THE EFFICIENCY AND OUTCOMES OF LABOR ACTIVATION DURING PROLONGED AND ADVANCED PREGNANCY


如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅或者付费存取

详细

Objective. To evaluate the efficiency of various labor activation methods, the specific features of the course of labor, and the factors influencing the success of induction in patients with prolonged and advanced pregnancy. Subjects and methods. Seventy-one women with singleton pregnancy of 40 weeks and 2 days or more and cephalic presentation were examined. According to the method of labor induction, the women were divided into three groups: 1) amniotomy; 2) sequential use of dinoprostone and amniotomy; 3) intravenous dropwise injection of dinoprost in the presence of the whole gestational sac. Group 4 (control) comprised women with spontaneous initiation of delivery in the same gestation period. The data were statistically processed using risk ratios, odds ratio, and Wilcoxon test. Results. The efficiency of labor induction in patients who tended to have advanced pregnancy was high and amounted to 80% during labor induction via amniotomy, 86.7% via a combination of PGE 2 analogues and amniotomy, and 100% by that of dinoprost. The characteristic feature of the course of labor during advanced pregnancy is the high rate of abnormal delivery; at the same time labor induction does not increase the risk for the development of this pathology. The basic factor influencing the success of labor activation is the state of the cervix uteri; thus, labor must be induced only unless its maturation is achieved. The number of complications following induction of labor increases with the gestational period of more than 41 weeks, so the latter of 40—41 weeks is optimal for cervix uteri preparation and labor induction.

全文:

受限制的访问

作者简介

V. RUMYANTSEVA

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

O. BAYEV

Academician V.I. Kulakov Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia; I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

参考

  1. Гаспарян Н.Д., Карева Е.Н. Мифепристон в подготовке и индукции родов // Акуш. и гин. — 2008. — № 3. — С. 50-53.
  2. Сидорова И.С. Физиология и патология родовой деятельности: Учебное пособие. - М.: МИА, 2006.
  3. Стрижаков А.Н., Игнатко И.В., Тимохина Е.В., Рыбин М.В. Переношенная беременность. - М.: Династия, 2006.
  4. Чернуха Е.А. Переношенная и пролонгированная беременность. - М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2007.
  5. Bodner-Adler B., Bodner K., Pateisky N. et al. Influence of labor induction on obstetric outcomes in patients with prolonged pregnancy: a comparison between elective labor induction and spontaneous onset of labor beyond term // Wien. Klin. Wschr. - 2005. - Bd 117, № 7-8. - S. 287292.
  6. Caughey A.B., Sundaram V., Kaimal A.J. et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor // Evid. Rep. Technol. Assess. - 2009. - Vol. 176. — P. 241-257.
  7. Caughey A.B., Sundaram V., Kaimal A.J. et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy// Ann. Intern. Med. - 2009. -Vol. 151, № 4. - P. 252-263.
  8. Cooley S.M., Geary M.P., O’Connell M.P. et al. How effective is amniotomy as a means of induction of labour? // Irish J. Med. Sci. — 2010. - Vol. 179, № 3. - P. 381-383.
  9. Le Ray C., Carayol M., Breat G., Goffinet F. Elective induction of labor: failure to follow guidelines and risk of cesarean delivery // Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. - 2007. — Vol. 86, № 6. - P. 657-665.
  10. Mandruzzato G., Alfirevic Z., Chervenak F. et al. Guidelines for the management of postterm pregnancy // J. Perinat. Med. — 2010. — Vol. 38, № 2. - P. 111-119.
  11. Selo-Ojeme D., Rogers C., Mohanty A. et al. Is induced labour in the nullipara associated with more maternal and perinatal morbidity? // Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. - 2010. - Vol. 282, 6. -P. 610-616.

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML

版权所有 © Bionika Media, 2011