[ertand]

I wonder what its correlation with induction is. Artificially inducing labor does not tend to give the body enough time to adjust and progress.

[dabbledash]

Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks results in a lower c-section rate than expectant management (waiting to see if labor will start naturally).

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/induced-labor-...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4049989/

Normally though, induction happens because there is some problem or because the pregnancy has gone past the due date, and in these cases your risk of a c-section is already elevated.

[ertand]

Makes sense. As mentioned in the comments, there are different ways of inducing labor. I was referring to usage of pitocin or similar too early in the process, instead of gradually inducing the labor with other medications. We had success with just misoprostol during our labor, but the process was quite long.

[dabbledash]

These inductions would have been primarily pitocin and / or cervical ripening agents like cirvidil.

[ertand]

Misoprostol is also a cervical ripening agent comparable to cervidil.

[sambe]

I don’t think c-section after successful induction is common. There are some number of failed inductions (i.e. nothing happens) which result in c-section. Bear in mind that this is generally done - like the original induction - because “giving enough time” after 42 weeks costs lives.

This review finds the rate is actually lower after induction, contrary to popular claims:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4049989/

[KaiserPro]

[citation needed]

induced labour happens in so many different ways, that broad statement is not going to fly.

Also there are many way to induce labour, none of them are quick. Some take a few hours, others days.

For example a "sweep" is where someone goes in and stretches the cervix, with their hands. There are pessaries too. None of it is quick.

[ertand]

Sorry for not being clear, I was specifically talking about pitocin level induction.