title: Premature rupture of membrane at term: early induction versus expectant management.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Premature rupture of membrane is managed either expectantly or actively. The purpose of the study was to assess the effectiveness of early labor induction with cervical prostaglandin E2 versus expectant management in women with term premature rupture of membrane.
  
  
  METHODS
  Singleton pregnancy cases with cephalic presentation reported between 37 and 41 weeks of pregnancy with PROM of <6 h and cervical dilatation <3 cm were studied over a period of 2 years. Out of 100 patients studied, half of them were managed by expectant protocol and the other half by early induction within 6 h of PROM with intracervical gel. Main outcomes measured were PROM-delivery interval, mode of delivery, neonatal and maternal morbidity, and period of maternal and/or neonatal hospitalization. Chi-square test was used to compare frequencies between two groups. Differences between means of other measurement were compared by independent t test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  PROM-delivery interval was 22 h in expectant group, while in early induction group, it was 13 h (p value < 0.001). Rate of cesarean section remained almost same in both groups. Increases in maternal-neonatal infection rate and hospital stay were noted in expectant group; however, this was not statistically significant.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Immediate labor induction with prostaglandin in cases of term PROM shortens delivery interval and maternal hospital stay with reduction in maternal-neonatal sepsis.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, B J Medical College, Ahmedabad, 380016 India ; 238, B Type Quarters, Kasturba Medical College Campus, Manipal, Udupi District, Karnataka 576104 India.
authors.forename: Krupa
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Shah
authors.forename: Haresh
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Doshi
keywords: Expectant management; Induction; Premature rupture of membrane; Term PROM
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD005302
references.pmid: 16437525
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002 May;77(2):109-15
references.pmid: 12031560
references.citation: BJOG. 2005 Sep;112(9):1284-90
references.pmid: 16101609
references.citation: Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun;47(2):192-6
references.pmid: 18603505
references.citation: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(2):195-200
references.pmid: 18231888
references.citation: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Aug;39(3):291-5
references.pmid: 10554936
references.citation: Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Dec;41(4):883-91
references.pmid: 9917943
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001 Mar;72(3):215-21
references.pmid: 11226441