Induction of labor in women with a uterine scar
2016 (English)In: The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, ISSN 1476-7058, E-ISSN 1476-4954, Vol. 29, no 20, 3286-3291 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Objective: To evaluate the frequency of uterine rupture following induction of labor in women with a previous cesarean section. Misoprostol was compared to other methods of induction.
Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 208 women attempting induction of labor after one previous cesarean section. Delivery data were collected retrospectively and compared. Group 1(2009-2010) was compared with Group 2 (2012-2013). In Group 1, the main method of induction was vaginal PGE(2) (prostaglandin-E-2), amniotomy, oxytocin or a balloon catheter. In Group 2, the dominant method of induction was an oral solution of misoprostol. Main outcome measures: frequency of uterine rupture in the two groups.
Results: Nine cases (4.3%) of uterine rupture occurred. There was no significant difference in the frequency of uterine rupture following the change of method of induction from PGE(2), amniotomy, oxytocin or mechanical dilatation with a balloon catheter to orally administered misoprostol (4.1 versus 4.6%, p=0.9). All ruptures occurred in women with no prior vaginal delivery.
Conclusion: The shift to oral misoprostol as the primary method of induction in women with a previous cesarean section did not increase the frequency of uterine rupture in the cohort studied.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 29, no 20, 3286-3291 p.
Induction of labor, misoprostol, PGE2, TOLAC, uterine scar
Medical and Health Sciences
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-302671DOI: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1123242ISI: 000380130200010PubMedID: 26699657OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-302671DiVA: diva2:967456