COMPARISON OF PROGRESSION OF SPONTANEOUS VERSUS INDUCED LABOR IN PRIMI AND MULTIPAROUS WOMEN
Objectives: The objectives of the study were to compare progression of spontaneous versus induced labor in primigravida and multigravida women.
Methods: Pregnant women admitted in Labor room of Bebe Nanaki mother and Child Care Centre, Amritsar during April 2019–March 2020 were selected for this study. A total of 200 pregnant women were selected and divided into two groups. Women in group A were induced while in group B were women with spontaneous onset of labor. Labor progression in both was compared.
Results: In group A, the mean duration of the active phase in primigravida was 4.08±2.30 h and in multigravida was 4.02±2.20 h. In group B, the mean duration of active phase in primigravidas was 7.24±1.39 h and in multigravidas was 6.48±1.40 h. In group A, the mean duration of the second stage in a primigravida was 25.5±8.15 min and in a multigravida was 17.38±9.95 min. In group B, the mean duration of the second stage in a primigravida was 41.3±9.6 min, while in a multigravida was 22.72±6.2 h.
Discussion: The mean duration of active phase in group A in the primigravida and multigravida was almost similar, showing that induction does not have any effect on the duration of active phase. The mean duration of the second stage of group A in primigravida was 25 min and multipara was 17 min showing that induction reduces the duration of the second stage.
Conclusion: Induction of labor when done at the right gestational age for correct indication is beneficial to women as it reduces the complications caused due to the continuation of high-risk pregnancies.
2. Sagarika B, Lakshmi MM. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor at term: Prospective study of outcome and complications. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2017;6:4899-907.
3. Grivell RM, Reilly AJ, Oakey H, Chan A, Dodd JM. Maternal and neonatal outcomes following induction of labor: A cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012;91:198-203.
4. Roos N, Sahlin L, Ekman-Ordeberg G, Kieler H, Stephansson O. Maternal risk factors for postterm pregnancy and cesarean delivery following labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010;89:1003-10.
5. Jonsson M, Cnattingius S, Wikstrom AK. Elective induction of labor and the risk of cesarean section in low-risk parous women: A cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013;92:198-203.
6. Abisowo OY, Oyinyechi AJ, Olusegun FA, Oyedokun OY, Motunrayo AF, Abimbola OT. Feto-maternal outcome of induced vs spontaneous labour in a Nigerian Tertiary Maternity Unit. Trop J Obstet Gynaecol 2017;34:21-7.
7. Østborg TB, Romundstad PR, Eggebø TM. Duration of the active phase of labor in spontaneous and induced labors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2017;96:120-7.
8. Singh A, Rao SB, Sherigar B, D’souza R, Soumya R, Kaveri V. Comparison of progress of labour and maternofetal outcome among induced versus spontaneous labour in nulliparous women using modified WHO partograph. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2018;7:415-8.
9. Patel O, Pradhan S, Naik B. Comparative study of labour progress and delivery outcome among induced versus spontaneous labour in nulliparous women using modified WHO partograph. J Evol Med Dent Sci 2017;6:1844-9.
10. Yadav K, Ranga M, Nama A. Comparative study of induced and spontaneous labour in nulliparous women using modified WHO partograph. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 020;9:2014-9.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.