[Clinical experiences with intracervical XXXX administration for labor induction].

@entity1 @entity390 @entity1421 @entity2918 @entity397
From January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1987, 119 @entity1 among a total number of 2309 were recorded prospectively, who needed induction of labour for mixed indications (Group A), for a premature rupture of the membrane (Group B) or for medical indication (Group C). Independently of the ripe of cervix the results were significantly better in the multiparae than nulliparae respecting the success of induction, the duration of labour and the rate of Caesarean sections. 66.4% (n = 79) of all cases could be delivered within 24 hours after the first gel-application. Statistically significant differences in the partial collectives A, B, and C were seen only by unripe cervix (A = 60.0%, B = 71.4%, C = 30.0%). Repeated tries of inductions led to statistically significant more rates of Caesarean sections, fever during labour and prolonged course of labour. The rate of Caesarean sections and the fetal post-partum results comparing to the other remaining deliveries in 1986/87 were statistically not different. Side effects induced by @entity2918 were only founded in two cases concerning @entity390 . Uterine hyperactivities with pathological CTG-patterns being resistant to treatment with beta-mimetics were found in one case. As severe complication the only case with particular @entity397 must be seen. Based on our experience the intracervical @entity1421 -application for induction of labour is not disadvantageous for mother and fetus, if there are certain indications and fixed criteria.
