Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Jul;36(8):790-797.
doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1675206. Epub 2018 Oct 31.

Single versus Double-Balloon Transcervical Catheter for Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Samantha X de Los Reyes  1 , Jeanne S Sheffield  1 , Ahizechukwu C Eke  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Single versus Double-Balloon Transcervical Catheter for Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Samantha X de Los Reyes et al. Am J Perinatol. 2019 Jul.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate for difference in outcomes between single- and double-balloon catheters for labor induction.

Study design: We searched CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Register, MEDLINE, ISI Web of Sciences, LILACs, and Google Scholar and retrieved studies through May 2017. Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing single- versus double-balloon catheters. The primary outcome was time from catheter insertion to delivery. Heterogeneity of the results among studies was tested with the quantity I2 . For I2 values ≥50%, a random effects model was used to pool data across studies. Summary measures were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) or as a mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: Four trials including a total of 682 patients were included: 340 patients were randomized to induction with a single-balloon catheter and 342 to induction with a double-balloon catheter. There was no significant difference between groups with respect to time to delivery (18.8 vs. 19.6 hours; MD: 0.40; 95% CI: -1.56 to 0.76), vaginal delivery rate (65.3 vs. 62.3%; aOR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.56-1.92), cesarean delivery rate (25.6 vs. 27.5%; aOR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.55-1.73), or epidural use (58.4 vs. 62%; aOR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.56-1.18).

Conclusion: Double-balloon catheters have no apparent advantage over single-balloon catheters for labor induction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA diagram of study selection process.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Time from catheter insertion to delivery.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of vaginal delivery rate.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Comparison of cesarean delivery rate.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Comparison of epidural use.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Risk of bias of included studies. The blue circles represent low risk of bias, whereas the red and yellow circles represent high risk and unclear risk of bias, respectively.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins – Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin no. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114 (2 Pt 1):386–397 - PubMed
    1. Boulvain M, Kelly A, Lohse C, Stan C, Irion O. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;(04):CD001233. - PubMed
    1. Tenore JL. Methods for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Am Fam Physician 2003;67(10):2123–2128 - PubMed
    1. Gelber S, Sciscione A. Mechanical methods of cervical ripening and labor induction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006;49(03):642–657 - PubMed
    1. Salim R, Zafran N, Nachum Z, Garmi G, Kraiem N, Shalev E. Single-balloon compared with double-balloon catheters for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118 (01):79–86 - PubMed