Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2017, Vol. 44 Issue (6): 862-865    DOI: 10.12891/ceog3809.2017
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Medical intervention during labor increases after in vitro fertilization pregnancy
A. Yanaihara1, *(), F. Michiba1, S. Ohgi1, K. Motomura1, A. Hirano1, M. Takenaka1, M. Yamashita1, T. Yanaihara1
1 Yanaihara Women's Clinic, Kamakura, Japan
Download:  PDF
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
Purpose of investigation: To compare the need for medical assistance during singleton deliveries between in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancy and spontaneous pregnancy (SP). Materials and Methods: A total of 848 women with singleton pregnancy (and who delivered at ≥ 36 weeks with problem-free pregnancy were divided into two groups. The groups were compared in terms of maternal age, parity, maternal pre-pregnancy body weight, maternal body weight at delivery, maternal weight gain, infant body weight, infant head circumference, and presence or absence of medical intervention (MI) at delivery (induction of labor, instrumental labor, or emergency cesarean section: CS). Results: The proportion of cases with MI was significantly higher in the IVF group (64.8%) than the SP group (39.3%). Clinical features, such as maternal age, parity, maternal body weight at delivery, infant body weight, and infant head circumference, were also extracted and compared between the two groups: MI group and non-medical intervention group. Univariate analysis showed significant differences between the MI group and the non-medical intervention group in terms of maternal age, maternal body weight at delivery, parity, infant body weight, infant head circumference, and presence or absence of IVF. Multivariate analysis of the factors that were significant in the univariate analysis showed similar trends in maternal age, parity, infant body weight, and presence or absence of IVF. In addition, the IVF group had a higher risk for requiring MI than the spontaneous pregnancy group [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.74; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.17-2.00, p < 0.01]. In particular, the IVF group had higher risk of needing emergency CS than the SP group (AOR 3.83; 95% CI, 1.87-7.78, p < 0.01). Conclusion: In spite of no problem in pregnancy course, the need for MI during labor increased after IVF regardless of maternal age and parity.
Key words:  Assisted reproduction      Delivery      Cesarean      Induction of labor     
Published:  10 December 2017     
*Corresponding Author(s):  A. YANAIHARA     E-mail:  at123y@yahoo.co.jp

Cite this article: 

A. Yanaihara, F. Michiba, S. Ohgi, K. Motomura, A. Hirano, M. Takenaka, M. Yamashita, T. Yanaihara. Medical intervention during labor increases after in vitro fertilization pregnancy. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(6): 862-865.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.12891/ceog3809.2017     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2017/V44/I6/862

[1] Xin Du, Qian Zou, Yu-Lan Liu. Transumbilical single-hole laparoscopic treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy by uterine artery pre-ligation: a report of 4 cases[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1044-1047.
[2] Athanasia Tsaroucha, Aliki Tympa Grigoriadou, Tania Moshovou, Kassiani Theodoraki, Aikaterini Melemeni. Efficacy of intrathecally administered fentanyl versus dexmedetomidine for cesarean section: a double blinded, randomized clinical trial[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1065-1070.
[3] Marcelo Epsztein Kanczuk, Nicholas J Lightfoot, Alison Pighills, Antony Ji, Casey Steele, Daniel Bartlett. The time to perform spinal or general anaesthesia in COVID-19 positive parturients requiring emergency caesarean delivery: a prospective crossover simulation study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1099-1106.
[4] Eser Ağar, Seda Şahin Aker. Effect of sexual dysfunction on women's preference for delivery methods: a social media-based survey[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1154-1161.
[5] Uros Visic, Tatjana Stopar Pintaric, Tit Albreht, Iva Blajic, Miha Lucovnik. Multimodal stepwise analgesia for reducing opioid consumption after cesarean delivery[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1162-1166.
[6] Lorenz Hinterleitner, Herbert Kiss, Johannes Ott. The impact of Cesarean section on female fertility: a narrative review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 781-786.
[7] Basilio Pecorino, Giuseppe Scibilia, Placido Borzì, Maria Elena Vento, Pierfrancesco Veroux, Paolo Scollo. Diminished ovarian reserve and ectopic ovaries in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome candidates for Uterus Transplantation: our experience[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 907-912.
[8] Valeria Filippi, Luigi Raio, Sophia Amylidi-Mohr, Rudolf Tschudi, Daniele Bolla. Epidural analgesia at trial of labour after caesarean section. A retrospective cohort study over 12 years[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 913-917.
[9] Dragan Belci, Gian Carlo Di Renzo, Davor Zoričić, Andrea Tinelli, Antonio Malvasi, Michael Stark. Less is more—a minimal approach technique for Cesarean Section[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 478-482.
[10] Aizura Syafinaz Ahmad Adlan, Vikneswaran Virasamy, Doris Ng Sin-Wen, Noor Azmi Mat Adenan. 8 am versus 8 pm labour induction with dinoprostone vaginal tablets in term pregnancies with unfavourable cervices—a randomised controlled trial[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 523-527.
[11] Eser Ağar, Gökhan Karakoç. Comparison of electrocautery and scalpel for blood loss and postoperative pain in Pfannenstiel incisions in recurrent cesarean sections: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 534-539.
[12] Lin Ling, Juanjuan Fu, Lei Zhan, Wenyan Wang, Qian Su, Jun Li, Bing Wei. Surgical management for type II cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 555-560.
[13] Lejla Kamerić, Anis Cerovac, Mirzeta Rizvanović, Alen Kamerić, Mahira Jahić, Dubravko Habek. Frequency of cesarean section in pregnant women with risk factors for preeclampsia: prospective cohort study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 561-566.
[14] Batool Ali H. Alkhazal, Majed Abdullah Halawani, Ibtihal Omar Alsahabi, Hassan S.O. Abduljabbar. The preferred mode of delivery among primigravida Middle Eastern Women. A questionnaire based study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 567-571.
[15] Faris Mujezinović, Veronika Anzeljc, Monika Sobočan, Iztok Takač. Do women in Slovenia prefer vaginal birth after prior caesarean and what hinders its successful outcome? A single institution retrospective analysis[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 607-614.
No Suggested Reading articles found!