Methoden zur Geburtseinleitung: Vorteile und Risiken individuell
                              abwägen

Sven Kehl; Florian Faschingbauer; Matthias W. Beckmann; Ulf Dammer

doi:10.1055/s-0042-108395

Hebamme, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Hebamme 2016; 29(03): 177-180
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-108395

SCHWERPUNKT

Geburtseinleitung

Hippokrates Verlag in Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

Methoden zur Geburtseinleitung: Vorteile und Risiken individuell abwägen

Authors

Sven Kehl

Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen
Florian Faschingbauer

Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen
Matthias W. Beckmann

Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen
Ulf Dammer

Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen

Abstract

Die Geburtseinleitung gehört mittlerweile zu den häufigsten Maßnahmen im geburtshilflichen Alltag und wird bei 20 bis 25% aller Schwangerschaften durchgeführt. Da die Einleitung den natürlichen Verlauf der Schwangerschaft beeinflusst, müssen vermutete Vorteile gegenüber möglichen Nachteilen abgewogen werden. Zudem sind die Erwartungen der schwangeren Frau zu berücksichtigen.

Volltext

Referenzen

Literatur
1 Boulvain M, Irion O. Stripping/sweeping the membranes for inducing labour or preventing post-term pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2000 (2). p. CD000451
2 Boulvain M et al. Does sweeping of the membranes reduce the need for formal induction of labour? A randomised controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105 (1): 34-40
3 Hapangama D, Neilson JP. Mifepristone for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2009 (3). p. CD002865
4 AWMF-Leitlinie 015/029 (S1). Vorgehen beim vorzeitigen Blasensprung. AWMF. 2010
5 Dare MR et al. Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more). Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2006 (1). p. CD005302
6 Morris JM et al. Immediate delivery compared with expectant management after preterm pre-labour rupture of the membranes close to term (PPROMT trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387 (10017): 444-452
7 Cross WG, Pitkin RM. Laminaria as an adjunct in induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1978; 51 (5): 606-608
8 Chauhan SP et al. Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193 (2): 332-346
9 Boulvain M et al. Induction of labour versus expectant management for large-for-date fetuses: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2015; 385 (9987): 2600-2605
10 Herabutya Y, Chanarachakul B, Punyavachira P. Induction of labor with vaginal misoprostol for second trimester termination of pregnancy in the scarred uterus. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 83 (3): 293-297
11 Koopmans CM et al. Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks’ gestation (HYPITAT): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009; 374 (9694): 979-988
12 Boers KE et al. Induction versus expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction at term: randomised equivalence trial (DIGITAT). BMJ 2010; 341 c7087
13 Spong CY et al. Timing of indicated late-preterm and early-term birth. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (2 Pt 1): 323-333
14 Caliskan E et al. Misoprostol 50 microg sublingually versus vaginally for labor induction at term: a randomized study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2005; 59 (3): 155-161
15 Dodd JM, Crowther CA. Misoprostol versus cervagem for the induction of labour to terminate pregnancy in the second and third trimester: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006; 125 (1): 3-8
16 Hatfield AS, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Sonographic cervical assessment to predict the success of labor induction: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197 (2): 186-192
17 Crane JM. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49 (3): 573-584
18 Kehl S et al. Combination of misoprostol and mechanical dilation for induction of labour: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 159 (2): 315-319
19 Boulvain M, Kelly A, Irion O. Intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2008 (1). p. CD006971
20 Kelly AJ et al. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2009 (4). p. CD003101
21 Alfirevic Z, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; (2) p. CD001338
22 Boulvain M, Stan C, Irion O. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2005 (1). p. CD000451
23 Howarth GR, Botha DJ. Amniotomy plus intravenous oxytocin for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2001 (3). p. CD003250
24 Macones GA et al. The efficacy of early amniotomy in nulliparous labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207 (5): 403 e1-5
25 Jozwiak M et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2012 (3). p. CD001233
26 Vaknin Z, Kurzweil Y, Sherman D. Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (5): 418-429
27 Fox NS et al. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2011; 118 (6): 647-654
28 Chen W et al. Meta-analysis of Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 129 (3): 193-198
29 Ande AB, Ezeanochie CM, Olagbuji NB. Induction of labor in prolonged pregnancy with unfavorable cervix: comparison of sequential intracervical Foley catheter-intravaginal misoprostol and intravaginal misoprostol alone. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012; 285 (4): 67-71
30 Shetty A et al. Women’s perceptions, expectations and satisfaction with induced labour – a questionnaire-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005; 123 (1): 56-61
31 Kehl S et al. Women’s acceptance of a double-balloon device as an additional method for inducing labour. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 168 (1): 30-35
32 Sentilhes L et al. Delivery for women with a previous cesarean: guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013; 170 (1): 25-32
33 Ferraiolo A et al. Evaluation of patients’ satisfaction of cervical ripening using dinoprostone by either intravaginal gel or pessary: an open-label, randomized, prospective study. J Reprod Med 2010; 55 (9–10): 423-429
34 Landon MB et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2004; 351 (25): 2581-2589
35 Rath W, Kehl S. Geburtseinleitung nach vorangegangener Sectio. FRAUENARZT 2015; 56 (11): 962-973