Induction of Labour Versus Expectant Management for Large-for-Date Fetuses: A Randomized-Controlled Trial. Issue 2 (June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Boulvain, M.; Senat, M.V.; Perrotin, F.; Winer, N.; Beucher, G.; Subtil, D.; Bretelle, F.; Azria, E.; Hejaiej, D.; Vendittelli, F.; Capelle, M.; Langer, B.; Matis, R.; Connan, L.; Gillard, P.; Kirkpatrick, C.; Ceysens, G.; Faron, G.; Irion, O.; Rozenberg, P.
• Other Names: collaborator.
• Is Part Of: Obstetric anesthesia digest. Volume 36:Issue 2(2016:Jun.)
• Page Start: 95
• Page End: 97
• Publication Date: 2016-06
• Subjects: Obstetric Complications -- Neonatal Morbidity and Mortality; Anesthesia in obstetrics -- Periodicals; Anesthesia in obstetrics -- Abstracts -- Periodicals; 617.968205
• DOI: 10.1097/01.aoa.0000482633.65442.81
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0275-665X

Abstract

Abstract : ( Lancet. 2015;385(9987):2600–2605) As macrosomia is a risk factor for unfavorable delivery outcomes, including operative vaginal or cesarean delivery and shoulder dystocia (with its associated neonatal morbidity), it is important to determine the best clinical practices for the management of pregnancies with large-for-date fetuses. This randomized-controlled trial evaluated the risks and benefits of induction of labor versus expectant management in women with large-for-date fetuses, hypothesizing that induction of labor would prevent shoulder dystocia and other neonatal and maternal morbidity associated with macrosomia, without significantly affecting the risk of cesarean delivery.