Vol 94, No 12 (2023)
Research paper
Published online: 2023-07-19

open access

Page views 602
Article views/downloads 324
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Comparison of labor duration of induced labor with dinoprostone insert vs spontaneous labor

Katarzyna A. Skibinska1, Magdalena Kolak1, Agnieszka Micek2, Hubert Huras1, Andrzej Jaworowski1
Pubmed: 37548500
Ginekol Pol 2023;94(12):984-989.

Abstract

Objectives: Labor induction is one of the most common procedures in modern obstetrics. One in five pregnant women and 30–40% of women delivering vaginally undergo this procedure. If the cervical status is unfavorable, a ripening process is used prior to induction to shorten the duration of oxytocin administration and maximize the possibility of vaginal birth. The aim of this study was to compare the duration of labor induced with dinoprostone vaginal insert to spontaneous labor. Material and methods: It was a retrospective study conducted between May 2019 and February 2021 in the tertiary reference center, the Obstetrics and Perinatology Department of the Jagiellonian University Hospital in Krakow. The research group involved 182 patients in singleton pregnancy at term, qualified for cervical ripening procedure. The control group consisted of 178 patients that were delivering spontaneously and admitted to the delivery ward in the first stage of labor. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the duration of labor between groups. To find factors affecting the procedure we compared different models consisting of maternal and fetal characteristics. Results: Successful vaginal delivery in the dinoprostone group was achieved in the group of 88% of patients. There was no significant difference in labor duration between the groups: 315 minutes in the study group and 300 min in the control group. Only being primipara was a factor related to longer labor in both groups. Conclusions: Pre-induction with dinoprostone insert and additional foley catheter, if indicated, does not make labor longer in comparison with spontaneous labor.

ORIGINAL PAPER / OBSTETRICS

Ginekologia Polska

2023, vol. 94, no. 12, 984–989

Copyright © 2023 PTGiP

ISSN 0017–0011, e-ISSN 2543–6767

DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2023.0070

Comparison of labor duration of induced labor with dinoprostone insert vs spontaneous labor

Katarzyna A. Skibinska1Magdalena Kolak1Agnieszka Micek2Hubert Huras1Andrzej Jaworowski1
1Jagiellonian University Medical College, Department of Obstetrics and Perinatology, Cracow, Poland
2Statistical Laboratory, Institute of Nursing and Midwifery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Cracow, Poland

Corresponding author:

Katarzyna A. Skibinska

Jagiellonian University Medical College, Department of Obstetrics and Perinatology, 23 Kopernika St, 31-501 Cracow, Poland

e-mail: skibinska.katarzyna.anna@gmail.com

Received: 17.02.2023 Accepted: 22.05.2023 Early publication date: 19.07.2023

This article is available in open access under Creative Common Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license, allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Labor induction is one of the most common procedures in modern obstetrics. One in five pregnant women and 3040% of women delivering vaginally undergo this procedure. If the cervical status is unfavorable, a ripening process is used prior to induction to shorten the duration of oxytocin administration and maximize the possibility of vaginal birth. The aim of this study was to compare the duration of labor induced with dinoprostone vaginal insert to spontaneous labor.

Material and methods: It was a retrospective study conducted between May 2019 and February 2021 in the tertiary reference center, the Obstetrics and Perinatology Department of the Jagiellonian University Hospital in Krakow. The research group involved 182 patients in singleton pregnancy at term, qualified for cervical ripening procedure. The control group consisted of 178 patients that were delivering spontaneously and admitted to the delivery ward in the first stage of labor. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the duration of labor between groups. To find factors affecting the procedure we compared different models consisting of maternal and fetal characteristics.

Results: Successful vaginal delivery in the dinoprostone group was achieved in the group of 88% of patients. There was no significant difference in labor duration between the groups: 315 minutes in the study group and 300 min in the control group. Only being primipara was a factor related to longer labor in both groups.

Conclusions: Pre-induction with dinoprostone insert and additional foley catheter, if indicated, does not make labor longer in comparison with spontaneous labor.

Keywords: labor; induced; dinoprostone; cervical ripening; pregnancy

Ginekologia Polska 2023; 94, 12: 984989

INTRODUCTION

Labor induction is a procedure of artificial stimulation of childbirth before the natural, spontaneous onset of labor. It is one of the most common procedures in modern obstetrics. Currently, one in five pregnant women and 3040% of women delivering vaginally undergo this procedure [1]. The reasons for the induction include reduction of the perinatal mortality and morbidity of the fetus and newborn as well as the reduction of maternal complications. However, as with every medical intervention, labor induction is associated with a risk of complications. The decision to induce labor should always be justified on medical grounds and preceded by obtaining written informed consent from the pregnant woman [2]. When labor is induced, cervical status has an impact on the duration of induction and the likelihood of vaginal birth. If the cervical status is unfavorable, a ripening process is generally used prior to induction to shorten the duration of oxytocin administration and maximize the possibility of vaginal birth. There are two major modalities for cervical ripening: mechanical interventions, such as insertion of a balloon catheter or hygroscopic cervical dilators, and the application of pharmacologic agents, such as prostaglandins.

Prostaglandins stimulate collagenase activity, synthesis of glycosaminoglycans, elastase and hyaluronic acid in the cervix. They sensitize also the myometrium to the action of oxytocin and directly induce contractions of the uterus [3]. Dinoprostone vaginal insert (Cervidil®; Propess®) is a retrievable vaginal pessary containing 10 mg of dinoprostone [prostaglandin E2 (PGE2)] in a controlled-release drug delivery device. The initiation (or continuation) of cervical ripening in patients prior to labor induction is approved in Poland and in many countries worldwide. The effectiveness of dinoprostone vaginal insert has been demonstrated in multiple of randomized clinical trials in women at term. The demonstrated effectiveness and safety of the system, simple application, and efficient dose control, suggest that a dinoprostone vaginal insert is a valuable option for cervical ripening in patients with an unfavorable cervix [3, 4].

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the labor duration of induced labor with the use of a dinoprostone vaginal insert to the spontaneous labor.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data collection and study sample

It was a retrospective study conducted between May 2019 and February 2021 in the tertiary reference center, the Obstetrics and Perinatology Department of the Jagiellonian University Hospital in Krakow. The research group involved 182 patients in singleton pregnancy at term, qualified for cervical ripening procedure according to Polish Gynecological Society indications with unfavorable cervix. The indications include hypertension, gestational or pregestational diabetes mellitus, cholestasis and fetal growth restriction as well as gestational age of 41 + 0. Although the gestational age for the procedure differs regarding a particular indication, the gestational age was at least 37 + 0 weeks. Our facility uses the following regime for labor induction. For an unprepared cervix (Bishop score < 6 points), a dinoprostone vaginal insert is used (Cervidil®). After 24 hours (when the 1st labor stage does not occur and the cervical dilation is < 3 cm), mechanical methods for labor induction are introduced, namely, Foley catheter, with filling of 60120 mL for 24 hours. The intravenous oxytocin infusion is initiated when the balloon falls out and there is no contractile function or is removed after 24 hours.

The control group consisted of 178 patients that was delivering spontaneously and admitted to the delivery ward in the first stage of labor. The labor onset was defined as regular uterine contractions, at least one in 10 minutes that cause progressive dilation and effacement of the cervix. Labor duration was counted for successful vaginal delivery patients, that is 120 of the study group and 149 patients in the control group.

The medical data was taken from electronic medical history. The study received consent from the Ethics Committee No. 1072.6120.291.2021.

Statistical analysis

To compare the duration of labor between groups and to find factors affecting it, we compared the models preferring those with lower AICc (the second-order Akaike Information Criterium) as giving greater support for data relative to the others. AICc is analogous of classical AIC and its use is recommended when the sample size n is relatively smaller than the number of estimated parameters K, namely n/K < 4 [5]. The dependent variable in all analyses was the duration of the vaginal labor treated as continuous or dichotomized. Four variables: the main explanatory (Cervidil induction) and three others which can potentially influence the duration of labor (woman’s age at birth together with being multiparous or primiparous and gestational age) were regarded as ‘basic’ predictors and were retained in all constructed models. We used an approach focusing on searching the most parsimonious models based on subsets of ‘basic’ predictors and some other covariates potentially influencing tested association. We considered nine features characterizing both mother and child, namely: parity (multiparous or primiparous), baseline characteristic (woman’s age at birth (continuous), body mass index (BMI) before pregnancy (continuous), variables relating to a woman’s pregnancy (pregnancy duration, change weight during pregnancy (continuous), child’s birth weight (< 2500, 25004000, ≥ 4000 g) and interventions (Cervidil preinduction (yes/no), Foley catheter (yes/no). Linear regression was applied to estimate coefficients of change in the duration of labor associated with switching from the reference category to others or per unit increase in a covariate. Analogically, logistic regression was engaged to compare the chances of a longer duration of labor with a cut-off point of 450 minutes used as a threshold. The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (Cis) were calculated with the classical method of logistic regression or Firth’s bias reduction method (in the case of zero cells) by applying the Wald test. The comparison of alternative models with different subsets of predictors was done with the MuMIn package. The difference in AICc (Δ) between the two competing models reflects the extent of their equivalence. The value of Δ ≤ 4 indicates that both models are plausible, and when Δ ≥ 14 there is little evidence in the data for model with greater AICc [5, 6]. All analyses were conducted in R software version 4.0.4.

RESULTS

A total of 6,300 childbirths took place in 20192021 at the Department of Obstetrics and Perinatology, UH, of which 3,400 were by Caesarean section. In the analyzed period, 300 pregnant women were qualified for labor induction, of whom 182 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The control group included 178 patients admitted at the first stage of labor. Successful vaginal delivery occurred in 120 patients of the study group and in 149 of the control group on which this study was focused on. The rest of the patients in both groups had a caesarean section.

Among the study group, hypertension was diagnosed in 25% of patients (pregnancy-induced and chronic inclusively), diabetes mellitus in 38% of cases (pregestational and gestational inclusively), cholestasis in 1% and fetal growth restriction in 4% of patients. 13% of patients were qualified for the induction of labor because they achieved 41 weeks of gestational age. Some of the patients suffered from more than one disorder or abnormality related to pregnancy. A Foley catheter was used in 24 patients as an additional method to ripen an unfavorable cervix. 88% of inducted labor women had successful vaginal labor within 24 hours.

The characterization of each of the groups was presented in Table 1. Statistically significant difference regarded two following features BMI before pregnancy and gestational age. Otherwise, BMI of both groups was defined as normal weight in both groups (Me (Q1Q3): 23.8 (20.9; 25.7) vs 21.9 (20.5; 23.9), p = 0.006). The median gestational age differed only by one day. These differences, even if statistically significant, were not of clinical importance.

Table 1. The comparison of characteristics of patients in the study and the control group (only successful vaginal labors)

Variable

Inducted labor N = 120

Spontaneous labor n = 149

p

Mothers characteristics

BMI at baseline [kg/m2], Q2 (Q1; Q3)

23.8 (20.9; 25.7)

21.9 (20.5; 23.9)

0.006#

Age [years], Mean (SD)

30.8 (4.8)

31.4 (4.2)

0.288

Change in body weight [kg], Mean (SD)

14.0 (6.0)

13.2 (4.8)

0.233

Labor characteristics

Gestational age [days], Q2 (Q1; Q3)

277.0 (273.0; 286.0)

276.0 (270.0; 281.0)

0.047#

Length of vaginal delivery [min], Q2 (Q1; Q3)

315.0 (195.0; 450.0)

300.0 (205.0; 450.0)

0.569

Neonatal characteristic

Birth weight [g], Mean (SD)

3 421.4 (427.6)

3 441.6 (433.0)

0.702

Apgar < 7, 1 min

3 (2.5)

0 (0.0)

0.175

Apgar < 7, 5 min

1 (0.8)

0 (0.0)

0.913

Apgar < 7, 10 min

1 (0.8)

0 (0.0)

0.910

Apgar < 8, 1 min

3 (2.5)

0 (0.0)

0.175

Apgar < 8, 5 min

1 (0.8)

0 (0.0)

0.913

Apgar < 8, 10 min

1 (0.8)

1 (0.7)

1.000

Apgar < 9, 1 min

5 (4.2)

2 (1.3)

0.289

Apgar < 9, 5 min

4 (3.3)

3 (2.0)

0.771

Apgar < 9, 10 min

3 (2.5)

4 (2.7)

1.000

Apgar < 10, 1 min

6 (5.0)

9 (6.0)

0.918

Apgar < 10, 5 min

5 (4.2)

7 (4.7)

1.000

Apgar < 10, 10 min

4 (3.4)

8 (5.4)

0.622

p value based on Student’s t-test except of denoted by # based on Mann-Whitney U test

The Chi-square test had been used to check which variables had a significant difference between both groups that could affect the labor duration. Merely, being primigravida made labor duration longer (Tab. 2).

Table 2. Tested variables

Variable

Categories

Inducted vaginal delivery

n = 120

Spontaneous vaginal delivery

n = 149

p value

Primigravida

No

58 (48.3)

94 (63.1)

Yes

62 (51.7)

55 (36.9)

0.021

BMI

< 18.5

5 (4.2)

5 (3.4)

18.525

76 (63.3)

124 (83.2)

0.001

25-30

31 (25.8)

13 (8.7)

≥ 30

8 (6.7)

7 (4.7)

Primipara

No

52 (43.3)

77 (51.7)

Yes

68 (56.7)

72 (48.3)

0.215

Birth weight

< 2500

106 (88.3)

133 (89.3)

25004000

5 (4.2)

1 (0.7)

0.126

≥ 4000

9 (7.5)

15 (10.1)

BMI body mass index; p value based on Chi-square test of independence

Another different model was compared. The model with the lowest AICc value is the best-supported one among those compared. The difference in AICc values between model i and the best model is ∆i, number of estimated parameters is K, w Akaike weight. The best model was primipara model, then model primipara with preinduction with Cervidil AICc 3495.55 (Tab. 3).

Table 3. Model comparison results based on second-order Akaike Information Criterium (AICc) values

Model

AICc

K

w

Primipara#

3494.45

0.00

3

0.32

Primipara + preinduction with Cervidil

3495.55

1.10

4

0.18

Primipara + gestational age

3496.08

1.63

4

0.14

Primipara + mother’s age

3496.46

2.01

4

0.12

Primipara + preinduction with Cervidil + gestational age

3497.09

2.64

5

0.09

Primipara + preinduction with Cervidil + mother’s age

3497.59

3.13

5

0.07

Primipara + gestational age + mother’s age

3498.05

3.60

5

0.05

Basic##

3499.1

4.64

6

0.03

Full model

3507.61

13.15

12

0.00

Mother’s age

3537.81

43.36

3

0.00

Preinduction with Cervidil + mother’s age

3539.61

45.16

4

0.00

Gestational age + mother’s age

3539.87

45.42

4

0.00

Preinduction with Cervidil + gestational age + mother’s age

3541.68

47.23

5

0.00

Null model

3543.32

48.87

2

0.00

Preinduction with Cervidil

3545.26

50.81

3

0.00

Gestational age

3545.27

50.82

3

0.00

Preinduction with Cervidil + gestational age

3547.21

52.76

4

0.00

1Basic = Preinduction in Cervidil (yes/no) + woman’s age at birth (continuous) + primipara (yes/no) + gestational age; #Best model; ##Full model with all considered variables

DISCUSSION

The main goal of this study was to compare the time of induced labor to the spontaneous one. As it was mentioned in the introduction, the procedure of labor induction is nowadays one of the most commonly performed in the obstetrics, thus needed to improve safety for the mother and the child [1, 2]. Many studies compare the efficiency and safety of pharmacological and mechanical methods of labor induction. Patients with unfavorable cervixes are candidates for the procedure of cervical ripening. Compared with the use of oxytocin infusion alone, cervical ripening probably increases the chances of achieving vaginal birth within 24 hours and does not increase, but may decrease, the risk for cesarean section [7, 8]. There is no single, best practice for the choice of agent adopted for cervical ripening: both mechanical and pharmacologic agents are acceptable options unless the patient has a contraindication to the use of a specific procedure. A 2016 Cochrane meta-analysis comparing misoprostol, dinoprostone, and the balloon catheter for cervical ripening concluded that no method was clearly superior in terms of diminishing the over-24-hour vaginal birth or tachysystole with adverse FHR changes along with cesarean birth [9]. Another 2019 meta-analyses showed that choosing mechanical methods of cervical ripening is less satisfactory for women [10]. Many patients feel anxious about labor induction that it may last longer or will be more painful than spontaneous vaginal one [11], but after the delivery, most women report little overall effect on satisfaction with induced labor compared with a spontaneous one but feel an increased sense of control [12]. There are multiple studies and meta-analyses regarding the efficiency of labor induction. Most authors compare the percentage of successful labor within 24- or 48-hours’ time and time intervals of induction to labor activated by different agents [9]. This study aimed to compare the duration time of induced labor with dinoprostone insert with spontaneous labor and to identify factors that influence that time. We found that there is no significant difference in labor duration between the groups in comparison to the active phase of labor (the first and the second stage of labor): 315 minutes in the study group and 300 min in the control group. A similar duration time, 4 hours of the first stage of labor, was observed in Zielinska K. et al. study [13] and in Gornisiewicz T. study [14] (5.4 h of first stage of labor in dinoprostone group). In 2019 Wei Y. study [15] on 1,400 term pregnancies also showed no difference between time intervals of the first and second stage of labor in comparison to the one induced with dinoprostone and oxytocin in late-term pregnancies. (Latent phase: 3.75 h vs 3.68, active phase: 1.71 h vs 1.82 h, second stage: 0.45 h vs 0.53 h). However, for patients with a Bishop’s score between 46, the duration of the active phase was significantly reduced in the subgroup who were given dinoprostone [15]. Similarly, Poma S. at al. [16] observed shorter time of induced labor compared to spontaneous one. Successful vaginal delivery in the dinoprostone group was achieved in our study in 88% of patients. That is a higher rate than expected according to other studies like in the MVI and EXPEDITE trials comparing dinoprostone and misoprostol vaginal inserts (72,9% and 71,6%) [17, 18]. There was no substantial difference in Apgar score between the analyzed groups. Other studies confirm that there are also no significant concerns regarding the safety of the dinoprostone for neonates [4, 19]. A variety of maternal and fetal factors have been suggested to predict labor induction success. Certain characteristics of the woman like parity, age, weight, height and body mass index, and of the fetus (including birth weight and gestational age) are associated with the duration of stages of labor and success of labor induction; with parous, young women who are taller and of lower weight have a higher rate of induction success. Fetuses with a lower birth weight or increased gestational age are also associated with increased induction success [20, 21]. Our research shows that pre-induction with pharmacological and additionally mechanical method if indicated, does not make labor longer in comparison with spontaneous labor. Only being primipara was a factor related to longer labor in both groups. Our findings are similar to the trends described in Poma et. al study that has proven shorter duration of the first stage of labor among patients qualified to use dinoprostone as a pre-induction method and with effective epidural labor analgesia in comparison to spontaneous labor [16]. Furthermore, the Cochrane systematic review including over 21,000 patients has showed that overall length of labor was shorter for women undergoing induction compared with the expectant management [22]. Pre-pregnancy BMI is important factor that makes an impact on labor duration and must be mentioned. Obesity increases the risk of prolonged spontaneous or induced labor duration and cesarean section rates [23]. Despite of significantly higher BMI of the study group, still both groups are characterized as normal weight. BMI is not a considered feature to have an impact on the labor duration or to disturb the research scores. Higher BMI among patients demanding labor induction is consistent with mentioned systematic review and meta-analysis which has proven that obesity women are less likely to go into labor spontaneously [22].

This study had some limitations as it was retrospective, not controlled and dependent on the quality and availability of data present in the medical records. It also had a small study sample. The strength is a different statistic approach that finds the best model of predicting factors for labor duration.

CONCLUSIONS

The aim of this study was to compare the duration time of induced labor to spontaneous one. Pre-induction with dinoprostone insert and additional foley catheter, if indicated, does not make labor longer in comparison with spontaneous labor. Statistical model showed that only being primipara was a factor related to longer childbirth. There are also no significant concerns regarding the safety of the dinoprostone for neonates based on Apgar score.

Article Information and declarations
Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. Nicholson JM, Kellar LC, Henning GF, et al. The association between the regular use of preventive labour induction and improved term birth outcomes: findings of a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2015; 122(6): 773784, doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13301, indexed in Pubmed: 25716067.
  2. Bomba-Opoń D, Drews K, Huras H, et al. Polish Gynecological Society Recommendations for Labor Induction. Ginekol Pol. 2017; 88(4): 224234, doi: 10.5603/GP.a2017.0043, indexed in Pubmed: 28509326.
  3. Huras H, Fuchs T, Kwiatkowski S, et al. Opinia zespołu ekspertów Polskiego Towarzystwa Ginekologów i Położników dotycząca zastosowania produktu Cervidil w preindukcji/indukcji porodu. Ginekologia i Perinatologia Praktyczna. 2021; 6: 106108.
  4. Shirley M. Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert: A Review in Cervical Ripening. Drugs. 2018; 78(15): 16151624, doi: 10.1007/s40265-018-0995-2, indexed in Pubmed: 30317521.
  5. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. Springer, New York 2004.
  6. Burnham K, Anderson D, Huyvaert K. AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2010; 65(1): 2335, doi: 10.1007/s00265-010-1029-6.
  7. Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KWM, Kelly AJ, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(3): CD001233, doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub2, indexed in Pubmed: 22419277.
  8. Alfirevic Z, Kelly AJ, Dowswell T. Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; 2009(4): CD003246, doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003246.pub2, indexed in Pubmed: 19821304.
  9. Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK, et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG. 2016; 123(3): 346354, doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13456, indexed in Pubmed: 26538408.
  10. de Vaan MDt, Ten Eikelder MLg, Jozwiak M, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 10(10): CD001233, doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub3, indexed in Pubmed: 31623014.
  11. Koelewijn JM, Sluijs AM, Vrijkotte TGM. Possible relationship between general and pregnancy-related anxiety during the first half of pregnancy and the birth process: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(5): e013413, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013413, indexed in Pubmed: 28490549.
  12. Weeks AD, Alfirevic Z. Induction of labour: first, do no harm. Lancet. 2022; 400(10364): 16561657, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02082-7, indexed in Pubmed: 36366879.
  13. Zielińska K, Binkowska M, Panek G, et al. Analysis of the preinduction cervical ripening at term pregnancies with the dinoprostone vaginal insert. Ginekologia i Perinatologia Praktyczna. 2021; 6: 7178.
  14. Górnisiewicz T, Jaworowski A, Zembala-Szczerba M, et al. Analysis of intravaginal misoprostol 0.2 mg versus intracervical dinoprostone 0.5 mg doses for labor induction at term pregnancies. Ginekol Pol. 2017; 88(6): 320324, doi: 10.5603/GP.a2017.0060, indexed in Pubmed: 28727132.
  15. Wei Y, Li X, Zhang Y, et al. Comparison of Dinoprostone and Oxytocin for the Induction of Labor in Late-Term Pregnancy and the Rate of Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Study in Ten Centers in South China. Med Sci Monit. 2019; 25: 85548561, doi: 10.12659/MSM.918330, indexed in Pubmed: 31719513.
  16. Poma S, Scudeller L, Gardella B, et al. Outcomes of induced versus spontaneous labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 30(10): 11331138, doi: 10.1080/14767058.2016.1205028, indexed in Pubmed: 27406914.
  17. Wing DA. Misoprostol Vaginal Insert Consortium. Misoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112(4): 801812, doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318187042e, indexed in Pubmed: 18827122.
  18. Wing DA, Brown R, Plante LA, et al. Misoprostol vaginal insert and time to vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122(2 Pt 1): 201209, doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31829a2dd6, indexed in Pubmed: 23857539.
  19. Hostinska E, Lubusky M, Pilka R. Prospective comparison of cervical ripening with double balloon Cook catheter, misoprostol or dinoprostone in term singleton pregnancies. Ginekol Pol. 2022 [Epub ahead of print], doi: 10.5603/GP.a2022.0023, indexed in Pubmed: 35894508.
  20. Crane JMG. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 49(3): 573584, doi: 10.1097/00003081-200609000-00017, indexed in Pubmed: 16885664.
  21. Gornisiewicz T, Kusmierska-Urban K, Huras H, et al. Factors associated with caesarean section in women referred for preinduction a nested case-control study in dinoprostone and misoprostol groups. Ginekologia Polska. 2021; 92(12): 892901, doi: 10.5603/gp.a2021.0168.
  22. Middleton P, Shepherd E, Morris J, et al. Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks’ gestation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; 7(7): CD004945, doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004945.pub5, indexed in Pubmed: 32666584.
  23. Ellis JA, Brown CM, Barger B, et al. Influence of Maternal Obesity on Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2019; 64(1): 5567, doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12935, indexed in Pubmed: 30648804.