4.5 Article

Changes in induction methods have not influenced cesarean section rates among women with induced labor

Journal

ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 95, Issue 1, Pages 112-115

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12809

Keywords

Induction of labor; cervical balloon; dinoprostone; misoprostol; Norway; cesarean section

Ask authors/readers for more resources

IntroductionInduction of labor has become more common in most countries during the last decade. We have compared methods and routines of labor induction as practiced in Norway in 2003 and 2013, and surveyed practices with regard to induction of labor without a medical indication in 2013. Material and methodsA telephone interview with all delivery units in Norway was conducted in 2003. Data on preferred induction methods, use of prostaglandin, dosages, dose intervals and routes of administration were collected. In 2013, the same questionnaire was used, with additional questions on induction of labor without a medical indication. Data on overall cesarean section and induction rates were obtained from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway. ResultsFrom 2003 to 2013 the induction rate increased by 62% and the cesarean section rate by 6%. The cesarean section rate in women with induced labor remained stable at 17.1 and 17.4%, respectively. In 2003, 31 of 43 hospitals used dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction. In 2013, 34 of 39 hospitals used misoprostol. A cervical balloon was used in three of 43 hospitals in 2003 compared with 31 of 39 in 2013. All but one hospital induced labor without a strict medical indication in 2013. ConclusionThe preferred methods for induction of labor changed within a decade to the use of misoprostol and cervical balloon. Induction of labor without strict medical indications is widely practiced. The changed induction methods have not influenced the cesarean section rates in women with induced labors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available