{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,5]],"date-time":"2026-10-05T22:30:46Z","timestamp":1791239446762,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":43,"publisher":"Federa\u00e7\u00e3o das Associa\u00e7\u00f5es de Ginecologia e Obstetr\u00edcia","issue":"06","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2019,6,27]],"date-time":"2019-06-27T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1561593600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":26,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019,6]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>\n            Objective\u2003To evaluate the results of induced labor and to determine the main factors associated with intrapartum cesarean section after patients being submitted to this procedure at the Hospital Universit\u00e1rio of the Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (HU\/UFSC, in the Portuguese acronym), Florian\u00f3polis, state of Santa Catarina, Brazil.<\/jats:p><jats:p>\n            Methods\u2003A retrospective cross-sectional study that included all the pregnancies that resulted in single-fetus births, whose gestational-age was\u2009&gt;\u200922 weeks and that had been submitted to labor induction at the HU\/UFSC in the period from 2013 to 2016.<\/jats:p><jats:p>\n            Results\u2003During the proposed period, 1,491 pregnant women were submitted to the labor induction protocol. In 1,264 cases (84.8%), induction resulted in labor, with 830 (65.7%) progressing to vaginal delivery. Gestational age\u2009\u2265\u200941\u2009+\u20090 weeks was the most common indication for induced labor (55.2%), and vaginal administration of misoprostol was the most commonly used method (72.0%). Among these pregnant women, the cesarean section rate was of 34.3%. Considering the cases of induction failure, the cesarean section rate rose to 44.3%. The factors associated with cesarean section were: previous history of cesarean delivery (PR [prevalence ratio]\u2009=\u20091.48; 95%CI [confidence interval]: 1.51\u20131.88), fetuses with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) (PR\u2009=\u20091.82; 95%CI: 1.32\u20132.19), Bishop score\u2009\u2264\u20096 (PR\u2009=\u20091.33; 95%CI: 1.01\u20131.82), and induction time either\u2009&lt;\u200912 hours (PR\u2009=\u20091.44; 95%CI: 1.17\u20131.66) or\u2009&gt;\u200936 hours (PR\u2009=\u20091.51; 95%CI 1.22\u20131.92) between the beginning of the induction and the birth.<\/jats:p><jats:p>\n            Conclusion\u2003Labor induction was successful in most patients. In the cases in which the final outcome was a cesarean section, the most strongly associated factors were: previous history of cesarean delivery, presence of fetuses with IUGR, and either excessively short or excessively long periods of induction.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1055\/s-0039-1688966","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2019,6,27]],"date-time":"2019-06-27T23:54:05Z","timestamp":1561679645000},"page":"363-370","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":10,"title":["Factors Associated with Intrapartum Cesarean Section in Women Submitted to Labor Induction"],"prefix":"10.61622","volume":"41","author":[{"given":"Glaucia Regina","family":"Pf\u00fctzenreuter","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Hospital Regional de S\u00e3o Jos\u00e9 Homero de Miranda Gomes, S\u00e3o Jos\u00e9, SC, Brazil"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Juliana Coutinho","family":"Cavalieri","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florian\u00f3polis, SC, Brazil"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Ana Paula de Oliveira","family":"Fragoso","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florian\u00f3polis, SC, Brazil"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Karine Souza","family":"Da Corregio","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florian\u00f3polis, SC, Brazil"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Paulo Fontoura","family":"Freitas","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florian\u00f3polis, SC, Brazil"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-0196-4488","authenticated-orcid":false,"suffix":"J\u00fanior","given":"Alberto","family":"Trapani","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Hospital Regional de S\u00e3o Jos\u00e9 Homero de Miranda Gomes, S\u00e3o Jos\u00e9, SC, Brazil"},{"name":"Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florian\u00f3polis, SC, Brazil"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"47794","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2019,6,27]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref1","volume-title":"Response to Searles Drug Worning on Misoprostol. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 248","year":"2000"},{"key":"ref2","first-page":"47","article-title":"M\u00e9todos de indu\u00e7\u00e3o do trabalho de parto","volume":"41","author":"G N Souza","year":"2013","journal-title":"Femina"},{"issue":"S 01","key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"S70","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2009.02.036","article-title":"Cervical ripening and insufficiency: from biochemical and molecular studies to in vivo clinical examination","volume":"144","author":"D Schlembach","year":"2009","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol"},{"issue":"03","key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"161","DOI":"10.1159\/000433429","article-title":"Definition of failed induction of labor and its predictive factors: two unsolved issues of an everyday clinical situation","volume":"38","author":"N Ba\u00f1os","year":"2015","journal-title":"Fetal Diagn Ther"},{"issue":"06","key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"483","DOI":"10.1053\/j.semperi.2015.07.013","article-title":"Failed induction of labor","volume":"39","author":"C Schoen","year":"2015","journal-title":"Semin Perinatol"},{"key":"ref6","first-page":"523","volume-title":"Induction and augmentation of labor","author":"F Cunningham","year":"2014"},{"key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"386","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5","article-title":"ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor","volume":"114","year":"2009","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"03","key":"ref8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"739","DOI":"10.1007\/s00404-012-2341-3","article-title":"The Bishop Score as a determinant of labour induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"286","author":"C Teixeira","year":"2012","journal-title":"Arch Gynecol Obstet"},{"key":"ref9","first-page":"493","article-title":"[Methods for labor induction]","volume":"27","author":"O B Moraes Filho","year":"2005","journal-title":"Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet"},{"issue":"03","key":"ref10","first-page":"127","article-title":"[Mechanical method of induction of labor in high-risk pregnant women with previous cesarean section]","volume":"37","author":"A SR Souza","year":"2015","journal-title":"Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet"},{"key":"ref11","first-page":"277","article-title":"M\u00e9todos farmacol\u00f3gicos de indu\u00e7\u00e3o de trabalho de parto: qual o melhor?","volume":"38","author":"A SR Souza","year":"2010","journal-title":"Femina"},{"key":"ref12","first-page":"266","article-title":"Pelvic scoring for elective induction","volume":"24","author":"E H Bishop","year":"1964","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"03","key":"ref13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"564","DOI":"10.1097\/00003081-200609000-00016","article-title":"Preinduction cervical assessment","volume":"49","author":"K A Baacke","year":"2006","journal-title":"Clin Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"04","key":"ref14","first-page":"479","article-title":"Preinduction scoring: an objective approach to induction of labor","volume":"28","author":"J E Burnett Jr","year":"1966","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"03","key":"ref15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"325","DOI":"10.1080\/00016340902730417","article-title":"Can ultrasound measurements replace digitally assessed elements of the Bishop score?","volume":"88","author":"T M Eggeb\u00f8","year":"2009","journal-title":"Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand"},{"issue":"05","key":"ref16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1181","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3182704880","article-title":"Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop","volume":"120","author":"C Y Spong","year":"2012","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"ref17","volume-title":"Diretrizes de Aten\u00e7\u00e3o \u00e0 Gestante: a Opera\u00e7\u00e3o Cesariana","year":"2015"},{"issue":"11","key":"ref18","first-page":"CD009433","article-title":"Planned early delivery versus expectant management of the term suspected compromised baby for improving outcomes","author":"D M Bond","year":"2015","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"issue":"03","key":"ref19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"333","DOI":"10.1016\/0002-9378(85)90298-4","article-title":"Estimation of fetal weight with the use of head, body, and femur measurements--a prospective study","volume":"151","author":"F P Hadlock","year":"1985","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"06","key":"ref20","first-page":"911","article-title":"Prolonged pregnancy: induction of labor and cesarean births","volume":"97","author":"J M Alexander","year":"2001","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"01","key":"ref21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"129","DOI":"10.1016\/S0002-9378(03)00909-8","article-title":"Risk of cesarean delivery in nulliparous women at greater than 41 weeks' gestational age with an unengaged vertex","volume":"190","author":"K S Shin","year":"2004","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"ref22","first-page":"917","article-title":"Elective induction of labor as a risk factor for cesarean delivery among low-risk women at term","volume":"95","author":"A S Maslow","year":"2000","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"03","key":"ref23","first-page":"452","article-title":"The association of maternal weight with cesarean risk, labor duration, and cervical dilation rate during labor induction","volume":"103","author":"F S Nuthalapaty","year":"2004","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"05","key":"ref24","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"456","DOI":"10.1111\/j.0001-6349.2005.00620.x","article-title":"Emergency cesarean delivery in induction of labor: an evaluation of risk factors","volume":"84","author":"R Cnattingius","year":"2005","journal-title":"Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand"},{"issue":"05","key":"ref25","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"629","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2015.04.004","article-title":"Induction of labor at full term in uncomplicated singleton gestations: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials","volume":"213","author":"G Saccone","year":"2015","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"02","key":"ref26","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"343","DOI":"10.1097\/GRF.0000000000000029","article-title":"Elective induction of labor symposium: nomenclature, research methodological issues, and outcomes","volume":"57","author":"B G Darney","year":"2014","journal-title":"Clin Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"02","key":"ref27","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"113","DOI":"10.1159\/000166307","article-title":"Risk factors for cesarean delivery in preterm, term and post-term patients undergoing induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix","volume":"67","author":"C S Ennen","year":"2009","journal-title":"Gynecol Obstet Invest"},{"issue":"05","key":"ref28","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"319","DOI":"10.1080\/14767050410001702195","article-title":"Predictors of successful labor induction with oral or vaginal misoprostol","volume":"15","author":"J M Crane","year":"2004","journal-title":"J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med"},{"issue":"07","key":"ref29","first-page":"346","article-title":"[Cervical Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial]","volume":"32","author":"M V Oliveira","year":"2010","journal-title":"Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet"},{"key":"ref30","first-page":"25","article-title":"[Factors associated with vaginal delivery in high-risk pregnant women submitted to labor induction with misoprostol]","volume":"26","author":"Z S Sampaio","year":"2004","journal-title":"Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet"},{"issue":"05","key":"ref31","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1059","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000001083","article-title":"Predicting cesarean delivery after induction of labor among nulliparous women at term","volume":"126","author":"M C Tolcher","year":"2015","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"03","key":"ref32","first-page":"118","article-title":"[Efficacy of dinoprostone and misoprostol for labor induction in nulliparous women]","volume":"33","author":"T A Oliveira","year":"2011","journal-title":"Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet"},{"issue":"02","key":"ref33","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"198","DOI":"10.1111\/aogs.12043","article-title":"Elective induction of labor and the risk of cesarean section in low-risk parous women: a cohort study","volume":"92","author":"M Jonsson","year":"2013","journal-title":"Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand"},{"issue":"12","key":"ref34","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1232","DOI":"10.3109\/14767058.2013.864274","article-title":"Term induction of labor and risk of cesarean delivery by parity","volume":"27","author":"L D Levine","year":"2014","journal-title":"J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med"},{"issue":"01","key":"ref35","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"115","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000000922","article-title":"Outcomes of term induction in trial of labor after cesarean delivery: analysis of a modern obstetric cohort","volume":"126","author":"J R Lappen","year":"2015","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"ref36","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"44","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2016.07.505","article-title":"Balloon catheters for induction of labor at term after previous cesarean section: a systematic review","volume":"204","author":"S Kehl","year":"2016","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol"},{"key":"ref37","first-page":"CD004906","article-title":"Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth","volume":"7","author":"J M Dodd","year":"2017","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"issue":"06","key":"ref38","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"513","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa1800566","article-title":"Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women","volume":"379","author":"W A Grobman","year":"2018","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"issue":"05","key":"ref39","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"394","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1479-828X.2007.00763.x","article-title":"Predicting a failed induction","volume":"47","author":"M Beckmann","year":"2007","journal-title":"Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol"},{"issue":"01","key":"ref40","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"70","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3181c4ef96","article-title":"Term labor induction compared with expectant management","volume":"115","author":"J C Glantz","year":"2010","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"01","key":"ref41","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"122.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2017.11.556","article-title":"Defining failed induction of labor","volume":"218","author":"W A Grobman","year":"2018","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"02","key":"ref42","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"224","DOI":"10.3109\/14767058.2014.993965","article-title":"The indication for induction of labor impacts the risk of cesarean delivery","volume":"29","author":"I Parkes","year":"2016","journal-title":"J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med"},{"issue":"06","key":"ref43","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1195","DOI":"10.1007\/s00404-016-4171-1","article-title":"Induction of labor: does indication matter?","volume":"294","author":"R Gabbay-Benziv","year":"2016","journal-title":"Arch Gynecol Obstet"}],"container-title":["Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetr\u00edcia \/ RBGO Gynecology and Obstetrics"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journalrbgo.org\/article\/factors-associated-with-intrapartum-cesarean-section-in-women-submitted-to-labor-induction\/","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"http:\/\/www.thieme-connect.de\/products\/ejournals\/pdf\/10.1055\/s-0039-1688966.pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2024,7,18]],"date-time":"2024-07-18T20:56:36Z","timestamp":1721336196000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journalrbgo.org\/article\/factors-associated-with-intrapartum-cesarean-section-in-women-submitted-to-labor-induction\/"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2019,6]]},"references-count":43,"journal-issue":{"issue":"06","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2019,6,27]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019,6]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1055\/s-0039-1688966","archive":["Portico","CLOCKSS"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0100-7203","1806-9339"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0100-7203","type":"print"},{"value":"1806-9339","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2019,6]]}}}