OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to determine whether patients undergoing labor induction can be reliably evaluated by means of standard labor assessment curves. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective chart review of 123 patients who underwent cervical ripening and induction of labor, Friedman's standard labor curves were used for comparison. Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test. RESULTS: Nulliparous and parous patients undergoing cervical ripening spent more time in active-phase labor than standard expectations of labor progression would indicate (12.7 +/- 7.8 vs 5. 9 +/- 3.4 hours for nulliparous women, P <.001; 7.9 +/- 6.4 vs 2.5 +/- 1.5 hours for parous women, P <.001). Nulliparous and parous patients who were delivered vaginally spent more time in active labor than did their respective standard historical control populations (10.3 +/- 8.0 vs 5.9 +/- 3.4 hours for nulliparous women, P <.001; 7.0 +/- 6.0 vs 2.5 +/- 1.5 hours for parous women, P <. 001). CONCLUSION: Standard methods for the evaluation of labor adequacy and prediction of the likelihood of vaginal delivery may not apply to patients undergoing cervical ripening.
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to determine whether patients undergoing labor induction can be reliably evaluated by means of standard labor assessment curves. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective chart review of 123 patients who underwent cervical ripening and induction of labor, Friedman's standard labor curves were used for comparison. Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test. RESULTS: Nulliparous and parous patients undergoing cervical ripening spent more time in active-phase labor than standard expectations of labor progression would indicate (12.7 +/- 7.8 vs 5. 9 +/- 3.4 hours for nulliparous women, P <.001; 7.9 +/- 6.4 vs 2.5 +/- 1.5 hours for parous women, P <.001). Nulliparous and parous patients who were delivered vaginally spent more time in active labor than did their respective standard historical control populations (10.3 +/- 8.0 vs 5.9 +/- 3.4 hours for nulliparous women, P <.001; 7.0 +/- 6.0 vs 2.5 +/- 1.5 hours for parous women, P <. 001). CONCLUSION: Standard methods for the evaluation of labor adequacy and prediction of the likelihood of vaginal delivery may not apply to patients undergoing cervical ripening.
Authors: Lorie M Harper; Alison G Cahill; Sarah Boslaugh; Anthony O Odibo; David M Stamilio; Kimberly A Roehl; George A Macones Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-09-24 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Michelle A Kominiarek; Jun Zhang; Paul Vanveldhuisen; James Troendle; Julie Beaver; Judith U Hibbard Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Claartje M A Huisman; Mieke L G Ten Eikelder; Kelly Mast; Katrien Oude Rengerink; Marta Jozwiak; Frédérique van Dunné; Johannes J Duvekot; Jim van Eyck; Ingrid Gaugler-Senden; Christianne J M de Groot; Maureen T M Franssen; Nicolette van Gemund; Josje Langenveld; Jan Willem de Leeuw; Eefje J Oude Lohuis; Martijn A Oudijk; Dimitri Papatsonis; Mariëlle van Pampus; Martina Porath; Sabina Rombout-de Weerd; Jos J van Roosmalen; Paulien C M van der Salm; Hubertina C J Scheepers; Marko J Sikkema; Jan Sporken; Rob H Stigter; Wim J van Wijngaarden; Mallory Woiski; Ben Willem J Mol; Kitty W M Bloemenkamp Journal: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Date: 2019-03-07 Impact factor: 3.636