Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T17:28:30.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

23 - Curtailed use of induction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2009

Paul Reuwer ,
Hein Bruinse  and
Arie Franx
Paul Reuwer
Affiliation:
St Elisabeth Hospital/Brabant Medical School, Tilburg, Netherlands
Hein Bruinse
Affiliation:
University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands
Arie Franx
Affiliation:
St Elisabeth Hospital/Brabant Medical School, Tilburg, Netherlands
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Proactive Support of Labor
The Challenge of Normal Childbirth
 , pp. 202 - 209
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Seyb, ST, Berka, RJ, Socol, ML, Doodley, SL. Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94: 600–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Macer, JA, Macer, CL, Chan, LS. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor: a retrospective study of complications and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166: 1690–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cammu, H, Marten, G, Ruyssinck, G, Amy, JJ. Outcome after elective induction in nulliparous women: a matched cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 240–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luthy, DA, Malmgren, JA, Zingheim, RW. Increased Cesarean section rates associated with elective induction in nulliparous women; the physician effect. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 1511–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dublin, S, Lydon-Rochelle, M, Kaplan, RC, Watts, DH, Critchlow, CW. Maternal and fetal outcomes after induction without an identified indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 18: 986–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemund, N, Hardeman, A, Scherjon, SA, Kanhai, HH. Intervention rates after elective induction of labor compared to labor with a spontaneous onset: a matched cohort study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2003; 56(3): 133–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maslow, AS, Sweeny, AL. Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 917–22.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, KM, Hoffman, MK, Scicione A. Elective induction of labor in nulliparous women increases the risk of cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: S45.Google Scholar
Kauffman, K, Bailit, J, Grobman, W. Elective induction: an analysis of economic and health consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185: S209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vahratian, A, Zhang, J, Troendle, JF, et al. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105: 698–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamar, B, Mann, S, Greenberg, P, et al. Low-risk inductions of labor and cesarean delivery for nulliparous and parous women at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185: S215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeast, JD, Jones, A, Poskin, M. Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery; a review of 7001 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: 628–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,Maternal-Fetal Medicine Committee of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada. Post-term pregnancy (Committee Opinion). SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines, No 15; 1997.
Menticoglou, SM, Hall, PF. Routine induction of labour at 41 weeks gestation: nonsensus consensus. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 109: 485–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McIntyre, KM. Medicolegal implications of consensus statements. Chest 1995; 108: S502–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyams, AL, Brandenburg, JA, Lipsitz, SR, Shapiro, DW, Brennen, TA. Practice guidelines and malpractice litigation: a two-way street. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122: 440–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirshfeld, EB. Should practice parameters be the standard of care in malpractice litigation?JAMA 1991; 266: 2886–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gofton, EN, Capewell, V, Natale, R, Gratton, RJ. Obstetrical intervention rates and maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with gestational hypertension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185: 789–803.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanchez-Ramos, K, Bernstein, S, Kaunitz, AM. Expectant management versus labor induction for suspected fetal macrosomia: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100: 997–1002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonen, R, Degani, S, Ron, A. Prediction of successful induction of labor: comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and the Bishop score. Eur J Ultrasound 1998; 3: 183–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ware, V, Raynor, BD. Transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical measurement as a predictor of successful labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 182: 1030–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gabriel, R, Darnaud, T, Chalot, F, et al. Transvaginal sonography of the uterine cervix prior to labor induction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 254–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, EH. Elective induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1955; 5: 519–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Vahratian, A, Zhang, J, Troendle, JF, Sciscione, AC, Hoffman, MK. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced multiparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105(4): 698–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC, Neilson, J, et al. Preparing for the induction of labor. In: A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prysak, M, Castronova, FC. Elective induction versus spontaneous delivery: a case-control analysis of safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92: 47–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Driscoll, K, Meagher, D, Robson, M. Active Management of Labour, 4th edn. Mosby; 2003.Google Scholar
Enkin, M, Keirse, MJNC, Neilson, J, et al. Methods of inducing labor. In: A Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×