Vol 92, No 12 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-10-01

open access

Page views 6363
Article views/downloads 576
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Factors associated with caesarean section in women referred for preinduction — a nested case-control study in dinoprostone and misoprostol groups

Teresa Gornisiewicz1, Katarzyna Kusmierska-Urban2, Hubert Huras2, Aleksander Galas3
Pubmed: 35014015
Ginekol Pol 2021;92(12):892-901.


Objectives: Induction of labour is a beneficial perinatal procedure, but may be associated with some risks. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with the need for Caesarean section in women referred for preinduction with dinoprostone and misoprostol.
Material and methods: It was a retrospective cohort study of 560 pregnant women who underwent labour induction for medical reasons. Analyses were performed separately in the dinoprostone and misoprostol group. Above other characteristics, the diameters of the pelvis and abdominal circumference of pregnant women were analysed.
Results: There were some mothers’ characteristics like age, weight, BMI, presence of hypothyroidism or diabetes, which were not associated with Caesarean section deliveries. Women in the misoprostol group with gestational age less than 38 weeks had an increased risk of Caesarean section (OR 2.189; p = 0.041). The analyses of combined effect of mothers age and parity history showed 6.7 (in dinoprostone group) and over 10 times (in misoprostol group) increased the risk of Caesarean section in nulliparous women over 35 years of age.
Conclusions: The increased risk of Caesarean delivery in the dinoprostone group was combined with the intertrochanteric dimensions such as the mother’s height measuring less than 165 cm, nulliparity and hypertension. In the misoprostol group, strong risk factors for Caesarean delivery were mothers aged 35 years or more, gestational age less than 38 weeks and nulliparity and hypertension as in dinoprostone group. The oxytocin infusion had increased the risk of Caesarean section only in the combined dinoprostone and misoprostol group. Further high-quality studies are warranted.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Rayburn WF, Zhang J. Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies. Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 100(1): 164–167.
  2. Mhaske N, Agarwal R, Wadhwa RD, et al. Study of the risk factors for cesarean delivery in induced labors at term. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2015; 65(4): 236–240.
  3. Chaemsaithong P, Kwan AHW, Tse WT, et al. Factors that affect ultrasound-determined labor progress in women undergoing induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 220(6): 592.e1–592.e15.
  4. Gornisiewicz T, Kusmierska-Urban K, Huras H, et al. Comparison of Misoprostol versus Dinoprostone for delivery induction among pregnant women without concomitant disease. Ginekol Pol. 2020; 91(12): 726–732.
  5. Bomba-Opoń D, Drews K, Huras H, et al. Polish Gynecological Society Recommendations for labor induction. Ginekol Pol. 2017; 88(4): 224–234.
  6. Yeast JD, Jones A, Poskin M. Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: A review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 180(3 Pt 1): 628–633.
  7. Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJG, et al. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105(4): 690–697.
  8. Maslow AS, Sweeny AL. Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 95(6 Pt 1): 917–922.
  9. Hou L, Zhu Yu, Ma X, et al. Clinical parameters for prediction of successful labor induction after application of intravaginal dinoprostone in nulliparous Chinese women. Med Sci Monit. 2012; 18(8): CR518–CR522.
  10. Pevzner L, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, et al. Factors predicting successful labor induction with dinoprostone and misoprostol vaginal inserts. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114(2 Pt 1): 261–267.
  11. Spörri S, Gyr T, Schollerer A, et al. [Methods, techniques and assessment criteria in obstetric pelvimetry]. Z Geburtshilfe Perinatol. 1994; 198(2): 37–46.
  12. Korhonen U, Taipale P, Heinonen S. The diagnostic accuracy of pelvic measurements: threshold values and fetal size. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014; 290(4): 643–648.
  13. Feghali M, Timofeev J, Huang CC, et al. Preterm induction of labor: predictors of vaginal delivery and labor curves. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212(1): 91.e1–91.e7.
  14. Melamed N, Yogev Y, Hadar E, et al. Preinduction cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 at preterm. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008; 87(1): 63–67.
  15. Ramsey PS, Ramin KD, Ramin SM. Labor induction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 12(6): 463–473.
  16. Ramsey PS, Harris DY, Ogburn PL, et al. Comparative cost analysis of prostaglandin analogues dinoprostone and misoprostol as labor preinduction agents. Prim Care Update Ob Gyns. 1998; 5(4): 182–565.
  17. Pinheiro RL, Areia AL, Mota Pinto A, et al. Advanced maternal age: adverse outcomes of pregnancy, a meta-analysis. Acta Med Port. 2019; 32(3): 219–226.
  18. Hansen JP. Older maternal age and pregnancy outcome: a review of the literature. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1986; 41(11): 726–742.
  19. Jacobsson Bo, Ladfors L, Milsom I. Advanced maternal age and adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 104(4): 727–733.
  20. Jagielska I, Kazdepka-Ziemińska A, Tyloch M, et al. Obstetric outcomes of pre-induction of labor with a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert. Ginekol Pol. 2017; 88(11): 606–612.
  21. Hawkins JS, Stephenson M, Powers B, et al. Diabetes mellitus: an independent predictor of duration of prostaglandin labor induction. J Perinatol. 2017; 37(5): 488–491.
  22. Sievert RA, Kuper SG, Jauk VC, et al. Predictors of vaginal delivery in medically indicated early preterm induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217(3): 375.e1–375.e7.