Early versus late amniotomy for induction of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation Pub Date : 2025-03-11 DOI:10.1159/000544831
Abdulrahim Gari, Saeed Baradwan, Afaf Tawfiq, Ghaidaa Hakeem, Alya Alkaff, Bandr Hafedh, Fahad Algreisi, Hassan M Latifah, Mohammad Alyafi, Hanin Hassan Abduljabbar, Nabigah Alzawawi, Hussein Sabban, Alaa Edrees, Ahmed Abu-Zaid
{"title":"Early versus late amniotomy for induction of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Abdulrahim Gari, Saeed Baradwan, Afaf Tawfiq, Ghaidaa Hakeem, Alya Alkaff, Bandr Hafedh, Fahad Algreisi, Hassan M Latifah, Mohammad Alyafi, Hanin Hassan Abduljabbar, Nabigah Alzawawi, Hussein Sabban, Alaa Edrees, Ahmed Abu-Zaid","doi":"10.1159/000544831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of early amniotomy, performed before the active phase of labor, versus late amniotomy, conducted during the active phase.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Six data sources were screened until April 2024 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes were pooled using risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in fixed or random-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen RCTs involving 3,378 patients were included. Four RCTs had a low risk of bias, and 12 had some concerns. There was no significant difference in cesarean section rates (RR=1.00, 95% CI [0.79, 1.27], p=0.99) or normal vaginal delivery (RR=1.01, 95% CI [0.93, 1.10], p=0.81) between early and late amniotomy. However, early amniotomy reduced time-to-delivery by 2.42 hours (95% CI: -3.06, -1.54, p<0.0001) but increased the risk of chorioamnionitis (RR=1.46, 95% CI [1.06, 2.01], p=0.02). There was no difference in other maternal or neonatal outcomes, including endometritis, maternal fever, postpartum hemorrhage, cord prolapse, uterine hyperstimulation, APGAR score, neonatal sepsis, NICU admission, or meconium-stained amniotic fluid Conclusion: Early amniotomy significantly reduced time-to-delivery without increasing cesarean section rates but was associated with a higher risk of chorioamnionitis. Further research is needed to determine the optimal IOL protocol.</p>","PeriodicalId":12952,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000544831","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of early amniotomy, performed before the active phase of labor, versus late amniotomy, conducted during the active phase.

Methods: Six data sources were screened until April 2024 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes were pooled using risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in fixed or random-effects models.

Results: Sixteen RCTs involving 3,378 patients were included. Four RCTs had a low risk of bias, and 12 had some concerns. There was no significant difference in cesarean section rates (RR=1.00, 95% CI [0.79, 1.27], p=0.99) or normal vaginal delivery (RR=1.01, 95% CI [0.93, 1.10], p=0.81) between early and late amniotomy. However, early amniotomy reduced time-to-delivery by 2.42 hours (95% CI: -3.06, -1.54, p<0.0001) but increased the risk of chorioamnionitis (RR=1.46, 95% CI [1.06, 2.01], p=0.02). There was no difference in other maternal or neonatal outcomes, including endometritis, maternal fever, postpartum hemorrhage, cord prolapse, uterine hyperstimulation, APGAR score, neonatal sepsis, NICU admission, or meconium-stained amniotic fluid Conclusion: Early amniotomy significantly reduced time-to-delivery without increasing cesarean section rates but was associated with a higher risk of chorioamnionitis. Further research is needed to determine the optimal IOL protocol.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal covers the most active and promising areas of current research in gynecology and obstetrics. Invited, well-referenced reviews by noted experts keep readers in touch with the general framework and direction of international study. Original papers report selected experimental and clinical investigations in all fields related to gynecology, obstetrics and reproduction. Short communications are published to allow immediate discussion of new data. The international and interdisciplinary character of this periodical provides an avenue to less accessible sources and to worldwide research for investigators and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Early versus late amniotomy for induction of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Outcomes Post-laparoscopic Intervention for Accessory and Cavitated Uterine Masses: A Review and a Molecular Insight. Clinical characteristics of women with surgical signs of superficial peritoneal endometriosis but a negative histology: A nested case-control study. Correlation analysis of serum vitamin C and pelvic organ prolapse in middle-aged and elderly women: based on NHANES database. Identification of potential diagnostic biomarkers and drug targets for endometriosis from a genetic perspective: a mendelian randomization study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1