MARATTO

article · PLoS ONE

Early versus late amniotomy during induction of labor using oxytocin: A randomized controlled trial

20238 citationsOpen accessUniversity of Tunis El Manar

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of early amniotomy on labor duration, maternal and neonatal outcomes during induction of labor (IOL). METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial, conducted over a period of eight months at a monocentric site. Singleton pregnancies in nulliparous and parous patients with cephalic presentation and Bishop score ≥ 6 were enrolled in the study. One hundred participants were randomized into two groups: early amniotomy (initiating IOL with amniotomy followed by oxytocin) versus late amniotomy (initiating IOL with oxytocin followed by amniotomy 4 hours later). The primary endpoint was the time to active phase (cervical dilation ≥ 5 cm) during IOL. Secondary outcomes were time to vaginal delivery, mode of delivery, and maternal and fetal outcomes. RESULTS: Early amniotomy reduced time to active phase by 2 hours and 46 minutes compared to the late amniotomy group (3 h 42 min vs. 6 h 28 min; p<0.0001). It also reduced time to vaginal delivery by 2 hours and 52 minutes (5 h 17 min vs. 8 h 9 min; p = 0.0003). The rate of cesarean section (CS) for failed IOL was significantly lower in the early amniotomy group (31.2% vs. 70.0%; p = 0.02), without any significant difference in the overall rate of cesarean section between the two groups (32.0% vs. 40.8%; p = 0.36). There was no significant difference in maternal or fetal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Early amniotomy in IOL significantly shortens the time to active phase as well as the overall duration of labor without compromising maternal and neonatal safety.

Research topics

  • Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Maternal and fetal healthcare
  • Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286037

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.