OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate if induction of labor (IOL) is associated with an increased risk of severe perineal laceration.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Ovid, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINHAL using a combination of keywords and text words related to \"induction of labor,\" \"severe perineal laceration,\" \"third-degree laceration,\" \"fourth-degree laceration,\" and \"OASIS\" from inception of each database until January 2023.
METHODS: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IOL to expectant management of a singleton, cephalic pregnancy at term gestation that reported rates of severe perineal laceration.
UNASSIGNED: The primary outcome of interest was severe perineal laceration, defined as 3rd- or 4th-degree perineal lacerations. We conducted meta-analyses using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird to determine the relative risks (RR) or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Bias was assessed using guidelines established by Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
RESULTS: A total of 11,187 unique records were screened and ultimately eight RCTs were included, involving 13,297 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of severe perineal lacerations between the IOL and expectant management groups (209/6655 [3.1%] vs 202/6641 [3.0%]; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85, 1.26). There was a statistically significant decrease in the rate of cesarean birth (1090/6655 [16.4%] vs 1230/6641 [18.5%], RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82, 0.95) and fetal macrosomia (734/2696 [27.2%] vs 964/2703 [35.7%]; RR 0.67: 95% CI 0.50, 0.90) in the IOL group.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference in the risk of severe perineal lacerations between IOL and expectant management in this meta-analysis of RCTs. Furthermore, there is a lower rate of cesarean births in the IOL group, indicating more successful vaginal deliveries with similar rates of severe perineal lacerations. Patients should be counseled that in addition to the known benefits of induction, there is no increased risk of severe perineal lacerations.

OBJECTIVE: Induction of labor in France concerns one birth out of four with 70% of induction starting by cervical ripening, either with a pharmacological (prostaglandins) or a mechanical (balloon) method. This review aims to compare these two methods within current knowledge, using the PRISMA methodology.
METHODS: Trials comparing these two methods, published or unpublished up to July 2023, in French or English were searched for in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrial.govs datasets. Fifty articles including 10,689 women were selected. The outcomes of interest were those from the Core Outcome Set for trails on Induction of Labour (COSIOL) list: mode of delivery, time from induction-to-birth, maternal and neonatal morbidity, and maternal satisfaction.
RESULTS: No differences were observed between the two methods for the mode of delivery or neonatal and maternal morbidity. The time from induction-to-birth was longer for mechanical methods. Those were also associated with a greater need for oxytocin, less uterine hyperstimulation and less instrumental deliveries. Maternal satisfaction was assessed in only nine trials using various scales which made the interpretation of maternal satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of these two induction methods is similar for vaginal delivery, but it remains to be seen which one best meets women\'s satisfaction criteria.

This study aimed to identify evidence-based peripartum interventions for people with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2.
PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 2022 without date, publication type, or language restrictions.
Cohort and randomized controlled trials that implemented an intervention and evaluated peripartum outcomes of people with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2 were included. The primary outcome depended on the intervention but was commonly related to wound morbidity after cesarean delivery (ie, infection, separation, hematoma).
Meta-analysis was completed for interventions with at least 2 studies. Pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals and heterogeneity (I2 statistics) were reported.
Of 20,301 studies screened, 30 studies (17 cohort and 13 randomized controlled trials) encompassing 10 types of interventions were included. The interventions included delivery planning (induction of labor, planned cesarean delivery), antibiotics during labor induction or for surgical prophylaxis, 6 types of cesarean delivery techniques, and anticoagulation dosing after a cesarean delivery. Planned cesarean delivery compared with planned vaginal delivery did not improve outcomes according to 3 cohort studies. One cohort study compared 3 g with 2 g of cephazolin prophylaxis for cesarean delivery and found no differences in surgical site infections. According to 3 cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials, there was no improvement in outcomes with a non-low transverse skin incision. Ten studies (4 cohort and 6 randomized controlled trials) met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Two randomized controlled trials compared subcuticular closure with suture vs staples after cesarean delivery and found no differences in wound morbidity within 6 weeks of cesarean delivery (n=422; risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.59; I2=9%). Prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy was compared with standard dressing in 4 cohort and 4 randomized controlled trials, which found no differences in wound morbidity (cohort n=2200; risk ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.63; I2=66.1%) or surgical site infections (randomized controlled trial n=1262; risk ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.29; I2=0).
Few studies address interventions in people with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2, and most studies did not demonstrate a benefit. Either staples or suture are recommended for subcuticular closure, but available data do not support prophylactic negative-pressure wound therapy after cesarean delivery for people with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2.

OBJECTIVE: Large-for-gestational-age (LGA) is associated with several adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Although many studies have found that early induction of labor (eIOL) in LGA reduces the incidence of shoulder dystocia (SD), no current guidelines recommend this particular strategy, due to concerns about increased rates of cesarean delivery (CD) and neonatal complications. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the timing of IOL in LGA fetuses affects maternal and neonatal outcomes in a single center; and to combine these results with the evidence reported in the literature.
METHODS: This study comprised two parts. The first was a retrospective cohort study that included: consecutive patients with singleton pregnancy, an estimated fetal weight (EFW) ≥90th percentile on ultrasound (US) between 35+0 and 39+0 weeks of gestation (WG), who were eligible for normal vaginal delivery. The second part was a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis that included the results of the first part as well as all previously reported studies that have compared IOL to expectant management in patients with LGA. The perinatal outcomes were CD, operative vaginal delivery (OVD), SD, brachial plexus palsy, anal sphincter injury, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), APGAR score, umbilical arterial pH, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), phototherapy, and bone fracture.
RESULTS: Retrospective cohort: of the 547 patients, 329 (60.1%) were induced and 218 (39.9%) entered spontaneous labor. Following covariate balancing, CD was significantly higher in the IOL group in comparison to the spontaneous labor group. This difference only became apparent beyond 40WG (hazard ratio: 1.9, p=0.030). The difference between both groups for shoulder dystocia was not statistically significant. Systematic review and metanalysis: 17 studies were included in addition to our own results giving a total sample size of 111,300 participants. When IOL was performed <40+0WG, the risk for SD was significantly lower in the IOL group (OR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.42-0.98, I2 =19%). There was no significant difference in CD rate between IOL and expectant management after pooling the results of these 17 studies. However, when removing the studies in which IOL was done exclusively before 40+0WG, the risk for CD in the remaining studies (IOL not exclusively <40+0WG) was significantly higher in the IOL group (odds ratio [OR]: 1.46, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 1.02-2.09, I2 =56%). There were no statistically significant differences between IOL and expectant management for the remaining perinatal outcomes. Nulliparity, history of CD, and low Bishop score but not methods of induction were independent risk factors for intrapartum CD in patients who were induced for LGA.
CONCLUSIONS: Timing of IOL in patients with suspected macrosomia significantly impacts perinatal adverse outcomes. IOL has no impact on rates of SD but does increase CD when considered irrespective of gestational age, but it may decrease the risk of SD without increasing the risk of other adverse maternal outcomes, in particular cesarean section when performed before 40+0 WG. (GRADE: Low/Very low). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: Labor is both a physiological and physical activity that requires energy expenditure by the woman. Despite this, women are often fasted in labor, with hydration requirements addressed predominantly by intravenous therapy. Little is known about how best to manage this in nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor, who can be prone to lengthy labors. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effects of intravenous hydration regimens on nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Databases searched were PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science using the search strategy combination of associated key concepts for intravenous therapy and nulliparous laboring women. The primary outcome was excessive neonatal weight loss. Meta-analyses for categorical outcomes included estimates of odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated; and for continuous outcomes the standardized mean difference, each with its 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed visually and by using the χ2 statistic and I2 with significance being set at p < 0.10.
RESULTS: A total of 1512 studies were located and following screening, three studies met the eligibility criteria. No studies reported excessive neonatal weight loss. Increased rates of intravenous therapy (250 mL/h vs. 125 mL/h) during labor were not found to reduce the overall length of labor (mean difference -0.07 h, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.13 h) or reduce cesarean sections (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45-1.23), when women were not routinely fasted.
CONCLUSIONS: Our review found no significant improvements for nulliparous women who received higher intravenous fluid volumes when undergoing induction of labor and were not routinely fasted. However, data are limited, and further research is needed.

The decision to pursue a trial of labor after cesarean delivery is complex and depends on patient preference, the likelihood of successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, assessment of the risks vs benefits of trial of labor after cesarean delivery, and available resources to support safe trial of labor after cesarean delivery at the planned birthing center. The most feared complication of trial of labor after cesarean delivery is uterine rupture, which can have catastrophic consequences, including substantial maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Although the absolute risk of uterine rupture is low, several clinical, historical, obstetrical, and intrapartum factors have been associated with increased risk. It is therefore critical for clinicians managing patients during trial of labor after cesarean delivery to be aware of these risk factors to appropriately select candidates for trial of labor after cesarean delivery and maximize the safety and benefits while minimizing the risks. Caution is advised when considering labor augmentation and induction in patients with a previous cesarean delivery. With established hospital safety protocols that dictate close maternal and fetal monitoring, avoidance of prostaglandins, and careful titration of oxytocin infusion when induction agents are needed, spontaneous and induced trial of labor after cesarean delivery are safe and should be offered to most patients with 1 previous low transverse, low vertical, or unknown uterine incision after appropriate evaluation, counseling, planning, and shared decision-making. Future research should focus on clarifying true risk factors and identifying the optimal approach to intrapartum and induction management, tools for antenatal prediction, and strategies for prevention of uterine rupture during trial of labor after cesarean delivery. A better understanding will facilitate patient counseling, support efforts to improve trial of labor after cesarean delivery and vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rates, and reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with uterine rupture during trial of labor after cesarean delivery.

BACKGROUND: The comparison between prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and oxytocin and for induction of labor (IOL) remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of these two agents in IOL.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. from the establishment of the database to April 23, 2023.
METHODS: A search was conducted with keywords \"labor, induction, prostaglandin E2/PGE2/dinoprostone, and oxytocin\". Only randomized clinical trials comparing oxytocin and vaginal dinoprostone in women who were at least late preterm (gestational age [GA] ≥34 weeks), singleton pregnant, and had intact membranes were enrolled for further meta-analysis.
METHODS: We conducted both a descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, we utilized the Mantel-Haenszel random effects model to analyze dichotomous data, employing the relative risk (RR) as the effect measure along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The study quality was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration\'s risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 2). A random-effects model was applied for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: After screening 3303 articles from five databases, a total of nine randomized controlled studies composed of 1071 patients were included. Our analysis included 534 patients in the PGE2 group and 537 patients in the oxytocin group. The pooled estimate of vaginal deliveries following PGE2 induction stood at 84.2%, while after oxytocin induction, it was 79.8%. The meta-analysis showed no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of the rate of vaginal delivery (pooled RR, 1.05; 95% CI: 0.95-1.16; P value for Q, 0.001; I2, 71.14%), cesarean section (pooled RR, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.52-1.35; P value for Q, 0.007; I2, 61.69%) and induction-delivery interval (pooled standard mean difference, 0.09; 95% CI: -0.67 to 0.85; P value for Q, 0.000; I2, 96.45%). Since the results for fetal distress and uterine hyperstimulation were consistent across all enrolled studies, no further meta-analysis was conducted.
CONCLUSIONS: When amalgamating the available literature, it implies that oxytocin was found to have similar effects as PGE2 on delivery outcomes and safety concerns in pregnant women with GA ≥36 weeks. Although the uterine cervix was unfavorable, both low and high doses of oxytocin were feasible for IOL.

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacological agents such as prostaglandins (dinoprostone and misoprostol) are commonly used to reduce the duration of labor and promote vaginal delivery. However, key safety considerations with its use include an increased risk of uterine rupture, tachysystole and hyperstimulation of pregnant women, which could potentially lead to a non-reassuring fetal heart rate and to fetal hypoxemia. The aim of this systematic review was to assess maternal and fetal outcomes between misoprostol group (PGE1) and dinoprostone group (PGE2) STUDY DESIGN: We search on MEDLINE (PubMed), CINHAL (EBSCOhost), EMBASE, Scopus (Ovid), CENTRAL (January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2022). Patients were eligible if they presented at greater than 36 weeks gestation with an indication for induction of labor and a single live cephalic fetus. We conducted a meta-analysis of data for both primary (cesarean section rate, instrumental deliveries rate, tachysystole, uterine rupture, post-partum haemorrage; chorionamiositis) and secondary outcomes (Apgar at 5 min <7, meconium-stained liquor, NICU admission, infant death) using odds-ratio (OR) as a measure of effect-size. Risk of bias assessment was performed with RoB-I. We performed statistical analyses using Cochrane RevMan version 5.4 software.
RESULTS: We found 39 RCTs comparing the outcomes of interest between misoprostol and dinoprostone. The pooled effect showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of cesarean section rate [OR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.84-1.05], instrumental deliveries rate [OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.90-1.19; p = 0.62], tachysystole [OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.91-1.60; p = 0.19], post-partum hemorrhage [OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.62-1.15p = 0.30], chorioamnionitis [OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.76-1.17p = 0.59], Apgar at 5 min < 7 [OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.61-1.12, p = 0.21], meconium-stained liquor [OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.97-1.27p = 0.59], NICU admission group [OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77-1.09], infant death [OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22-1.44]. After performing a sub-group analysis based on the type of prostaglandins administrations (oral, vaginal gel, vaginal pessary), results did not change substantially.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that misoprostol and dinoprostone appear to have a similar safety profile.

Evidence comparing double-balloon vs single-balloon catheter for induction of labor is divided. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of double-vs single-balloon catheters using individual participant data.
A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid Emcare, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted for randomized controlled trials published from March 2019 until April 13, 2021. Earlier trials were identified from the Cochrane Review on Mechanical Methods for Induction of Labour. Randomized controlled trials that compared double-balloon with single-balloon catheters for induction of labor in singleton gestations were eligible. Participant-level data were sought from trial investigators and an individual participant data meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcomes were rates of vaginal birth achieved, a composite measure of adverse maternal outcomes and a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes. We used a two-stage random-effects model. Data were analyzed from the intention-to-treat perspective.
Of the eight eligible randomized controlled trials, three shared individual-level data with a total of 689 participants, 344 women in the double-balloon catheter group and 345 women in the single-balloon catheter group. The difference in the rate of vaginal birth between double-balloon catheter and single-balloon catheter was not statistically significant (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.00, p = 0.050; I2 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Both perinatal outcomes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54-1.21, p = 0.691; I2 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and maternal composite outcomes (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.15-2.87, p = 0.571; I2 55.46%; low-certainty evidence) were not significantly different between the two groups.
Single-balloon catheter is at least comparable to double-balloon catheter in terms of vaginal birth rate and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Women with a history of cesarean section are a high-risk group because they are likely to develop uterine rupture during their next pregnancy. Current evidence suggests that a vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) is associated with lower maternal mortality and morbidity than elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD). Additionally, research suggests that uterine rupture can occur in 0.47% of cases of trial of labor after cesarean section (TOLAC).
METHODS: A healthy 32-year-old woman at 41 weeks of gestation, in her fourth pregnancy, was admitted to the hospital due to a dubious CTG record. Following this, the patient gave birth vaginally, underwent a cesarean section, and successfully underwent a VBAC. Due to her advanced gestational age and favorable cervix, the patient qualified for a trial of vaginal labor (TOL). During labor induction, she displayed a pathological CTG pattern and presented symptoms such as abdominal pain and heavy vaginal bleeding. Suspecting a violent uterine rupture, an emergency cesarean section was performed. The presumed diagnosis was confirmed during the procedure-a full-thickness rupture of the pregnant uterus was found. The fetus was delivered without signs of life and successfully resuscitated after 3 min. The newborn girl of weight 3150 g had an Apgar score of 0/6/8/8 at 1, 3, 5, and 10 min. The uterine wall rupture was closed with two layers of sutures. The patient was discharged 4 days after the cesarean section without significant complications, with a healthy newborn girl.
CONCLUSIONS: Uterine rupture is a rare but severe obstetric emergency and can be associated with maternal and neonatal fatal outcomes. The risk of uterine rupture during a TOLAC attempt should always be considered, even if it is a subsequent TOLAC.