4.1 Article

Labour induction practices in France: A population-based declarative survey in 94 maternity units

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON, CORPORATION OFFICE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.11.006

关键词

Induction of labour; Cervical ripening; Prostaglandins; Oxytocin; Obstetric practices

资金

  1. national agency for drug safety and health products (ANSM) [AAP-2014-030]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. - In 2016, 22.0% of deliveries in France were induced. The current lack of high level of evidence data about the methods and indications for induction of labour has promoted heterogeneous and non-recommended practices. The extent of these different practices is not adequately known in France today, although they may influence perinatal outcomes. The objective of this study was to report current practices of induction of labour in France. Material and methods. - This study surveyed 94 maternity units in seven perinatal networks. A questionnaire was sent by email to either the department head or delivery room supervisor of these units to ask about their methods for induction and their attitudes in specific obstetric situations. Results. - The rate of induction varied between maternity units from 7.7% to 33% of deliveries. Most units used two (39.4%) or three or more (35.1%) agents for cervical ripening. In all, 87 (92.6%) units reported using dinoprostone as a vaginal slow-released insert, 59 units dinosprostone as a vaginal gel (62.8%) and 46 units a balloon catheter (48.9%). Only three units reported using vaginal misoprostol. Inductions without medical indication were reported by 71 (75.5%) maternity units, and 22 (23.4%) units even when the cervix was unfavourable. Obstetric attitudes in cases of breech presentation, previous caesareans, fetal growth restriction or macrosomia and prelabour rupture of the membranes varied widely. Discussion. - The variability of practices for induction of labour and the persistence of disapproved practices call for an assessment of the effectiveness and the safety of the different strategies. (C) 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据