Literature DB >> 26430658

Risk of cesarean section after induced versus spontaneous labor at term gestation.

Hye Ran Lee1, Mi-Na Kim1, Ji Yeon You1, Suk-Joo Choi1, Soo-Young Oh1, Cheong-Rae Roh1, Jong-Hwa Kim1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the cesarean section (CS) rate is increased in women whose labor was induced compared to those who had spontaneous labor at term pregnancy.
METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in women whose labor was either induced (induction group, n=497) or spontaneous (spontaneous group, n=878) at 37+0 to 41+6 weeks of gestation from January 2008 to June 2009. Maternal age, parity, body mass index (BMI), Bishop scores, gestational age, hypertension, diabetes, delivery mode, indications for CS, neonatal outcome were compared between the two groups. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between the CS rate and labor induction after adjusting for potential confounding variables.
RESULTS: CS (17.3% vs. 5.3%, P<0.001) and vacuum-assisted delivery (10.7% vs. 6.4%, P<0.001) rates were significantly higher in the induction group compared to the spontaneous group. The CS rate in the induction group was higher than the spontaneous group not only in nulliparous women (25.3% vs. 8.6%, P<0.001), but also in multiparous women (3.8% vs. 0.3%, P=0.002). However, after adjusting confounding factors, the higher CS rate was significantly associated with advanced maternal age, higher BMI, lower Bishop scores and nulliparity, with no demonstrable tie to labor induction. Neonatal outcome in the two groups were comparable.
CONCLUSION: Although CS rate was higher in women whose labor was induced than those who had spontaneous labor, this higher rate was associated with maternal age, BMI, Bishop scores and parity, but was not impacted by labor induction per se.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cesarean section; Labor induction; Spontaneous labor

Year:  2015        PMID: 26430658      PMCID: PMC4588838          DOI: 10.5468/ogs.2015.58.5.346

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Sci        ISSN: 2287-8572


  17 in total

1.  Labor induction and the risk of a cesarean delivery among nulliparous women at term.

Authors:  Deborah B Ehrenthal; Xiaozhang Jiang; Donna M Strobino
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women.

Authors:  Francis P J M Vrouenraets; Frans J M E Roumen; Cary J G Dehing; Eline S A van den Akker; Maureen J B Aarts; Esther J T Scheve
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  The impact of duration of labor induction on cesarean rate.

Authors:  Kenneth A Michelson; Darcy B Carr; Thomas R Easterling
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix.

Authors:  Sarah Osmundson; Robin J Ou-Yang; William A Grobman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Comparative study of induction of labor in nulliparous women with premature rupture of membranes at term compared to those with intact membranes: duration of labor and mode of delivery.

Authors:  Kyo Hoon Park; Joon-Seok Hong; Ji Kyung Ko; Yong Kyoon Cho; Chul Min Lee; Hoon Choi; Bok Rin Kim
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Res       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.730

6.  Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: a matched cohort study.

Authors:  Hendrik Cammu; Guy Martens; Gunther Ruyssinck; Jean-Jacques Amy
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women.

Authors:  S T Seyb; R J Berka; M L Socol; S L Dooley
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Risk factors for cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix at or beyond 41 weeks of gestation.

Authors:  Ga Hyun Son; Jeong Hyeon Kim; Ja Young Kwon; Young Han Kim; Yong Won Park
Journal:  Gynecol Obstet Invest       Date:  2013-11-01       Impact factor: 2.031

Review 9.  Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy.

Authors:  Aaron B Caughey; Vandana Sundaram; Anjali J Kaimal; Allison Gienger; Yvonne W Cheng; Kathryn M McDonald; Brian L Shaffer; Douglas K Owens; Dena M Bravata
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates.

Authors:  Linda J Heffner; Elena Elkin; Ruth C Fretts
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  4 in total

1.  Why do multiparous women with a history of vaginal delivery give birth by cesarean section?

Authors:  Hale Göksever Çelik; Ayşegül Bestel; Engin Çelik; Alev Atış Aydın
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2016-12-01

2.  Predicting factors for success of vaginal delivery in preterm induction with prostaglandin E2.

Authors:  Yoo Min Kim; Ju Young Park; Ji-Hee Sung; Suk-Joo Choi; Soo-Young Oh; Cheong-Rae Roh; Jong-Hwa Kim
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Sci       Date:  2017-03-16

3.  Proportion and Outcome of Induction of Labor Among Mothers Who Delivered in Teaching Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia.

Authors:  Tewodros Yosef; Dawit Getachew
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-12-23

4.  Failed induction of labor and associated factors among women undergoing induction at University of Gondar Specialized Hospital, Northwest Ethiopia.

Authors:  Tsion Tadesse; Nega Assefa; Hirbo Shore Roba; Yohannes Baye
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 3.007

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.