Induction of labour: a randomised clinical trial of amniotomy versus amniotomy with oxytocin infusion. Induction of labour: a comparison of a single prostaglandin E2 vaginal tablet with amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin.
To compare two methods of induction of labour-amniotomy with oxytocin infusion versus amniotomy alone.
                Prospective randomised clinical trial.
                The department of obstetrics in a Swedish central hospital.
                One hundred and ninety-six pregnant women with indication for induction of labour at term and a favourable cervix (modified Bishop score > or = 6).
                The women were randomised to amniotomy followed by oxytocin infusion after 1 h (group A, n = 98) or amniotomy alone (group B, n = 98). If labour had not ensued on the following morning, after approximately 24 h, the women in group B were given an oxytocin infusion.
                Induction-delivery interval, duration of labour, time spent in delivery ward, oxytocin use, maternal and neonatal clinical outcome.
                Amniotomy combined with early oxytocin infusion resulted in shorter induction-delivery interval (median 6.0 h; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.0 to 6.5 h) than amniotomy alone (median 9.0 h; 95% CI 7.5 to 10.0 h). This was due to a shorter latent period in the former group (median 2.3 h; 95% CI 2.0 to 3.0 h) compared to the latter (median 4.3 h; 95% CI 3.0 to 5.5 h). The duration of labour stages 1 and 2 were similar in both groups. The time spent in the delivery ward was slightly reduced for women managed by amniotomy alone (median 5.0 h; 95% CI 4.5 to 6.0 h) compared with those managed by the combination of amniotomy and oxytocin infusion (median 6.0 h; 95% CI 5.0 to 6.5 h). Eighty-seven percent in group A and 32% in group B were given oxytocin, and the total oxytocin infusion time was nearly five times longer in group A. No other important effect on maternal or fetal outcomes was demonstrated.
                With regard to safety the results do not warrant recommending either type of labour induction. The minor differences observed between the induction groups justify an individual management policy, with attention paid to both the indication for induction of labour and the woman's choice. In a randomized controlled study of 100 women of low parity and favourable induction features, induction of labour by means of a single vaginal tablet containing 3 mg of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) was compared with the conventional method of amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin. Four of the patients (8%) who received the prostaglandin tablet required additional intravenous oxytocin to achieve delivery. The prostaglandin group had a longer mean overall induction-delivery interval but a shorter amniotomy-delivery interval than the oxytocin group. One patient in the PGE2 group and two in the oxytocin group required caesarean section. The PGE2 treated patients expressed a higher level of satisfaction with their method of induction, they required less analgesia, had less blood loss at delivery and their babies had a lower incidence of neonatal jaundice.
Data are lacking about the value of amniotomy alone for induction of labour. While there are now other modern methods available for induction of labour (pharmacological agents), there remain clinical scenarios where amniotomy alone may be desirable and appropriate, and this method is worthy of further research. This research should include evaluation of the appropriate time interval from amniotomy to secondary intervention, women and caregivers' satisfaction and economic analysis.
[Note: the two citations in the awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.]