77 -2 (88) 2026 - B.N. Bishekova, B.K. Zharkynbekov - OUTCOMES OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF LABOR INDUCTION IN PREGNANT WOMEN WITH FETAL MACROSOMIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

OUTCOMES OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF LABOR INDUCTION IN PREGNANT WOMEN WITH FETAL MACROSOMIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH SPONTANEOUS LABOR

B.N. Bishekova - Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University, City Maternity Hospital, Kazakhstan Medical University, Kazakhstan.

B.K. Zharkynbekov - Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University, City Maternity Hospital, Kazakhstan Medical University, Kazakhstan.

Zh.U. Sultanova - Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University, City Maternity Hospital, Kazakhstan Medical University, Kazakhstan.

K.U. Abdraimova - Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University, City Maternity Hospital, Kazakhstan Medical University, Kazakhstan.

D.M. Sailaubai - Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University, City Maternity Hospital, Kazakhstan Medical University, Kazakhstan.

S.E. Nurzhanova - Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University, City Maternity Hospital, Kazakhstan Medical University, Kazakhstan.

M.K. Omirbay - Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University, City Maternity Hospital, Kazakhstan Medical University, Kazakhstan.

Resume

The increasing number of labor inductions, including in women with a large fetus, necessitates the search for the safest and most effective methods of cervical ripening. A large fetus is associated with a higher risk of obstetric complications and cesarean section, making the choice of labor management strategy particularly important.

Keywords. Labor induction, large fetus, misoprostol, dinoprostone, Foley catheter, delivery, cesarean section.

First page

385

Last page

391

For citation:B.N. Bishekova, B.K. Zharkynbekov., Zh.U. Sultanova., K.U. Abdraimova., D.M. Sailaubai., S.E. Nurzhanova., M.K. Omirbay. - OUTCOMES OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF LABOR INDUCTION IN PREGNANT WOMEN WITH FETAL MACROSOMIA: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH SPONTANEOUS LABOR//New Day in Medicine 2(88)2026 385-391 https://newdayworldmedicine.com/en/new_day_medicine/2-88-2026

List of References

1. Bishekova B.N., Kozhabekova T.A., Rakhimova S.B., et al. Opyt primeneniya prostaglandinov E1–E2 s tsel'yu induktsii rodov [Experience in using prostaglandins E1–E2 for labor induction]. Reproduktivnaya meditsina (Tsentral'naya Aziya). 2023;2:31–38. (in Russian)
2. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 849: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(2): e110–e127.
3. Baev O.R. Effektivnaya farmakoterapiya [Effective pharmacotherapy]. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya. 2021;3:40-44. (in Russian)
4. Beckmann M., Gibbons K., Flenady V., Kumar S. Induction of labour using prostaglandin E2 as an inpatient versus balloon catheter as an outpatient: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020; 127: 571–579.
5. Ferrari M., Rossi A., Bianchi G. Mechanical methods for induction of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020;46(8):1300–1308. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.14234
6. Häggsgård C., Persson E.K. Management of oxytocin for labour augmentation in relation to mode of birth in Robson group 1. Midwifery. 2020;90:102822.
7. Hofmeyr G.J., et al. Misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;5(5):CD000941.
8. Jones A., et al. Adverse effects of misoprostol in labor induction: incidence and management. BJOG. 2020;127(3):370–378.
9. Kim Y.J., et al. Misoprostol dosage and labor outcomes: a prospective cohort study. Int J Womens Health. 2023;15:91–98.
10. Middleton P., Shepherd E., Morris J. Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks’ gestation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;7:CD004945.

    file

    download