Download PDF
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

Sven Kehl
Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen
,
Florian Faschingbauer
Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen
,
Matthias W. Beckmann
Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen
,
Ulf Dammer
Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
30 June 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

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.

 

  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hapangama D, Neilson JP. Mifepristone for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2009 (3). p. CD002865
    Google Scholar
  • 4 AWMF-Leitlinie 015/029 (S1). Vorgehen beim vorzeitigen Blasensprung. AWMF. 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cross WG, Pitkin RM. Laminaria as an adjunct in induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1978; 51 (5): 606-608
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chauhan SP et al. Suspicion and treatment of the macrosomic fetus: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193 (2): 332-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Boers KE et al. Induction versus expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction at term: randomised equivalence trial (DIGITAT). BMJ 2010; 341 c7087
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Spong CY et al. Timing of indicated late-preterm and early-term birth. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (2 Pt 1): 323-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Crane JM. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49 (3): 573-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Boulvain M, Kelly A, Irion O. Intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2008 (1). p. CD006971
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Kelly AJ et al. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2009 (4). p. CD003101
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Alfirevic Z, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; (2) p. CD001338
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Boulvain M, Stan C, Irion O. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2005 (1). p. CD000451
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Howarth GR, Botha DJ. Amniotomy plus intravenous oxytocin for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2001 (3). p. CD003250
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Jozwiak M et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2012 (3). p. CD001233
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Fox NS et al. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2011; 118 (6): 647-654
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rath W, Kehl S. Geburtseinleitung nach vorangegangener Sectio. FRAUENARZT 2015; 56 (11): 962-973
    Google Scholar