Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 288, Issue 2, pp 261–265 | Cite as

Early amniotomy after vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial

  • Mohamed H. Makarem
  • Kamal M. Zahran
  • Mohamad S. Abdellah
  • Mohamed A. Karen
Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

To test the effectiveness and safety of early amniotomy after vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labor.

Study design

A randomized clinical trial that included 320 women with medical or obstetric indication for labor induction. They were randomly assigned into two equal groups, amniotomy group and control group. Each participant received vaginal misoprostol 50 μg every 6 h for induction of labor. In amniotomy group, amniotomy was done in the early active phase of labor while in the control group, the membranes were left to rupture spontaneously or as judged by the senior resident in the duty.

Results

More subjects in the amniotomy group achieved vaginal delivery within 24 h than in the control group [117 (73.13 %) vs. 105 (65.63 %)]. Subjects in the amniotomy group reported shorter induction to delivery interval (09.72 ± 4.61 h vs. 13.61 ± 5.61, P = .002), and better neonatal outcome compared to the control group. There were no statistically significant differences between both group with regard to number of doses of misoprostol, need for oxytocin, Cesarean Section indication and maternal side effects.

Conclusion

Early amniotomy after vaginal misoprostol for labor induction is associated with higher successful vaginal delivery rate, shorter labor duration and better neonatal outcome.

Keywords

Amniotomy Induction of labor Misoprostol 

References

  1. 1.
    Adair CD (2000) Nonpharmacologic approaches to cervical priming and labor induction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 43:447–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ajadi MA, Kuti O, Oriji EO, Ogunnivi SO, Sule SS (2006) The effect of amniotomy on the outcome of spontaneous labour in uncomplicated pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol 26:631–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alfirevic Z (2001) Oral misoprostol for induction of labour (Cochrance Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD001338.EAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boulvain M and Irion O (2000) Stripping/sweeping of the membranes for inducing labour or preventing post-term pregnancy 2004. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD000451Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boulvain Michel, Anthony J Kelly, Cornelia Lohse, Catalin M Stan, Olivier Irion (2001) “Mechanical methods for induction of labour”. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev (4): CD001233. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001233. PMID 11687101
  6. 6.
    Selo-Ojeme Dan O, Pisal Pradnya, Lawal Olalekan, Rogers Cathy, Shah Abhijeet, Sinha Smitha (2009) A randomised controlled trial of amniotomy and immediate oxytocin infusion versus amniotomy and delayed oxytocin infusion for induction of labour at term. Arch Gynecol Obstet 279:813–820PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dreifuss JJ (1993) Oxytocin in reproductive biology: newly discovered sites of production and of action. In: Campana A (ed) Reproductive health. Ares Serono Symposia, Lisbon, pp 71–74Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fraser WD, Sauve R, Parboosingh IJ, Fung T, Sokol R, Persaud D (1991) A randomized controlled trial of early amniotomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 98:84–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fraser WD, Turcot L, Krauss I, Brisson-Carrol G (2000) Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD000015Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fraser WD, Turcot L, Krauss I, Brisson-Carrol G (2006) Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 3: Art. No.:CD000015. DOI: 10.1002/14651858 (withdrawn)
  11. 11.
    Garite TJ, Porto M, Carlson NJ, Rumney PJ, Reimbold PA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine Medical Center, Orange 92668. 1993 Jun;168(6 Pt 1):1827–31; discussion 1831–2Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hadi H (2000) Cervical ripening and labor induction: clinical guidelines. Clin Obstet Gynecol 43:524–536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herbst A, Kallen K (2007) Time between membrane rupture and delivery and septicemia in term neonates. Obstet Gynecol 110:612–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keirse MJNC, Chalmers I (2006) Natural prostaglandins for induction of labor and preinduction cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49(3):609–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li N, Wang Y, Zhou H (2006) Effects of routine early amniotomy on labor and health status of fetus and neonate: a meta-analysis. Shonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 41:16–19 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Macones GA, Cahill A, Stamilio DM et al (2012) The efficacy of early amniotomy in nulliparous labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:403.e1–405.e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nachum Z, Garmi G, Kadan Y, Zafran N, Shalev E, Salim R.Rappaport Faculty of Medicine Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ha’Emek Medical Center, Afula, Israel. 2010 Nov 7;8:136Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seaward PG, Hannah ME, Myhr TL et al (1997) International multicentre term prelabor rupture of membranes study: evaluation of predictors of clinical chorioamnionitis and postpartum fever in patients with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177:1024–1029PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smyth RMD, Alldred SK, Markham C (2007) Amniotomy for shortening spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD006167PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tenore JL (2003) Methods for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Am Fam Physician 67:2123–2128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tran SH, Cheng YW, Kaimal AJ, Caughey AB (2008) Length of rupture of membranes in the setting of premature rupture of membranes at term and infectious maternal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198:700.e1–705.e1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wei S, Wo BL, Xu H, Luo ZC, Roy C, Fraser WD Département d’Obstétrique-Gynécologie, Université de Montréal, Hôpital Sainte-Justine, Bureau 4986, 3175 Chemin de la côte Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, Province of Quebec, Canada, H3T 1C5. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD006Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wing DA, Ham D (1999) Paul RH: a comparison of orally adminstered misoprostol with vaginally adminstered misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 180(5):1155–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zahran KM, Shahin AY, Abdellah MS, Elsayh KI (2009) Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized prospective placebo-controlled study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 35(6):1054–1060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed H. Makarem
    • 1
  • Kamal M. Zahran
    • 1
  • Mohamad S. Abdellah
    • 1
  • Mohamed A. Karen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of medicine, Women’s Health CentreAssiut UniversityAssiutEgypt

Personalised recommendations