MATERNAL OUTCOME OF INDUCTION OF LABOR IN PREGNANT WOMEN WITH PREVIOUS SCAR
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71000/p43nr046Keywords:
Labor induction, , prostaglandin, , maternal outcomes, Women, Vaginal Birth, Uterine Scar, Cesarean SectionAbstract
Background: Induction of labor (IOL) in women with a previous cesarean section remains a clinically sensitive decision due to concerns about uterine rupture and maternal morbidity. However, when carefully selected, IOL may provide a safe and effective alternative to repeat cesarean delivery. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) is commonly used for cervical ripening and has shown favorable outcomes in inducing labor. This study aimed to evaluate the maternal outcome of labor induction in women with a history of one prior lower segment cesarean section.
Objective: To determine the maternal outcome of induction of labor in pregnant women with a previous cesarean scar.
Methods: This descriptive study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Saidu Sharif Medical College, Swat, from June to December 2024. A total of 145 pregnant women aged 15 to 40 years with a single previous lower segment cesarean section and confirmed second or third trimester pregnancies were enrolled using non-probability consecutive sampling. Induction was carried out using prostaglandin E2 (1.5 mg vaginal tablets) administered every 8 hours, with a maximum cumulative dose of 18 mg. Maternal outcomes were categorized as successful vaginal delivery or cesarean section. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.
Results: The mean maternal age was 28.76 ± 7.44 years, and the mean gestational age was 34.06 ± 4.57 weeks. Mean duration since previous uterine scar was 23.08 ± 5.15 months, and 30.3% of participants had a history of prior vaginal delivery. Successful vaginal delivery was achieved in 79 women (54.5%), while 66 (45.5%) underwent repeat cesarean section.
Conclusion: Labor induction using prostaglandin E2 in women with one prior cesarean scar can result in favorable vaginal delivery outcomes when patient selection and clinical monitoring are appropriately conducted.
References
Helmig RB, Brogaard L, Hvidman L. Women's body mass index and oral administration of Misoprostol for induction of labor - A retrospective cohort study. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2021;15(5):509-11.
Tan SP, Bashirudin SB, Rajaratnam RK, Gan F. Short stature and vaginal dinoprostone as independent predictors of composite maternal-newborn adverse outcomes in induction of labor after one previous cesarean: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024;24(1):455.
Di Tommaso M, Pellegrini R, Ammar O, Lecis S, Huri M, Facchinetti F. Safety of the use of dinoprostone gel and vaginal insert for induction of labor: A multicenter retrospective cohort study. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2025;168(3):1039-46.
Steetskamp J, Bachmann E, Hasenburg A, Battista MJ. Safety of misoprostol for near-term and term induction in small-for-gestational-age pregnancies compared to dinoprostone and primary cesarean section: results of a retrospective cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020;302(6):1369-74.
Di Mascio D, Villalain C, Rizzo G, Morales‐Rosello J, Sileo FG, Maruotti GM, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnancies complicated by late fetal growth restriction undergoing induction of labor with dinoprostone compared with cervical balloon: A retrospective, international study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(7):1313-21.
Ozbasli E, Canturk M, Aygun EG, Ozaltin S, Gungor M. Labor Induction with Intravaginal Misoprostol versus Spontaneous Labor: Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes. Biomed Res Int. 2022;2022:2826927.
Hopkins MK, Hamm RF, Srinivas SK, Levine LD. Labor and Delivery Outcomes with the Sequential Use of Misoprostol Followed by Cervical Foley Catheter. Am J Perinatol. 2021;38(14):1500-4.
Katz AA, Segal E, Kashani-Ligumsky L, Many A, Lopian M. Is there a role for oral misoprostol in labor induction for prelabor rupture of membranes at term? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025;25(1):467.
Mensah TA, Asah-Opoku K, Adu-Bonsaffoh K, Agbeno EK. Induction of labour outcomes in a tertiary hospital: the Ghanaian cervix and misoprostol 25ug (GCAM-25 STUDY)-a cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025;25(1):123.
Carletti V, Yacoub V, Valensise HC, Maneschi F. Induction of labor in high-risk nulliparous women with unfavorable cervix. Minerva Obstet Gynecol. 2025;77(2):103-11.
Wesselius SM, de Groot CJM, de Heus R, de Boer MA. Improved neonatal outcome following induction of labour using 25 µg versus 50 µg oral Misoprostol: A retrospective, comparative cohort study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2025;54(4):102927.
Alfirevic Z, Gyte GM, Nogueira Pileggi V, Plachcinski R, Osoti AO, Finucane EM. Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;8(8):Cd007372.
Alkmark M, Carlsson Y, Wendel SB, Elden H, Fadl H, Jonsson M, et al. Efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol vs transvaginal balloon catheter for labor induction: An observational study within the SWEdish Postterm Induction Study (SWEPIS). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(8):1463-77.
Szekeresová P, Hruban L, Jouzová A, Janků P, Gerychová R, Huptych M. Comparison of perinatal outcomes using oral misoprostol, vaginal misoprostol, and intracervical dinoprostone for induction of labor. Ceska Gynekol. 2025;90(2):105-12.
Li S, He H, Zheng W, Liu J, Chen C. Comparison of outcomes of labor induction with dinoprostone vaginal insert (PROPESS) and double balloon cook catheter in term nulliparous pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2025;51(1):e16107.
Burden C, Merriel A, Bakhbakhi D, Heazell A, Siassakos D. Care of late intrauterine fetal death and stillbirth: Green-top Guideline No. 55. Bjog. 2025;132(1):e1-e41.
Marlina D, Utomo A, Handono B, Pelitawati DR, Adriansyah PNA, Aziz MA, et al. Association Between Pre-Pregnancy Body Mass Index and Labor Induction Success Rates: A Case Control Study. Med Sci Monit. 2024;30:e946357.
RamyaMohana VA, Dorairajan G. Outcome of induction of labor with foley's catheter in women with previous one cesarean section with unfavorable cervix: an experience from a tertiary care institute in South India. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2022:72(1):26-31.
Germano C, Mappa I, Cromi A, Busato E, Incerti M, Lojacono A, et al. Induction of Labor in Women with Previous Cesarean Section and Unfavorable Cervix: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Healthcare. 2023;11(4):543.
Alshiwi AI, Begum BU, Kamal FN, Aslam S, Hamido HM, Atef GM. Outcomes and Complications of Pharmacological Induction of Labor in Women with Previous One Cesarean Section, in a Referral Center in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J. 2021;42(10):1078-82.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Asma Jamil, Saima Parveen, Tabassum, Parveen Naveed (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
