Doğum İndüksiyonunda Bașarıyı Etkileyen Faktörler ve Doğum İndüksiyonu Yöntemleri

Abstract

Induction of labor is the iatrogenic stimulation of uterine contractions before the onset of spontaneous labor to achieve vaginal delivery. It must be generally decided when the benefits of immediate delivery outweigh the risks of continuing the pregnancy for fetal and maternal health. In the recent years, the rate of elective induction of labour has risen dramatically throughout the world and, in fact, brings significant morbidity for both the mother and the fetus. Fewer than two thirds of women in whom labour induction is performed give birth without further interventions and, labour induction increases operative vaginal delivery and cesarean section rates, the possibility of postpartum bleeding, the need for blood transfusions, use of uterotonic agents and hysterectomy. Thus, predicting the success of labour induction and gaining precise knowledge about methods of labour induction is important in minimising associated morbidity. This review focuses on factors associated with the success of labour induction and methods of labour induction in light of recent guides

Keywords

• Labour induction, Bishop scor, Sonographical cervix measurement length

Doğum İndüksiyonunda Bașarıyı Etkileyen Faktörler ve Doğum İndüksiyonu Yöntemleri

Abstract

Doğum indüksiyonu, spontan doğum eylemi bașlamadan önce vajinal doğumu gerçekleștirmek amacıyla uterin kontraksiyonların iyatrojenik olarak uyarılmasıdır. Genel olarak, doğum indüksiyonu kararı anne veya fetüs için doğumun hemen gerçekleștirilmesinin yararı gebeliğin devamının getireceği risklerden fazla ise verilmelidir. Son zamanlarda, dünyada doğum indüksiyonunun kullanımı, özellikle de elektif doğum indüksiyonu, belirgin olarak artıș göstermiștir ve aslında ciddi morbidite riskini de beraberinde getirmektedir. Doğum indüksiyonu yapılan gebelerin üçte ikisinden azı ileri bir girișim gerektirmeden doğurmaktadır ve indüksiyon ile operatif doğum ve sezaryen oranları, postpartum kanama miktarı, kan transfüzyonu gereksinimi, uterotonik ajanların kullanımı ve histerektomi olasılığı artabilmektedir. Bu nedenle de, doğum indüksiyonunun bașarılı olup olmayacağının öngörülmesi, bașarılı bir doğum indüksiyonunu etkileyen faktörlerin ve doğum indüksiyonu yöntemlerinin iyi bilinmesi morbiditeyi en aza indirgemek açısından önem tașımaktadır. Bu derlemede, doğum indüksiyonu bașarısını etkileyen faktörlerin ve doğum indüksiyonu yöntemlerinin son rehberler ıșığında yeniden gözden geçirilmesi amaçlanmıștır

Keywords

• Doğum indüksiyonu, Bishop skoru, Sonografik serviks ölçümü, Prostaglandinler, Oksitosin, Amniyotomi, Membranların sıvazlanması

References

1. ACOG Practice Bulletin no 107. 10. Cammu H, Martens G, Ruyssinck G, Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 386- 397.
2. Ashton DM. Elective delivery at less than 39 weeks. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2010; 22: 506-510.
3. NICE guideline. Induction of labour. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. 12. Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2008; 1964;24:266-268. www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/1201 2/41255.pdf.
4. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, et al. Births: final data for 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009; 57: 1 – 102.
5. Yeast JD, Jones A, Poskin M. 14. Hatfield AS, Sanchez-Ramos L, Induction of labor and the relationship to cesarean delivery: A review of 700 consecutive inductions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:628-633.
6. Battista L, Chung JH, Lagrew DC, et al. Complications of labor induction among multiparous women in a community-based hospital system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 241.e1 – 241.e7.
7. Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, et al. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:690-697.
8. Guerra GV, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, et al. Elective induction versus spontaneous labour in Latin America. Bull World Health Organ 2011;89: 657-665.

9. Vardo JH, Thornburg LL, Glantz JC. Maternal and neonatal morbidity among nulliparous women undergoing elective induction of labor. J Reprod Med 2011; 56: 25 -30. Amy JJ. Outcome after elective labor induction in nulliparous women: a matched cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:240-244.
10. Crane JM. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006;49:573-584. induction. Obstet Gynecol
11. Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, et Obstet Gynecol 2009;34:316-321 al. Labor progression and risk of after induction of labor. Ultrasound cesarean delivery in electively induced models that predict Cesarean section nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:698-704. Kaunitz AM. Sonographic cervical 2012;32:145-147.
12. assessment to predict the success of induction of labour. Jobstet Gynecol
13. labor induction: A systematic review system for the prediction of successful
14. with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet
15. Gynecol 2007;197:186-192.
16. Bartha JL, Romero-Carmona R, Martínez-Del-Fresno P, et al. Bishop score and transvaginal ultrasound for preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized clinical trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 ;25:155-9.
17. Park KH, Kim SN, Lee SY, et al. Comparison between sonographic cervical length and Bishop score in preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 198-204.
18. Eggebİ TM, Økland I, Heien C, et al. Can ultrasound measurements replace digitally assessed elements of the Bishop score? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:325-331.
19. Peregrine E, O’Brien P, Omar R, et al. Clinical and ultrasound parameters to predict the risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 227-233.
20. Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, et al. Models for the prediction of successful induction of labor based on pre- induction sonographic measurement of cervical length. J Maternal Fetal Neonatal Med 2005;17:315-322.
21. Verhoeven CJM, Oudenaarden A,
22. Keepanasseril A, Suri V, Bagga R,
23. Eggebo TM, Heien C, Okland I, et al. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head– perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;32:199-204.
24. Jokhi RP, Brown BH, Anumba D. The role of cervical electrical impedance spectroscopy in the prediction of the course and outcome of induced labour. BMC Preg Child 2009;9:40.
25. Rovas L, Sladkevicius P, Strobel E, et al: Three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound assessment of the cervix for the prediction of successful induction of labor with prostaglandin in prolonged pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 2005;24:933-939
26. Sciscione A, Hoffman MK, DeLuca S, et al: Fetal fibronectin as a predictor of vaginal birth in nulliparas undergoing preinduction cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:980-985.
27. Riboni F, Garofalo G, Pascoli I, et al. Labour induction at term: clinical, biophysical and molecular predictive factors. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286:1123-1129.
28. Teixeira C, Lunet N, Rodrigues T, et al. The Bishop Score as a determinant of labour induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286:739- 753.
29. Laughon SK, Zhang J, Troendle J, et al. Using a simplified Bishop score to predict vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:805-811.
30. Ponkey SE, Cohen AP, Heffner LJ, Lieberman E. Persistent fetal occiput posterior position: obstetric outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:915-920.
31. Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Caughey AB. The association between persistent occiput posterior position and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 6;(10):CD000941. 2006;107:837-44.
32. Rane SM, Guigis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24:538-549.
33. WHO recommendations for induction of labour 2011. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publication s/2011/9789241501156_eng.pdf
34. Kelly AJ, Malik S, Smith L, et al. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2α) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012, Issue 5.
35. Boulvain M, Kelly AJ, Irion O. 40. Alfirevic Z, Kelly AJ, Dowswell T. Intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2008, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD006971. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006971.
36. French L. Oral prostaglandin E2 for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2001, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD003098; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD003098.
37. Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct
38. Wing DA, Lovett K, Paul RH. Disruption of prior uterine incision following misoprostol for labour induction in women with previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:828-830.
39. Abdul MA, Ibrahim UN, Yusuf MD, Musa H. Efficacy and safety of misoprostol in induction of labour in a Nigerian tertiary hospital. West Afr Med 2007;26:213-216.
40. Alfirevic Z, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Apr 19;(2):CD001338. Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 7;(4):CD003246.
41. Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Mar 14;3:CD001233.
42. Fox NS, Saltzman DH, Roman AS, et al. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2011;
43. Boulvain M, Stan C, Irion O. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jan 25;(1):CD000451.
44. Bricker L, Luckas M. Amniotomy alone for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD002862. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD002862.
45. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, et al. Systematic Review: Elective Induction of Labor Versus Expectant Management of Pregnancy. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:252-263.