Obstetrics & Gynecology Track the topics, authors and articles important to you
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Obstetrics & Gynecology 1997;89:913-917
© 1997 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gonen, O
Right arrow Articles by Fejgin, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gonen, O
Right arrow Articles by Fejgin, M.

Articles

Induction of labor versus expectant management in macrosomia: a randomized study

O Gonen, DJ Rosen, Z Dolfin, R Tepper, S Markov, and MD Fejgin

OBJECTIVE: Macrosomia at term is associated with increased maternal and neonatal morbidity, including a higher rate of cesarean delivery and shoulder dystocia. Induction of labor has been suggested as a means to prevent further weight gain and improve outcome. The aim of this study was to determine whether or not induction of labor in these cases improves maternal and neonatal outcome. METHODS: Patients at term with an ultrasonic fetal weight estimation of 4000-4500 g were prospectively randomized into two groups: induction of labor (group D and expectant management (group II). Patients with diabetes, a previous cesarean delivery, or nonvertex presentation were excluded. Outcome variables included mode of delivery, arterial cord pH, presence of shoulder dystocia, brachial plexus injury, clavicular fracture, cephalohematoma, and intraventricular hemorrhage. RESULTS: Of 273 patients who were eligible for the study, 134 were randomized to group I and 139 to group II. Parity, gestational age, and fetal weight estimation were similar in the two groups. The neonates of group II patients were significantly heavier (4132.8 +/- 347.4 versus 4062.8 +/- 306.9 g; P = .024). The rate of cesarean delivery was 19.4% in group I and 21.6% in group II patients (not significant [NS]). Cord pH was similar in both groups. Shoulder dystocia was diagnosed in five group I and six group II patients (NS). None developed brachial plexus injury. There were two cases of mild, transient brachial plexus injury in group II patients without documented shoulder dystocia. Mild intraventricular hemorrhage was diagnosed in three of 44 group I and two of 31 group II neonates evaluated (NS). CONCLUSION: In this prospective, randomized study, induction of labor for suspected macrosomia at term did not decrease the rate of cesarean delivery or reduce neonatal morbidity. Ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight between 4000 and 4500 g should not be considered an indication for induction of labor.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann Fam MedHome page
A. B. Caughey
Preventive Induction of Labor: Potential Benefits if Proved Effective
Ann. Fam. Med, July 1, 2007; 5(4): 292 - 293.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
L. Sanchez-Ramos, S. Bernstein, and A. M. Kaunitz
Expectant Management Versus Labor Induction for Suspected Fetal Macrosomia: A Systematic Review
Obstet. Gynecol., November 1, 2002; 100(5): 997 - 1002.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
A. S. MASLOW and A. L. SWEENY
Elective Induction of Labor as a Risk Factor for Cesarean Delivery Among Low-Risk Women at Term
Obstet. Gynecol., June 1, 2000; 95(6): 917 - 922.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.