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
Review
. 2019 Oct 16;19(1):358.
doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2491-4.

Double- versus single-balloon catheters for labour induction and cervical ripening: a meta-analysis

Xiyao Liu  1 , Yu Wang  2 , Fan Zhang  3 , Xiaoni Zhong  3 , Rong Ou  3 , Xin Luo  4 , Hongbo Qi  1
Affiliations
Review

Double- versus single-balloon catheters for labour induction and cervical ripening: a meta-analysis

Xiyao Liu et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. .

Abstract

Background: The induction of labour is an increasingly common procedure in the obstetrics field. Various methods have been used to induce labour, among which balloon catheters play an important role. Whether the specifically designed double-balloon catheter is better than the single-balloon device in terms of efficacy, efficiency, safety and patient satisfaction remains controversial. Identifying even small differences between these two devices could be useful to guide clinical practices, to further explore their mechanisms, and to promote a better understanding of the optimal methods for inducing labour.

Methods: Using the population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study designs (PICOS) principle, we searched the PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, SCI, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrial.gov , and CDSR databases to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception through February 14, 2018. The primary outcome was the caesarean delivery rate, and the secondary outcomes focused on efficacy, efficiency, safety, and patient satisfaction. The relative risks or mean differences, including their 95% confidence intervals, were calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models. All statistical analyses were completed with RevMan version 5.3.

Results: From a total of 1326 articles, 7 RCTs involving 1159 women were included. There were no significant differences in primary outcomes (RR, 0.88 [0.65, 1.2]; p-value, 0.43) or secondary outcomes identified between single- and double-balloon catheters. However, heterogeneity existed for some aspects.

Conclusion: Both kinds of balloon catheter have similar levels of efficacy, efficiency, safety and patient satisfaction; however, the single-balloon method is considered to be more cost-effective.

Keywords: Balloon catheter; Cervical ripening; Labour induction; Meta-analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that none of the authors have any financial relationships or personal relationships with people, pharmaceutical companies or other commercial entities that have an interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in the article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Literature search and screening process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Risk of bias graph. b. Risk of bias summary
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
a Forest plot of cesarean delivery. b. Funnel plot of cesarean delivery
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Managing complications in pregnancy and childbirth: a guide for midwives and doctors. Second edition. Geneva Switzerland Who 2017. http://reprolineplus.org/system/files/resources/mcpc_guide_eng.pdf. Accessed 02 Jan 2018.
    1. Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266–268. - PubMed
    1. DA W: Induction of labour (electronic version). In: Lockwood CJ, editor. UpToDate 2018 [www.uptodate.com] Accessed 02 Jan 2018 .
    1. Riskin-Mashiah S, Wilkins I. Cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 1999;26(2):243–257. doi: 10.1016/S0889-8545(05)70072-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cocks DP. Significance of initial condition of cervix uteri to subsequent course of labour. Br Med J. 1955;1(4909):327. doi: 10.1136/bmj.1.4909.327. - DOI - PMC - PubMed