Intracervical Foley catheter balloon versus dinoprostone insert for induction cervical ripening: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- PMID: 30508911
- PMCID: PMC6283136
- DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000013251
Intracervical Foley catheter balloon versus dinoprostone insert for induction cervical ripening: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Abstract
Background: Successful labor induction depends on the cervical status at the time of induction. Currently, both a Foley catheter and a dinoprostone insert are used for effective cervical ripening. This study compared the efficacy and safety of the intracervical Foley catheter and dinoprostone insert for cervical ripening to achieve successful labor induction.
Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to February 2017 for relevant articles. Only published randomized, controlled trials comparing the dinoprostone insert with the Foley catheter were included.
Results: Eight trials including 1191 women who received the intracervical Foley catheter balloon and 1199 who received the dinoprostone insert were used for this study. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the induction-to-delivery (I-D) interval in a random effect model (mean difference, 0.71 hours; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.50 to 3.91; P = .67). The highly significant heterogeneity (I = 97%) could be explained by the subgroup analysis of the type of Foley catheter and balloon volume. There was no significant difference between the 2 methods regarding the cesarean delivery rate (relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.07; P = .24), Apgar score, or side effects, including maternal infection rate, postpartum hemorrhage, and hyperstimulation. No obvious publication bias was found.
Conclusions: According to the cesarean delivery rate, the intracervical Foley catheter balloon was as efficient as the dinoprostone insert. A moderate balloon volume (30 mL) and higher dose of dinoprostone (≥6 mg) were related to shorter I-D intervals. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the two methods regarding maternal or neonatal safety.
Figures







Similar articles
-
Comparison of intracervical Foley catheter used alone or combined with a single dose of dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening: a randomised study.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 May;39(4):461-467. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2018.1534090. Epub 2019 Feb 12. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019. PMID: 30747025 Clinical Trial.
-
Controlled-release dinoprostone insert versus Foley catheter for labor induction: a meta-analysis.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(14):2382-8. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1086331. Epub 2015 Oct 1. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016. PMID: 26427519 Review.
-
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.
-
Safety and efficacy of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022 Sep 6;22(1):688. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04988-2. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022. PMID: 36068489 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of extraamniotic Foley catheter and intracervical prostaglandin E gel for preinduction cervical ripening.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Apr;84(4):362-7. doi: 10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00662.x. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005. PMID: 15762966 Clinical Trial.
Cited by
-
Labor induction information leaflets-Do women receive evidence-based information about the benefits and harms of labor induction?Front Glob Womens Health. 2022 Nov 21;3:936770. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2022.936770. eCollection 2022. Front Glob Womens Health. 2022. PMID: 36479232 Free PMC article.
-
Topical Dinoprostone vs. Foley's Catheter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cervical Ripening Approaches.Healthcare (Basel). 2025 Apr 24;13(9):983. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13090983. Healthcare (Basel). 2025. PMID: 40361762 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Review of Evidence-Based Methods for Successful Labor Induction.J Midwifery Womens Health. 2021 Jul;66(4):459-469. doi: 10.1111/jmwh.13238. Epub 2021 May 13. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2021. PMID: 33984171 Free PMC article. 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.
-
Comparing the safety of a single balloon catheter to dinoprostone for inducing labor in pregnant women with group B Streptococcus vaginal colonization: An observational study.Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Dec 20;103(51):e40985. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000040985. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024. PMID: 39705462 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Dögl M, Vanky E, Heimstad R. Changes in induction methods have not influenced cesarean section rates among women with induced labour. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2016;95:112–5. - PubMed
-
- Zeitlin J, Mohangoo A, Cuttini M. The European Perinatal Health Report: comparing the health and care of pregnant women and newborn babies in Europe. J Epidemiol Commun H 2009;63:681–2. - PubMed
-
- Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, et al. Births: final data for 2009. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2011;60:1–70. - PubMed
-
- Werkmeister G, Party MCW. Normal childbirth. Birth 2010;37:178–178. - PubMed
-
- St Onge RD, Conners GT. Preinduction cervical ripening: a comparison of intracervical PGE2 gel vs. the Foley catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:687–90. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources