[Cervical ripening and labor induction: Evaluation of single balloon catheter compared to double balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert]
- PMID: 29903553
- DOI: 10.1016/j.gofs.2018.05.009
[Cervical ripening and labor induction: Evaluation of single balloon catheter compared to double balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert]
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of single balloon catheter with double balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert for cervical ripening and labor induction on unfavourable cervix.
Methods: this is a comparative, retrospective, one-center trial. Were included singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation. Were excluded cicatricial uterus. The outcomes were vaginal delivery rate, caesarean section rate, modification in Bishop score, time from induction to delivery, second time prostaglandin E2 resort, oxytocin administration resort, maternal or neonatal adverse events.
Results: Were included 108 patients: 45 in single balloon catheter group, 32 in double balloon catheter group, 31 in dinoprostone insert group. Vaginal delivery rate was similar in single balloon catheter group (78 %) compared with others groups (75 % in double balloon catheter and 71 % in dinoprostone insert group respectively). Oxytocin administration resort was superior in single balloon catheter group. There was no significant difference on others outcomes. Labor induction costs were 9euros in single balloon catheter group, versus 55 and 81 euros in double balloon catheter group and dinoprostone insert group respectively.
Conclusions: Single balloon catheter seems just as effective as double balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert with its major asset the low cost for labor induction.
Keywords: Bishop score; Déclenchement; Induction; Mechanical; Mécanique; Prostaglandines; Prostaglandins; Score de Bishop.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
[Double-balloon catheter compared to vaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening in obese women at term].Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2017 Oct;45(10):521-527. doi: 10.1016/j.gofs.2017.06.012. Epub 2017 Jul 27. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2017. PMID: 28757105 French.
-
Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Jun;291(6):1221-7. doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3547-3. Epub 2014 Nov 19. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015. PMID: 25408273 Clinical Trial.
-
Cervical ripening in prolonged pregnancies by silicone double balloon catheter versus vaginal dinoprostone slow release system: The MAGPOP randomised controlled trial.PLoS Med. 2021 Feb 11;18(2):e1003448. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003448. eCollection 2021 Feb. PLoS Med. 2021. PMID: 33571294 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction: a meta-analysis.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Jan;299(1):7-12. doi: 10.1007/s00404-018-4929-8. Epub 2018 Oct 12. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019. PMID: 30315411 Review.
-
Double-balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.BJOG. 2017 May;124(6):891-899. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14256. Epub 2016 Aug 17. BJOG. 2017. PMID: 27533177
Cited by
-
Comparison of the Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Tablet for the Induction of Labor in Primipara: A Retrospective Cohort Study.J Clin Med. 2022 Jun 19;11(12):3519. doi: 10.3390/jcm11123519. J Clin Med. 2022. PMID: 35743589 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources