Risk of caesarean delivery after induction of labour stratified by foetal sex

Eran Hadar*, Liran Hiersch, Eran Ashwal, Amir Aviram, Arnon Wiznitzer, Rinat Gabbay-Benziv

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


This study describes a retrospective analysis of all women admitted for induction of labour (IoL), carrying a viable singleton foetus, after 34 + 0 weeks of gestation. We aimed to evaluate if foetal sex has an impact on the rate of caesarean delivery following labour induction. Our results demonstrate that among the 1062 women who met the inclusion criteria, 49% (521/1062) were carrying a male foetus. Other than a lower rate of Oxytocin use for the female sex pregnancies, there were no significant differences in pre-labour and labour characteristics between male or female sex pregnancies. There was no difference in caesarean delivery rate between groups (14.4% vs. 14.2%, male vs. female, respectively, p =.505). We concluded conclude that foetal sex does not impact the caesarean delivery rate among women undergoing IoL, regardless of the indication for induction and the indication for the caesarean delivery.Impact statement Male sex foetuses are at increased risk for adverse perinatal outcomes including, among others, an increased risk for caesarean delivery. The possible contribution of male sex to caesarean delivery after labour induction has not been specifically explored. Following induction of labour, there is no difference in failed induction or caesarean delivery rate between male and female sex pregnancies. Induction of labour may be safely employed for both male and female foetuses.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)731-735
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Issue number6
StatePublished - 18 Aug 2017


  • Induction
  • failed
  • fetal
  • gender
  • labour
  • sex


Dive into the research topics of 'Risk of caesarean delivery after induction of labour stratified by foetal sex'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this