NHI.no
Annonse
Informasjon

Overtidig svangerskap

Overtidig svangerskap er når svangerskapet varer 294 dager eller mer. Andelen fødsler i svangerskapsuke 42 eller senere var 4,6 prosent i 2017.

Årsaker til at svangerskap går over tiden, er ikke kjent, men feil beregning av termin kan forekomme. Illustrasjonsfoto: Colourbox

Sist oppdatert:

3. sep. 2020

Dette dokumentet er basert på det profesjonelle dokumentet Overtidig svangerskap . Referanselisten for dette dokumentet vises nedenfor

  1. Morken N-H, Haavaldsen C, Heimstad R, et al. Overtidig svangerskap. Veileder i fødselshjelp 2020. Norsk gynekologisk forening. www.legeforeningen.no
  2. Årstabeller for medisinsk fødselsregister 2017. Fødsler i Norge. Folkehelseinstituttet 2018. statistikkbank.fhi.no
  3. Morken NH, Melve KK, Skjaerven R. Recurrence of prolonged and post-term gestational age across generations: maternal and paternal contribution. BJOG. 2011;118:1630-5 PubMed
  4. Oberg AS, Frisell T, Svensson AC, Iliadou AN . Maternal and fetal genetic contributions to postterm birth: familial clustering in a population-based sample of 475,429 Swedish births. Am J Epidemiol 2013; 177: 531-7. pmid:23425630 PubMed
  5. Olesen AW, Basso O, Olsen J. Risk of recurrence of prolonged pregnancy. BMJ 2003; 326: 476. British Medical Journal
  6. Kortekaas JC, Kazemier BM, Ravelli AC, de Boer K, van Dillen J, Mol B, de Miranda E . Recurrence rate and outcome of postterm pregnancy, a national cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 193: 70-4. pmid:26247484 PubMed
  7. Stotland NE, Washington AE, Caughey AB. Prepregnancy body mass index and the length of gestation at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197: 378. PubMed
  8. Whitworth M, Bricker L, Mullan C. Ultrasound for fetal assessment in early pregnancy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD007058. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007058.pub3. DOI
  9. Nakling J, Backe B. Adverse obstetric outcome in fetuses that are smaller than expected at second trimester routine ultrasound examination. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81: 846-51. PubMed
  10. Finucane EM, Murphy DJ, Biesty LM et al. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD000451. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000451.pub3 DOI
  11. Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD001338. pmid: 24924489 PubMed
  12. de Vaan MD, Ten Eikelder ML, Jozwiak M, Palmer KR, Davies-Tuck M, Bloemenkamp KW, Mol BWJ, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 30;3(3):CD001233. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub4. The Cochrane Library
  13. Middleton P, Shepherd E, Morris J, Crowther CA, Gomersall JC. Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2020, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD004945. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004945.pub5. Accessed 07 January 2021. The Cochrane Library
  14. Wennerholm U-B, Saltvedt S, Wesssbweg A, et al. Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial. BMJ 2019; 367: l6131. doi:10.1136/bmj.l6131 DOI
  15. Rydahl E, Declercq E, Juhl M, Maimburg RD. Routine induction in late-term pregnancies: follow-up of a Danish induction of labour paradigm. BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 16;9(12):e032815. PMID: 31848171 PubMed
  16. Fox NS, Saltzman DH, Roman AS et al. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2011; 118: 647-54. pmid:21332637 PubMed
Annonse
Annonse