Comparison of changes in pre-induction cervical factors' scores following ripening with transcervical foley catheter and intravaginal misoprostol
- PMID: 16752669
Comparison of changes in pre-induction cervical factors' scores following ripening with transcervical foley catheter and intravaginal misoprostol
Abstract
The study compares the changes in the cervical factors in pre-induction cervical ripening with both transcervical Foley catheter and Intravaginal Misoprostol. This was a randomised prospective study of pregnant women, with singleton gestations who presented for antenatal care and delivery at a tertiary health institution in the South-western Nigeria between 1st March 2003 and 31st March 2004. One hundred and two (102) patients received 50microg intravaginal Misoprostol and Ninety-six (96) received size 16F Transcervical Foley catheters. Both groups were similar at the baseline. Misoprostol group showed greater improvement in the final cervical length score, with 38.4% and 58.6% scoring 2 and 3 respectively, in contrast with the Foley catheter group where 77.7% had final score of 1, with only 16% scoring 2 and none scored 3 (P = 0.00). Ninety-one percent of the patients in the misoprostol group achieved the maximum cervical consistency score of 2, contrasting with the 31.9% in the Foley Catheter group (P = 0.00). 64.9% of the patients in the Foley catheter group did not achieve appreciable change in cervical consistency. Our findings indicate that intravaginal misoprostol was more effective in improving the scores of cervical length and consistency, while transcervical Foley catheter was better at improving the cervical os dilatation score at pre-induction cervical ripening. The clinical implication is that, patients for pre-induction cervical ripening can be selected for either of these ripening agents based on which cervical factors require improvement in scores
Similar articles
-
Pre-induction cervical ripening: transcervical foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Feb;25(2):134-9. doi: 10.1080/01443610500040737. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005. PMID: 15814391 Clinical Trial.
-
Preinduction cervical ripening. A randomized trial of intravaginal misoprostol alone vs. a combination of transcervical Foley balloon and intravaginal misoprostol.J Reprod Med. 2001 Oct;46(10):899-904. J Reprod Med. 2001. PMID: 11725734 Clinical Trial.
-
Effect of the Foley catheter and synchronous low dose misoprostol administration on cervical ripening: a randomised controlled trial.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013 Aug;33(6):572-7. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2013.786030. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013. PMID: 23919853 Clinical Trial.
-
Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis.BJOG. 2011 May;118(6):647-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02905.x. Epub 2011 Feb 18. BJOG. 2011. PMID: 21332637 Review.
-
Cervical ripening prior to hysteroscopy: is the application of misoprostol useful?Minerva Ginecol. 2011 Oct;63(5):439-48. Minerva Ginecol. 2011. PMID: 21926953 Review.
Cited by
-
Mechanical methods for induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 18;10(10):CD001233. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 30;3:CD001233. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub4. PMID: 31623014 Free PMC article. Updated. Review.
-
Mechanical methods for induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 30;3(3):CD001233. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023. PMID: 36996264 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Intracervical Foley Catheter Plus Intravaginal Misoprostol vs Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening: A Meta-Analysis.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Mar 11;17(6):1825. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17061825. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. PMID: 32168947 Free PMC article.