Postterm with favorable cervix: is induction necessary ? {Thailande} Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003 Feb 10;106(2):154-7.

Choose your font:
✓ Arimo
➡ Merriweather
➡ Mukta Malar
➡ Open Sans Condensed
➡ Rokkitt
➡ Source Sans Pro

✓ English
➡ Français
➡ Português
➡ Español

	Database - (CIANE)
Description of this bibliographical database (CIANE website) Currently 3111 records ➡ YouTube channel (tutorial)

https://ciane.net/id=2010 Created on : 16 Mar 2007 Modified on : 15 Aug 2018	➡ Modify this record Do not follow this link unless you know an editor’s password! Share: Hard
Bibliographical entry (without author) :	Postterm with favorable cervix: is induction necessary ? {Thailande} Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003 Feb 10;106(2):154-7.
Author(s) :	Chanrachakul B, Herabutya Y.
Year of publication :	2003
URL(s) :	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12551783?dopt=…
Résumé (français) :
Abstract (English) :	OBJECTIVE: To study the cesarean rate between expectant management and immediate induction in the otherwise uncomplicated postterm pregnancy with favorable cervix. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 249 women with uncomplicated pregnancies at 41 weeks plus 3 days (290 days) with favorable cervix (Bishop score > or =6) were randomized to either expectant management (n=125) or immediate induction of labor (n=124). The women in the induction group were sent to labor ward for induction by artificial rupture of membranes (ARM) and/or oxytocin infusion. The women with expectant management had nonstress test (NST) and amniotic fluid index (AFI) performed once a week and twice a week after 43 weeks of gestation until spontaneous labor. RESULTS: The cesarean rate was not different between expectant management and immediate induction (21.6% versus 26.6%; P=0.36). Ninety-five percent of the expectant group delivered within 1 week after enrollment, and all of them delivered within 9 days after randomization. Maternal and fetal complications in both groups were not different. There was also no difference in the mean birth weight (P=0.24) and the frequency of macrosomia (birth weight > or = 4000 g) between the two groups (P=0.23). CONCLUSION: Cesarean section rate between expectant management and immediate induction in the otherwise uncomplicated postterm pregnancy with favorable cervix was not different. Due to the very low adverse perinatal outcome, both expectant management and immediate induction are acceptable.
Sumário (português) :
Resumen (español) :
Full text (private) :	➡ Access requires authorization
Comments :
Argument (français) :	RCT. Aucun avantage ni désavantage particulier à déclencher à 41 SA + 3j sur col favorable plutôt que d’attendre en surveillant. Important : la quasi totalité des femmes du groupe expectative avaient accouché dans la semaine suivante.
Argument (English):
Argumento (português):
Argumento (español):
Keywords :	➡ c-section/caesarean ; guidelines ; induction of labor ; post-term pregnancy ; informed consent
Author of this record :	Cécile Loup — 16 Mar 2007 ➡ latest update : Bernard Bel — 15 Aug 2018

Related records
Group ‘Discussing induction on term pregnancy’
#2070	Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hellmann J, Hewson S, Milner R, Willan A, and the Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group. (1992). Induction of labor as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in post-term pregnancy. A randomized controlled trial. N Engl J Med 1992;326:1587–1592. ➡ https://ciane.net/id=2070
#2069	Savas M. Menticoglou, Philip F. Hall (2002). Routine induction of labour at 41 weeks of gestation: nonsensus consensus. BJOG, 2002 May;109(5): 485-491 ➡ https://ciane.net/id=2069
#2067	Bréart G, Goujard J, Maillard F, Chavigny C, Rumeau-Rouquette C, Sureau C. (1982). Comparaison de deux attitudes obstétricales vis-à-vis du déclenchement artificiel du travail à terme. Essai randomisé. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 1982;11(1):107-112. ➡ https://ciane.net/id=2067
#2018	Roach VJ, Rogers MS. (1997). Pregnancy outcome beyond 41 weeks gestation. {Chine}. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1997 Oct;59(1):19-24. ➡ https://ciane.net/id=2018
#2015	Goeree R, Hannah M, Hewson S. (1995). Cost-effectiveness of induction of labour versus serial antenatal monitoring in the Canadian Multicentre Postterm Pregnancy Trial. {Canada}. CMAJ. 1995 May 1;152(9):1445-50. ➡ https://ciane.net/id=2015
Pinned by #2017	Gelisen O, Caliskan E, Dilbaz S, Ozdas E, Dilbaz B, Ozdas E, Haberal A. (2005). Induction of labor with three different techniques at 41 weeks of gestation or spontaneous follow-up until 42 weeks in women with definitely unfavorable cervical scores. {Turquie}. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005 Jun 1;120(2):164-9. ➡ https://ciane.net/id=2017
Pinned by #2064	Francis P. J. M. Vrouenraets, MD, Frans J. M. E. Roumen, MD, PhD, Cary J. G. Dehing, BSt, Eline S. A. van den Akker, MD, Maureen J. B. Aarts, MD and Esther J. T. Scheve, MD (2005). Bishop Score and Risk of Cesarean Delivery After Induction of Labor in Nulliparous Women. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2005;105:690-697. ➡ https://ciane.net/id=2064
Pinned by #2984	William A. Grobman, M. D., Madeline M. Rice, Ph. D., Uma M. Reddy, M. D., M. P. H., Alan T. N. Tita, M. D., Ph. D., Robert M. Silver, M. D., Gail Mallett, R. N., M. S., C. C. R. C., Kim Hill, R. N., B. S. N., Elizabeth A. Thom, Ph. D., Yasser Y. El-Sayed, M. D., Annette Perez-Delboy, M. D., Dwight J. Rouse, M. D., George R. Saade, M. D., Kim A. Boggess, M. D., Suneet P. Chauhan, M. D., Jay D. Iams, M. D., Edward K. Chien, M. D., Brian M. Casey, M. D., Ronald S. Gibbs, M. D., Sindhu K. Srinivas, M. D., M. S. C. E., Geeta K. Swamy, M. D., Hyagriv N. Simhan, M. D., and George A. Macones, M. D., M. S. C. E. (2018). Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379:513-523 ➡ https://ciane.net/id=2984
Pinned by #3037	Cécile Loup, Emmanuelle Phan, Bernard Bel (2008). Le déclenchement systématique, une intervention anodine ? Note du CIANE suite aux RPC « Déclenchement artificiel du travail à partir de 37 semaines d’aménorrhée » publiées par la HAS en avril 2008. ➡ https://ciane.net/id=3037
Pinned by #3038	Camille Le Ray (2017). Le déclenchement du travail en France Résultats de l’étude MEDIP (Méthodes de Déclenchement et Issues Périnatales). Etude financée par l’ANSM dans le cadre de l’appel d’offre jeunes chercheurs 2014. ➡ https://ciane.net/id=3038
Pinned by #3039	Judy Slome Cohain (2018). Critique of Grobman etal. and the ARRIVE RCT to induce birth at 39 weeks. Conference: Midwifery Today, September. ➡ https://ciane.net/id=3039

	Discussion (display only in English)
15 Aug 2018 12:44	[FR] Cette étude porte sur 249 femmes à 41 semaines d’aménorrhée. Le tirage au sort en a placé 124 dans le groupe « déclenchement » et 125 dans le groupe « surveillance ». Les déclenchements ayant été réalisés le jour même du tirage au sort, aucune femme n’a accouché spontanément avant l’intervention. Le résultat est un taux de césariennes de 27% pour le groupe « déclenchement » et 22% pour le groupe « surveillance ». Bien que ces taux soient significativement différents, avec un risque accru après déclenchement, le résumé affirme : « The cesarean rate was not different between expectant management and immediate induction ». (Voir discussion méthodologique sur la page https://ciane.net/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Ciane.DeclenchementSystematiqueBiais) [Translate]	Bernard Bel

➡ Only identified users Click “login” on the top right to sign in or create your account I have read the guidelines of discussions and I accept all terms
[Hide guidelines] ➡ Discussion guidelines 1) Comments aim at clarifying the content of the publication or suggesting links for a better comprehension of its topic 2) All comments are public and opinions expressed belong to their authors 3) Avoid casual talk and personal stories 4) Any off-topic comment or containing inappropriate statements will be deleted without notice

barre

New expert query --- New simple query

Creating new record --- Importing records

User management --- Dump database --- Contact

bar

This database created by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR) is managed
by Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, https://ciane.net).
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in documentation
(2) or financially supporting CIANE (see below)
(3) or joining any society affiliated with CIANE.
➡ Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
➡ Contact bibli(arobase)ciane.net for more information.

Donating to CIANE (click “Faire un don”) will help us to maintain and develop sites and public
databases towards the support of parents and caregivers’ informed decisions with respect to childbirth