Caesarean sections and outcomes of labor induction after the introduction of a new intravaginal device: retrospective analysis

Abstract

Caesarean sections and outcomes of labor induction after the introduction of a new intravaginal device: retrospective analysis Veronika Anzeljc1 , Faris Mujezinović1,2, * 1Department of Perinatology, University Medical Centre Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia 2Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine University of Maribor, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia *Correspondence: faris.mujezinovic@ukc-mb.si (Faris Mujezinović) DOI:10.31083/j.ceog.2021.03.2440 This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Submitted: 30 December 2020 Revised: 15 February 2021 Accepted: 10 March 2021 Published: 15 June 2021 Background: To evaluate the outcomes and process of labour induction following the introduction of a new vaginal device with slow releasing dinoprostone (Propess). Methods: Data were collected on the indications for labour induction, the process of induction and delivery, and the outcomes of delivery for 171 term pregnancies between 1 January 2020 and 31 August 2020. Excluded from this study were patients with preterm delivery, multiple pregnancies, or pre-labour rupture of membranes. Data for the standard dinoprostone medication (PG) and Propess groups was analysed and compared. Results: Of the 93 women (54.4% of total) induced in the PG group, 55 (59.1%) received Prostin tablets, 17 (18.3%) received 1 mg of Prostin gel, and 21 (22.6%) received 2 mg of Prostin gel. Seventy eight women (45.6%) received the new intravaginal device (Propess group). The five most frequent indications for labour induction were post-term pregnancy (53, 31.0%), GDM (42, 24.6%), oligohydramnios (30, 17.5%), IUGR (21, 12.3%), and hypertensive disease (20, 11.7%). The Bishop scores were unfavourable in the majority of cases (119, 69.6%). The length of induction was less than 24 hours in 134 women (78.4%). Oxytocin was used more frequently (p = 0.001) in the Propess group and these women underwent more frequent caesarean section (20.5% vs 12.9%, p = 0.31). The status of babies was good in both groups. Conclusion: Introduction of the Propess device to mainstream medical practice has led to rapid implementation and resulted in improved workȠlow and positive outcomes for both the baby and mother. Keywords Induction of labour; Intravaginal device; Outcome of labour induction