The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2015
Induction of labor in women with a uterine scar.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Stenson David, Wallstrom Tove, Sjostrand Maria, Akerud Helena, Gemzell-Danielsson Kristina, Wiberg-Itzel Eva
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of uterine rupture following induction of labor in women with a previous cesarean section. Misoprostol was compared to other methods of induction.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 208 women attempting induction of labor after one previous cesarean section. Delivery data were collected retrospectively and compared. Group 1(2009-2010) was compared with Group 2 (2012-2013). In Group 1, the main method of induction was vaginal PGE2 (prostaglandin-E2), amniotomy, oxytocin or a balloon catheter. In Group 2, the dominant method of induction was an oral solution of misoprostol.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: frequency of uterine rupture in the two groups.
RESULTS: Nine cases (4.3%) of uterine rupture occurred. There was no significant difference in the frequency of uterine rupture following the change of method of induction from PGE2, amniotomy, oxytocin or mechanical dilatation with a balloon catheter to orally administered misoprostol (4.1 versus 4.6%, p = 0.9). All ruptures occurred in women with no prior vaginal delivery.
CONCLUSION: The shift to oral misoprostol as the primary method of induction in women with a previous cesarean section did not increase the frequency of uterine rupture in the cohort studied.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 208 women attempting induction of labor after one previous cesarean section. Delivery data were collected retrospectively and compared. Group 1(2009-2010) was compared with Group 2 (2012-2013). In Group 1, the main method of induction was vaginal PGE2 (prostaglandin-E2), amniotomy, oxytocin or a balloon catheter. In Group 2, the dominant method of induction was an oral solution of misoprostol.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: frequency of uterine rupture in the two groups.
RESULTS: Nine cases (4.3%) of uterine rupture occurred. There was no significant difference in the frequency of uterine rupture following the change of method of induction from PGE2, amniotomy, oxytocin or mechanical dilatation with a balloon catheter to orally administered misoprostol (4.1 versus 4.6%, p = 0.9). All ruptures occurred in women with no prior vaginal delivery.
CONCLUSION: The shift to oral misoprostol as the primary method of induction in women with a previous cesarean section did not increase the frequency of uterine rupture in the cohort studied.