open access
Comparison of labor duration of induced labor with dinoprostone insert vs spontaneous labor
Affiliations- Jagiellonian University Medical College, Department of Obstetrics and Perinatology, Cracow, Poland
- Statistical Laboratory, Institute of Nursing and Midwifery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Cracow, Poland
open access
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.
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.
Keywords
labor; induced; dinoprostone; cervical ripening; pregnancy
About this articleTitle
Comparison of labor duration of induced labor with dinoprostone insert vs spontaneous labor
Journal
Issue
Article type
Research paper
Pages
984-989
Published online
2023-07-19
Page views
569
Article views/downloads
303
DOI
Pubmed
Bibliographic record
Ginekol Pol 2023;94(12):984-989.
Keywords
labor
induced
dinoprostone
cervical ripening
pregnancy
Authors
Katarzyna A. Skibinska
Magdalena Kolak
Agnieszka Micek
Hubert Huras
Andrzej Jaworowski
References (23)- 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): 773–784.
- Bomba-Opoń D, Drews K, Huras H, et al. Polish Gynecological Society Recommendations for Labor Induction. Ginekol Pol. 2017; 88(4): 224–234.
- 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: 106–108.
- Shirley M. Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert: A Review in Cervical Ripening. Drugs. 2018; 78(15): 1615–1624.
- Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. Springer, New York 2004.
- 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): 23–35.
- Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KWM, Kelly AJ, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(3): CD001233.
- Alfirevic Z, Kelly AJ, Dowswell T. Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; 2009(4): CD003246.
- 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): 346–354.
- de Vaan MDt, Ten Eikelder MLg, Jozwiak M, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 10(10): CD001233.
- 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.
- Weeks AD, Alfirevic Z. Induction of labour: first, do no harm. Lancet. 2022; 400(10364): 1656–1657.
- 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: 71–78.
- 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): 320–324.
- 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: 8554–8561.
- Poma S, Scudeller L, Gardella B, et al. Outcomes of induced versus spontaneous labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017; 30(10): 1133–1138.
- Wing DA. Misoprostol Vaginal Insert Consortium. Misoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112(4): 801–812.
- 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): 201–209.
- 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].
- Crane JMG. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 49(3): 573–584.
- 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): 892–901.
- 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.
- 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): 55–67.
