A comparative study of pharmacological, nonpharmacological, and combined methods of induction of labor
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15584/ejcem.2025.1.26Keywords:
Bishop score, cervical ripening, cesarean section, induction of labor, PV findings, success rateAbstract
Introduction and aim. Induction of labor (IOL), a common obstetric procedure, aims to induce labor. The study defined labor induction success as true uterine contractions and classified delivery outcomes as vaginal, instrumental, and cesarean. A higher Bishop score predicts a vaginal delivery. The objective was to compare cervical status, induction success, cesarean section rates, and normal delivery rates of pharmacological and non-pharmacological IOL methods.
Material and methods. In this study, 296 pregnant women admitted to the labor room were divided into three groups: those who received pharmacological agents (25 μg/50 μg misoprostol or dinoprostone 5 g gel to start labor), those who were giv en non-pharmacological agents (Foley’s catheter and membrane stripping to start labor), and those who were given both non-pharmacological and pharmacological agents (Foley’s catheter and membrane stripping followed by oxytocin to start labor).
Results. Although a 92.5% induction success rate, the use of non-pharmacological methods alone led to a rate of 49.06% cesar ean section rate. Combined with a pharmacological agent such as oxytocin, it achieved almost the same success rate (91.43%) as a pharmacological method of inducing labor (18.57%). This resulted in a lower rate of cesarean section than pharmacological and nonpharmacological methods (p=0.002).
Conclusion. Nonpharmacological IOL methods alone led to higher cesarean rates despite improved cervical status. Combining them with pharmacological agents such as oxytocin resulted in higher normal delivery rates and fewer cesarean sections, indicating a more effective approach for improving delivery outcomes.
Downloads
References
Haavaldsen C, Morken NH, Saugstad OD, Eskild A. Is the increasing prevalence of labor induction accompanied by changes in pregnancy outcomes? An observational study of all singleton births at gestational weeks 37-42 in Norway during 1999-2019. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023;102(2):158-173. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14489
Schoen C, Navathe R. Failed induction of labor. Semin Perinatol. 2015;39(6):483-487. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi. 2015.07.013
Bonsack CF, Lathrop A, Blackburn M. Induction of labor: update and review. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2014;59(6):606-615. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.12255
Place K, Kruit H, Tekay A, Heinonen S, Rahkonen L. Success of trial of labor in women with a history of previous cesarean section for failed labor induction or labor dystocia: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2019;19(1). doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2334-3
Dakshnamurthy P, Rajendran K, Vasu K. A study of transvaginal cervical length measurement at term in the prediction of labor outcome. International Journal of Infertility &Amp; Fetal Medicine. 2023; 14(3):129-132. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10016-1325
Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266-268. doi: 10.54844/prm.2023.0353
Karaşin S. A novel method for assessing the condition of the cervix before labor induction: cervical length/thickness ratio. Journal of Surgery and Medicine. 2022;6(8):729-734. doi: 10.28982/josam.7357
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2Pt1):386-397. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5
Wheeler V, Hoffman A, Bybel M. Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor [published correction appears in Am Fam Physician. 2022;106(2):121. Am Fam Physician. 2022;105(2):177-186.
Tarimo CS, Mahande MJ, Obure J. Prevalence and risk factors for caesarean delivery following labor induction at a tertiary hospital in North Tanzania: a retrospective cohort study (2000-2015). BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):173. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-02861-8
Ando K, Hédou JJ, Feyaerts D, et al. A Peripheral Immune Signature of Labor Induction. Front Immunol. 2021;12:725989. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.725989
Li PC, Tsui WL, Ding DC. The Association between Cervical Length and Successful Labor Induction: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(2):1138. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20021138
Hochler H, Wainstock T, Lipschuetz M, et al. Induction of labor in women with a scarred uterus: does grand multiparity affect the risk of uterine rupture?. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020;2(1):100081. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2019.100081
Mlodawski J, Mlodawska M, Plusajska J, Detka K, Bialek K, Swiercz G. Repeatability and Reproducibility of Potential Ultrasonographic Bishop Score Parameters. J Clin Med. 2023;12(13):4492. doi: 10.3390/jcm12134492
Mnasd A, Mfae H. Role of preinduction transvaginal ultrasound measurment of cervical length in prediction of labour induction success. The Medical Journal of Cairo University. 2022;90(12):2417-2425. doi: 10.21608/mjcu.2022.295226
Demir H, Köle E, Çakır Köle M, Güllüoğlu A, Danışman AN. Comparison of Bishop’s score and cervical length in determining the need for cervical maturation before labor induction. Ginekol Pol. 2024;95(5):373-383. doi: 10.5603/gpl.97186
Bayoumy KM, Yehia AH, Salman MM, Alkady NM. Posterior cervical angle and cervical length in predicting the successful induction of labour in nulliparous woman. Evidence Based Women’s Health Journal. 2020;10(1):31-36. doi: 10.21608/ebwhj.2019.17770.1037
Liu Y, Ye S, Ma Y, Zhao X, Wang Y. Construction and verification of prediction models for intrapartum cesarean section to be used at full-term pregnant women with singleton and cephalic presentation under the new labor standard: a retrospective case-control study. Research Square. 2022. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2216237/v1
Al-Adwy AM, Sobh SM, Belal DS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of posterior cervical angle and cervical length in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;141(1):102-107. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12425.
Hemmatzadeh S, Abbasalizadeh F, Mohammad-Alizadeh-Charandabi S, Asghari Jafarabadi M, Mirghafourvand M. Development and Validation of a Nomogram to Estimate Risk of Cesarean After Induction of Labor in Term Pregnancies with an Unfavorable Cervix in Iran. Clin Nurs Res. 2022;31(7):1332-1339. doi: 10.1177/10547738221093754.
Gerli S, Favilli A, Giordano C, Bini V, Di Renzo GC. Single indications of induction of labor with prostaglandins and risk of cesarean delivery: a retrospective cohort study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2013;39(5):926-931. doi: 10.1111/jog.12000
Rishitha M, Anuradha C, Lakshmi JV. A comparitive study between unfavourable cervix and favorable cervix for incidence of caesarean section with the induction of labour. International Journal of Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2020;4(2):150-154. doi: 10.33545/gynae.2020.v4.i2c.519
Ghazal K, Yared G. A retrospective analysis of the effects of second - stage labor arrest on postpartum women’s stress urinary incontinence. Journal of Gynecology Rese-
arch Reviews &Amp; Reports. 2022:1-6. doi: 10.47363/jgrrr/2022(4)154
Wingert A, Hartling L, Sebastianski M, et al. Clinical interventions that influence vaginal birth after cesarean delivery rates: Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):529. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2689-5
Greenberg JT, Cross SN, Raab CA, Pettker CM, Illuzzi JL. Adherence to Definitions of Labor Arrest Influence on Primary Cesarean Delivery Rate. Am J Perinatol. 2024;41(5): 618-627. doi: 10.1055/a-1745-1570
Kaur T, Garg S, Kaur G, Kaur H. A study of preinduction transvaginal ultrasonographic cervical length and its comparison with bishop score in predicting successful labour. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019;8(7):2691. doi: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20193026
Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK, et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG. 2016;123(3):346-354. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13456
Kolkman DG, Verhoeven CJ, Brinkhorst SJ, et al. The Bishop score as a predictor of labor induction success: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30(8):625-630. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1331024
Osmundson S, Ou-Yang RJ, Grobman WA. Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(3):583-587. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820caf12
Verhoeven CJ, van Uytrecht CT, Porath MM, Mol BW. Risk factors for cesarean delivery following labor induction in multiparous women. J Pregnancy. 2013;2013:820892. doi: 10.1155/2013/820892
Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al. Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513-523. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800566
Czech I, Fuchs P, Fuchs A, et al. Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Methods of Labour Pain Relief-Establishment of Effectiveness and Comparison. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12):2792. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122792
Młodawski J, Młodawska M, Galuszewska J, Glijer K, Głuszek S. Is Unfavourable Cervix prior to Labor Induction Risk for Adverse Obstetrical Outcome in Time of Universal Ripening Agents Usage? Single Center Retrospective Observational Study. J Pregnancy. 2020;2020:4985693. doi:
1155/2020/4985693.
Iftikhar T, Qazi N, Malik N, Hamid N, Gul N, Rauf R. Prediction of successful induction of labour jointly using bishop score and transvaginal sonography in primigravida women in pakistan. Annals of PIMS-Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University. 2023;19(2):141-146. doi: 10.48036/apims.v19i2.783
Msumi R. Predictors for successful induction of labour at muhimbili national hospital. AJMCRR. 2023;02(05). doi: 10.58372/2835-6276.1039
Bekru ET, Bezalem EY. Success of labour induction institution based cross-sectional study Wolaita Sodo, South Ethiopia. International Journal of Nursing. 2018;10(12): 161-167. doi: 10.5897/IJNM2018.0303
Hirshberg A, Levine LD, Srinivas S. Labor length among overweight and obese women undergoing induction of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(17):1771-1775. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2013.879705
Kim YM, Park JY, Sung JH, et al. Predicting factors for success of vaginal delivery in preterm induction with prostaglandin E2. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2017;60(2):163-169. doi: 10.5468/ogs.2017.60.2.163
Rogaleli Y, Awang M. Prediction model of prolonged and obstructed labor in east nusa tenggara: a multivariate adaptive regression splines analysis. Jurnal Info Kesehatan. 2023;21(2):199-211. doi: 10.31965/infokes.vol21.iss2.1206
Al Ghazali BS. The effect of maternal body mass index on duration of induced labor. Kufa Medical Journal. 2023;19(2):138-146. doi: 10.36330/kmj.v19i2.13270
Sotiriadis A, Petousis S, Thilaganathan B, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes after elective induction of labor at 39 weeks in uncomplicated singleton pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(1):26-35. doi: 10.1002/uog.20140
Ezebialu IU, Eke AC, Eleje GU, Nwachukwu CE. Methods for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(6):CD010762. Doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010762.pub2
Wang H, Hong S, Liu Y, Duan Y, Yin H. Controlled-release dinoprostone insert versus Foley catheter for labor induction: a meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(14):2382-2388. doi: 10.3109/ 14767058.2015.1086331
Malik A, Irfan S, Yousuf F, Amerjee A, Naz S, Virji S. Comparison of pre and post Foley catheter Bishop’s Score: A retrospective record review at Aga Khan University Hospital Karachi, Pakistan. Pak J Med Sci. 2024;40(1Part-I):73-77. doi: 10.12669/pjms.40.1.7433
Juncu V, Vaso E, Cernețchi O, Căpîlna M. Comparative analysis of pharmacologic and mechanical methods for labor induction in patients at full-term pregnancy- a systematic review. F1000Research. 2023;12:1586. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.140877.1
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 European Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition: this means that articles have free availability on the public Internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from having access to the Internet itself.
All articles are published with free open access under the CC-BY Creative Commons attribution license (the current version is CC-BY, version 4.0). If you submit your paper for publication by the Eur J Clin Exp Med, you agree to have the CC-BY license applied to your work. Under this Open Access license, you, as the author, agree that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. This facilitates freedom in re-use and also ensures that Eur J Clin Exp Med content can be mined without barriers for the research needs.
