Mechanical Induction of Labour with Oxytocin Augmentation
Authors/Creators
- 1. Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences, Narkatpally, Nalgonda, Telangana, India.
- 2. Associate Professor, Kamineni Institute of Medical Sciences, Narkatpally, Nalgonda, Telangana, India.
Description
Background: One of the most popular obstetric procedures performed in obstetric facilities is labour induction. For over one-fifth of labours, induction is required. There are currently a variety of techniques for inducing labour; the most popular ones are mechanical and pharmacological. The aim of present study is to assess the efficacy of mechanical method of induction of labour with oxytocin augmentation. Methods: The present prospective study was conducted at department of obstetrics and gynecology among 100 pregnant women requiring induction of labour during the study period of two years. A thorough medical history was recorded, including the mother’s age, parity, and gestational age and other baseline investigations were completed and data was analyzed using SPPS version 25.0. Results: The most common indications of labour induction were term gestation (62%), gestational hypertension (20%), GDM (5%). Induction to delivery interval was variable in primigravida (62) and multigravida (38). The mean weight of neonate was 3.026 kgs. APGAR score at 1 mt was 6.48± 0.87 and at 5 mt was 8.87 ± 0.07. Conclusion: Mechanical methods work well for inducing labour. If they would be used in combination with other methods would give best results.
Abstract (English)
Background: One of the most popular obstetric procedures performed in obstetric facilities is labour induction. For over one-fifth of labours, induction is required. There are currently a variety of techniques for inducing labour; the most popular ones are mechanical and pharmacological. The aim of present study is to assess the efficacy of mechanical method of induction of labour with oxytocin augmentation. Methods: The present prospective study was conducted at department of obstetrics and gynecology among 100 pregnant women requiring induction of labour during the study period of two years. A thorough medical history was recorded, including the mother’s age, parity, and gestational age and other baseline investigations were completed and data was analyzed using SPPS version 25.0. Results: The most common indications of labour induction were term gestation (62%), gestational hypertension (20%), GDM (5%). Induction to delivery interval was variable in primigravida (62) and multigravida (38). The mean weight of neonate was 3.026 kgs. APGAR score at 1 mt was 6.48± 0.87 and at 5 mt was 8.87 ± 0.07. Conclusion: Mechanical methods work well for inducing labour. If they would be used in combination with other methods would give best results.
Files
IJPCR,Vol16,Issue1,Article297.pdf
Files
(274.2 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:71ed2115090ec0aaaac39bf830449695
|
274.2 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2024-01-18
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/16/IJPCR,Vol16,Issue1,Article297.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Levine LD, Downes KL, Elovitz MA, Parry S, Sammel MD, Srinivas SK. Mechanical and Pharmacologic Methods of Labor Induction: A Randomized Controlled Trial. In: Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016; 128:1357-1364. 2. Bonsack CF, Lathrop A, Blackburn M. Induction of Labor: Update and Review. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014;59(6):606-615. 3. Induction L. ACOG Committee Opinion no. 597: Committee on Obstetric Practice: Labor induction or augmentation and autism. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1140-1142. 4. Nazneen S, Sultana F, Nahaer K. IntravaginalMesoprostal Versus Transcervical Foley's catheter for Pre-induction cervical ripening and their outcome – A Comparative study. Bangladesh J of Obstet and Gynaecol. 2012;27(2):72- 8. 5. Jozwiak M, BloemenkampKWM, Kelly AJ, Mol BWJ, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane database Syst Rev. 2012;(3):CD001233. 6. de Vaan MDT, ten EikelderMLG, Jozwiak M, Palmer KR, Davies-Tuck M, Bloemenkamp KW, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 10:CD001233. 7. McCarthy FP, Kenny LC. Induction of labour. ObstetGynaecolReprod Med. 2014;24(1):9-15. 8. Maroto Martín MT, RevellesPaniza L, Ruiz Durán S, CopadoSalido S, BarrancoArmenteros M, Puertas Prieto A. Mechanical methods for labour induction. J Perinat Med. 2015;43. 9. Ballarat Health Services. Induction of labour: Transcervical Catheter. Induction labourtranscervical Catheter. 2011;7(3):481-509. 10. Arshad AH, Zainuddin AA, GhaniNAA, Ali A. The efficiency of laminaria as an adjunct to induction of labour with prostin: A randomised controlled trial. BJOG An Int J ObstetGynaecol. 2016; 123:156. 11. Emarah M. Stripping of Membranes in Induction of Labour. Int J Recent Adv Multidiscip Res. 2015;02(10):875-878. 12. Bricker L, Luckas M. Amniotomy alone for induction of labour. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2000. 13. RoudsariFV, Ayati S, Ghasemi M, Mofrad MH, Shakeri MT, Farshidi F, Shahabian M. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol with foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Iranian journal of pharmaceutical research: IJPR. 2011;10(1):149. 14. Murmu S, Dwivedi C. A comparative study of intracervical Foley's catheter and intracervicalPGE2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening. IJRCOG. 2018;7(8):3122-5. 15. Shashi P, Bala A, Sinha M, GoelJK. A Comparative study of intracervical Foley's catheter with oxytocin and vaginal misoprostal for induction of labour. IJRCOG. 2020;9(9):3660-4. 16. Noor N, Ansari M, Ali SM, Parveen S. Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction. International journal of reproductive medicine. 2015;2015. 17. Kenneth G, Perry Jr, J FlaineLarman, Warren L May, Lynd G, Robinette R N, BSN and Rick W Martin. Cervical ripening: A Randomised comparison between intracervical balloon catheter combined with intravaginaldinoprostone. American Journal of Obst and Gynaecol. 1998;178(9):1333- 40