Ola Abdulmajeed Tayeb¹*, Asma Aedh Saad Alqarni², Rose Mohsen Ali Khormi³, Amjad Saad Ali Hemaid⁴, Ashwaq Aziz Alanazi⁵, Ayman Hussein Ezzeldein Mohammed⁶, Mohammed Hatem Ghasan Alsharabi⁶, Saad Khaleel Alonze⁷, Rana Mohamed Jazar⁸, Noha Rihab Saeed Baeshen⁹ and Abdulmohsan Abdullah Aman¹⁰

¹Consultant Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Health Cluster, King Saud Medical City, Maternity Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
²Saudi Board Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident, First Health Cluster, King Saud Medical City, Riyadh, Maternity Hospital, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
³Staff Nurse, First Health Cluster, King Saud Medical City, Maternity Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
⁴Saudi Board Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident, Second Health Cluster, Alyammamh Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
⁵Saudi Board Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident, Maternity and Children Hospital, Aljouf, Saudi Arabia
⁶Associated Consultant Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Health Cluster, King Saud Medical City, Maternity Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
⁷Saudi Board Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident, First Health Cluster, King Saud Medical City, Maternity Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
⁸Saudi Board Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident, King Abdulaziz Airbase Hospital, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
⁹Saudi Board Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident, First Health Cluster, King Saud Medical City, Maternity Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
¹⁰Saudi Board Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident, King Abdulaziz hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

*Corresponding Author: Ola Abdulmajeed Tayeb, Consultant Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Health Cluster, King Saud Medical City, Maternity Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Received: October 21, 2024; Published: November 07, 2024

Abstract

Background: Induction of labor is a technique used to accomplish vaginal delivery prior to the spontaneous commencement of labor. This systematic review study was out to evaluate the impact of IOL on the woman, fetus, and CS rate in a singleton uncomplicated full-term pregnancy.

Method: This investigation was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA criteria. In this systematic study, we examine labor-related issues for mothers following IOL at 39 to 42 gestational weeks in contrast to EM. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Library, and Google Scholar databases for publications published between 2015 and 2024.

Result: In this review we included 7 studies, all were randomized controlled trials. Five of our included studies take CS as outcome, 2 of which found less events of CS in the IOL, while one study found more CS rates, and 2 studies found no significant relation between both groups in CS events. According to 3 studies, perinatal death and still birth was less in the IOL. Six studies discussed admission to Neonatal ICU as outcome, it was less in 5 studies, with no significant difference between the groups.

Conclusion: We draw the conclusion that the majority of the included studies did not significantly differ in the incidence of unfavorable outcomes for mothers or newborns among the IOL and EM groups. CS rates were lower in the IOL group in most of the studies.

 Keywords: Induction of Labor; Neonatal Outcome; Maternal Outcome; Expectant Management

References

1. “ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor”. Obstetrics and Gynecology2 (2009): 386-397.
2. Osterman MJ and Martin JA. “Recent declines in induction of labor by gestational age”. NCHS Data Brief 155 (2014): 1-8.
3. Caughey AB., et al. “Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor”. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment (Full Rep). 176 (2009): 1-257.
4. Grobman WA. “Elective induction: When? Ever?” Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology2 (2007): 537-546.
5. Caughey AB. “Nonmedically indicated induction of labor: are the benefits worth the costs?”. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology1 (2015): 7-8.
6. Bailit JL., et al. “Nonmedically indicated induction vs expectant treatment in term nulliparous women”. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 212 (2015): 103.e1-7.
7. Osmundson SS., et al. “Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with a favorable cervix”. Obstetrics and Gynecology 116 (2010): 601-605.
8. Stock SJ., et al. “Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study”. BMJ 344 (2012): e2838.
9. Mishanina E., et al. “Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. CMAJ 186 (2014): 665-673.
10. “Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE) Perinatal Mortality 2009: United Kingdom”. London: CMACE (2011).
11. Smith GCS. “Life-table analysis of the risk of perinatal death at term and post term in singleton pregnancies”. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 184 (2001): 489-496.
12. Grobman WA., et al. “Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women”. The New England Journal of Medicine 6 (2018): 513-523.
13. Baev OR., et al. “Outcomes of mifepristone usage for cervical ripening and induction of labour in full-term pregnancy. Randomized controlled trial”. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 217 (2017): 144-149.
14. Keulen JK., et al. “Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management until 42 weeks (INDEX): multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial”. BMJ (2019): l344.
15. Wennerholm UB., et al. “Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial”. BMJ (2019): l6131.
16. Miller NR., et al. “Elective Induction of Labor Compared With Expectant Management of Nulliparous Women at 39 Weeks of Gestation”. Obstetrics and Gynecology6 (2015): 1258-1264.
17. Walker KF., et al. “Randomized Trial of Labor Induction in Women 35 Years of Age or Older”. The New England Journal of Medicine 9 (2016): 813-822.
18. Tan PC., et al. “Induction of labour from 39 weeks in low‐risk multiparas with ripe cervixes: A randomised controlled trial”. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 6 (2021): 882-890.
19. Boulvain M., et al. “Risks of induction of labour in uncomplicated term pregnancies”. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2 (2001): 131-138.
20. Jacquemyn Y., et al. “Elective induction of labour increases caesarean section rate in low risk multiparous women”. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology3 (2012): 257-259.
21. Grivell RM., et al. “Maternal and neonatal outcomes following induction of labor: a cohort study”. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2 (2012): 198-203.
22. Grobman WA and Caughey AB. “Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management: a meta-analysis of cohort studies”. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology4 (2019): 304-310.

Citation

Citation: Ola Abdulmajeed Tayeb., et al. “Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes Following Induction of Labor at (39 to 42) Gestational Weeks; Systematic Review”.Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 8.12 (2024): 09-16.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Ola Abdulmajeed Tayeb., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.