elective induction of labor compared to patients with spontaneous onset of labor.

Methods: Authors studied 200 patients with 100 in elective induction group and 100 in spontaneous onset laboring group. Two groups were compared with respect to demographic profile, basic examination, ultrasound findings, P/A, P/V findings, duration of labor, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome.

Results: Various parameters like age residence, per abdominal findings were comparable in two groups. Labor was not prolonged in study group compared to control group. Rate of caesarean section remained high in induction group (21%) in comparison to spontaneous laboring group (4%). Rate of instrumental deliveries did not differ significantly between the groups. 5 min Apgar score did not vary significantly; however, the NICU admission was higher in induction group compared to spontaneous laboring group. Duration of hospital stay was longer in study group.

Conclusions: Elective induction of labor has higher rates of caesarean deliveries. NICU admission was also longer in induction group.


Smith LP, Nagourney BA, McLean FH, Usher RH. Hazards and benefits of elective induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1984;148:579.

Yeast JD, jones A, Poskin M. Induction of labor and relationship to cesarean delivery. A review of 7001 consective inductions. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;180(3 pt 1):628-33.

Dublin S, Lydon-Rochelle M, Kaplan RC, Watts DH, Critchlow CW. Maternal and neonatal outcomes after induction of labor without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;183(4):986-94.

Kaufman KE, Bailit JL, Grobman W. Elective induction: an analysis of economic and health consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(4):858-63.

Glantz JC. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor associations and outcomes. J Rep Med. 2005;50(4):235-40.

Maslow AS, Sweeny AL. Elective induction of labor as risk factor for caesarean delivery among low risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95(6):917-22.

Van Gemund N, Hardeman A, Scherjon SA, Kanhai HH. Intervention rates after elective induction of labor compared to labor with a spontaneous onset. A matched cohort study. Gynaecol Obstet Invest. 2003;56(3):133-8.

Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehling CJ, VAnden akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ. Bishops score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;105(4)688-9.

Vahratain A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;105(4):688-9.

Jhonson DP, Davis NR, Brown AJ. Risk of cesarean delivery after induction at term in nulliparos women with an unfavourable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;188(6):1565-9.

Turcot L, Marcoux S, Fraser WD. Multivarait analysis of risk factors for operative delivery in nulliparos women. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;176(2):395-402.

Cammu H, Martens G, Ruyssinck G, Mijj. Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparos women. A matched cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;186(2):240-4.






Original Research Articles